The only educational value would be acknowledging that ID is an idea, however flawed, and that it is one that distorts science in order to claim that it is so. Ironically the critical thinking and preventing or correcting misconceptions benefits you cite are exactly the result of coducting real science, which has shown ID to be intellectual trash. The only way ID “broadens students’ education” is in the knowledge that it exists, certainly not in anything it says or does. Increasing student interest in what exactly? And “and helping to assure that technically sophisticated criticisms of evolution are taught only by qualified science teachers”? So the only qualified science terachers are those that give ID a “fair shake” in the classroom? And it’s still incumbent upon you to explain the “technically sophisticated criticisms of evolution”. What are those exactly? And if a “technically sophisticated criticism of evolution” has already been dismantled completely, how is it still a “technically sophisticated criticism of evolution”?

As expected, we are still not getting answers from you, only redirection and pathetic attempts to rewrite legal history.

BTW, continuing to sign your posts with a really dumb-sounding quote from an action star governor makes you look like more of an idiot. You seem to get a lot of personal strength from such little things, and you obviously are using it as a prop for your shortcomings. Perhaps you could try being as honest as you would like to think you are and start dropping the schtick…

It is very doubtful that the Supreme Court would ever cite Mclean’s or Kitzmiller v. Dover’s rulings on such contentious issues as the scientific merits of creation science or intelligent design, because McLean and Kitzmiller are just the opinions of single federal district court judges and were not even reviewed by courts of appeals.

To the contrary, the Supreme Court often notes lower court decisions especially where, as in these two cases, the losing side got shellacked so hard they didn’t bother to appeal any further.

The Louisiana case was structured by the religiously-inclined state legislators to try to get around Overton’s decision. The district court in Louisiana, well aware of what happened in Arkansas, didn’t fall for the bait, and simply looked at the overt religious intent of the legislators as they so gleefully revealed it on the public record on the floor of the state legislature. They had thought that if they stripped the language out of the bill, unlike Arkansas, the courts would wave it on.

Larry, here’s the issue: Is there any science being done in creationism or intelligent design? If so, why doesn’t it show up in research reports, in grant requests, in publications, and in experimental and observational results? Why is there no course on creationism in any biology graduate school in the nation? (I’d take to the world, but there might be some obscure diploma mill somewhere that actually teaches what it calls a graduate level course in creationism, as the ICR tried to do in Texas.) There is need to look at religious intent ONLY if there is no secular science backing the claims.

Why in heaven’s name are creationists so god-blessed lazy? It’s been 48 years since Morris’s big book trying to give U.S. high school science back to the Soviets, and in that 48 years no creationist has figured out a single science question to ask, a single experiment to run, that supports any — any — hypothesis in favor of creationism?

The Supreme Court approved the Louisiana district court’s refusal to hear expert testimony relying on the shellacking the creationists got in Arkansas. There was no reason to get to the voir dire phase, since there could be damnably few creationist experts (probably not the ones Louisiana had in mind), and there were no issues the experts could shed light on that hadn’t already been worked over in Arkansas.

That means creationism has been scientifically sterile almost as long as navel oranges.

When a brilliant federal judge like Overton does such a thorough job of writing a careful decision, or Jones in the Pennsylvania case, it is not wise to claim that it is “just one judge” and then claim it has no precedential value. Lord Coke was just one judge, not an appellate judge, but look what influence he’s had!

So, the Supreme Court noted its own decision in an earlier Arkansas case, noted the Louisana case was not significantly different from the later Arkansas case the creationists refused to appeal fearing (wisely) further shellacking by the Supremes, and went on to endorse the Louisiana court’s refusal to let the religious nuts try to filibuster the court.

Scientific merit? That wasn’t on the plate of the creationists — it couldn’t be, because they had done zero research since McLean. You’re trying to filibuster us here. And that’s why you guys keep losing in court. It’s why you can’t get into the school texts the fair way, because you haven’t got a case on any merits, not on science, not on religion.

Your refusal to look at what I said about Daubert rules is telling. I said that there are no creationist experts who can qualify under Daubert. You can’t deny that, so you give a diversionary response. There still are no creationist experts. Nobody could possibly qualify under any part of Daubert, which requires, if the publication record is weak, and if there is no established body of literature, that someone have extensive experience working in the field.

Nobody does any research. There isn’t anyone with any experience in the field of creationism, except those who keep refuting the claims.

In McLean the creationist “experts” were well qualified on what the Bible says. Larry, that’s a bad example. Each creationist, under oath, denied that there is any science basis for creationism, and that it comes completely out of an interpretation of religious scripture. They were experts in what is taught, and that hanged the case.

In the Pennsylvania case, Behe and Minnich were allowed as witnesses, but not as experts, as I recall. They testified to their own work, and were not there to offer opinions accepted by the court on what the work meant.

And again, their testimony denies your claims completely, often in an embarrassing way. The only time either of them suggested that there was science, the court found their testimony unconvincing and ungrounded in fact.

The only experts creationism can muster are liars? Please, Larry, keep them away from children. It’s immorality you urge. Shame on you.

Teaching ID as pseudoscience is counter to what the best education schools claim is pedagogically correct. Heck, it’s counter to what the worst education schools teach. Teaching pseudoscience confuses kids. Teaching the wrong stuff doesn’t help kids get the right stuff down. We don’t teach that George Washington was America’s first Black president, and that he sailed with the British Navy, or that he was a religious nut, just so the kids can critically analyze crank claims. There is a body of knowledge out there to give students, with very limited time.

Anyone who teaches ID or creationism to students harms the children. Jesus warned people who harm children in such a fashion put millstones around their own necks. Most teachers are well aware of how to avoid such stupidity. And do.

[Y]ou are against broadening students’ education, encouraging critical thinking, increasing student interest, helping students learn the material, and preventing or correcting misconceptions

I guess since you’ve actually seen me teach, you’re speaking from authority here. I’ll also guess that I actually spend more time in classrooms fairly presenting the claims of ID proponents that they do presenting evolution.

You’re getting a tad tiring. Move on.

So, you are against broadening students’ education, encouraging critical thinking, increasing student interest, helping students learn the material, and preventing or correcting misconceptions, and you want to have technically sophisticated criticisms of evolution taught by unqualified people.

You Darwinists are talking out of both sides of your mouths — on the one hand, you complain that teaching criticisms of evolution only “confuses” students, and on the other hand, you want to maximize that confusion by having those criticisms taught by unqualified people.

How are students going to develop good critical thinking skills if they are spoonfed only the things that work?

BTW, this new set of comments is easy to miss if readers don’t see the “Newer Comments” sign in the lower right-hand corner of the original thread. Poor blog design.

Possibly one of the dumbest (and disingenuous) things I’ve ever seen written.

Heavens to Betsy, that is one of the most ridiculous arguments I have ever heard. The Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard did not “endorse” (as you call it) McLean’s finding that creation science has no scientific merit — the Supreme Court only cited McLean’s review of “historical and contemporary antagonisms between the theory of evolution and religious movements.” The following text and footnote are the Supreme Court’s only mention of Mclean in Edwards v. Aguillard —

There is a historic and contemporaneous link between the teachings of certain religious denominations and the teaching of evolution. [n9]

9. See McLean v. Arkansas Bd. of Ed., 529 F.Supp. 1255, 1258-1264 (ED Ark.1982) (reviewing historical and contemporary antagonisms between the theory of evolution and religious movements).
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0482_0578_ZO.html#482_US_578n9

The Supreme Court’s approval of the district court judge’s refusal to hear expert scientific testimony (see comment #45) made it clear that the scientific merits of creation science were not a factor in the Edwards decision.

It is very doubtful that the Supreme Court would ever cite Mclean’s or Kitzmiller v. Dover’s rulings on such contentious issues as the scientific merits of creation science or intelligent design, because McLean and Kitzmiller are just the opinions of single federal district court judges and were not even reviewed by courts of appeals.

Your reasoning here reminds me of Wikipedia’s ridiculous claim that Judge Jones’ acceptance of word counts from Wesley Elsberry’s text comparison program showed that the entire federal court system approved the program for the purpose of determining the extent to which two different texts contain the same ideas.

–As to Daubert, the issue was tort law experts for courts, not educational curricula for children.–

Sheeesh, Daubert makes no such restriction as to its applicability. BTW, Judge Jones made the mistake of assuming that Daubert applies only to jury trials — see
http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2009/04/kitzmiller-failed-to-follow-daubert.html

–there can be no creationism or intelligent design experts because there is no such branch of scientific inquiry–

Then how do you explain or justify the courts’ acceptance of expert scientific testimony about creation science in the McLean case and ID in the Kitzmiller case?

–Keep it away from children.–

Even if ID is pseudoscientific, there would still be good reasons for teaching it: broadening students’ education, encouraging critical thinking, increasing student interest, helping students learn the material, preventing or correcting misconceptions, and helping to assure that technically sophisticated criticisms of evolution are taught only by qualified science teachers.

Creation science as defined in Section 4(a), not only fails to follow the canons of dealing with scientific theory, it also fails to fit the more general descriptions of “what scientists think” and “what scientists do.” The scientific community consists of individuals and groups, nationally and internationally, who work independently in such varied fields as biology, paleontology, geology, and astronomy. Their work is published and subject to review and testing by their peers. The journals for publication are both numerous and varied. There is, however, not one recognized scientific journal which has published an article espousing the creation science theory described in Section 4(a). Some of the State’s witnesses suggested that the scientific community was “close-minded” on the subject of creationism and that explained the lack of acceptance of the creation science arguments. Yet no witness produced a scientific article for which publication has been refused. Perhaps some members of the scientific community are resistant to new ideas. It is, however, inconceivable that such a loose knit group of independent thinkers in all the varied fields of science could, or would, so effectively censor new scientific thought.

In Edwards v. Aguillard, the courts did not rule on the scientific merits of creation science but only ruled that the legislators were motivated by religious beliefs.

But the Supreme Court endorsed the decision in McLean vs. Arkansas in which the scientific merits of creationism were found to be non-existent, leaving the sole issue for the Supreme Court in Edwards whether the summary judgment was justified since the legal issues were all that was left.

You’re trying to find a loophole that isn’t there, Larry. The Supreme Court did not leave such a loophole.

As to Daubert, the issue was tort law experts for courts, not educational curricula for children. It’s an interesting decision, though, because under the rubric laid out in the case, there can be no creationism or intelligent design experts because there is no such branch of scientific inquiry. Peer-review journals are not the only standard, but creationism and intelligent design fail worse at all the other possible standards.

Intelligent design is more sterile than a dead mule, Larry. It’s more sterile that the steer that made the steak on your plate. ID hasn’t got the cojones to do the job. Keep it away from children.

Good question — I have often wondered about that myself. And I have also wondered, for example, how universities were able to enforce Jewish quotas, considering that all that the universities had to go by were the names on applications for admission whereas a lot of non-Jews have names that sound Jewish and a lot of Jews have names that don’t sound Jewish. But I chose to focus on the Jewish holocaust because of the dogmatism of official Jewish holocaust history, the proscriptions on questioning the Jewish holocaust, and because the extensive studying of the Jewish holocaust makes the absence of study of the identification issue more glaring.