Title Author Date

Re: Judge Jones decision Elsberry, Wesley R. Dec 20, 2005

Here is what I posted at http://austringer.net/wp/?p=180

KvD: Plaintiffs (and Science Education) Win!

In a clearly-argued decision, Judge John E. Jones III ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in the Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District case.

Back in 2004, Casey Luskin and I had lunch. One of the topics of conversation was the legal status of 'intelligent design' and how a court
case might turn out. Casey argued that since ID had no explicit mention of the identity of the 'designer' as God and no explicit use of scripture, it would have no trouble in court. I argued that the history of commonality with creationism and the identity of the arguments between the two would be found to put ID in violation of the establishment clause. I'm happy to report that Judge Jones concurs with me and not Casey.

The decision runs to 139 pages. Within those pages, Jones finds that the DASD 'intelligent design policy' failed the 'endorsement test' for both a reasonable student observer and a reasonable adult observer, failed both the 'purpose' and 'effect' prongs of the Lemon test, fails to meet the standards of the Pennsylvania state constitution, that evolution is compatible with belief in a divine creator, demonstrated that 'intelligent design' fails to
reach the status of science, and finds that 'intelligent design' is simply a new label for the old content of creationism. The decision is a wonderful read, reminiscent of the quality of the Overton decision in the 1982 McLean v. Arkansas case.

Panda's Thumb has several new articles and an update to the Waterloo in Dover article. However, server traffic has out-run the available bandwidth this morning.

And Glenn Branch tells me that Dembski may owe him a bottle of Scotch over a wager from 2002.

"Scott and Branch add, ... the sectarian orientation of ID renders it unsuitable for constitutional reasons...

"Comment: They are herewith throwing down the gauntlet. I'll wager a bottle of single-malt scotch, should it ever go to trial whether ID may legitimately be taught in public school science curricula, that ID will pass all constitutional hurdles. To see why, check out the fine Utah Law Review article by David DeWolf et al. at http://www.arn.org/docs/dewolf/utah.pdf.

(William A. Dembski)"

[continued]

read replies (1)
write a reply Related Article(s):
Kitzmiller Decision: Plaintiffs Prevail

Title Author Date

Gezer Calendar Padici, Dec 14, 2005

we read in the point 66:

The Gezer Calendar, dated to the 10th century BCE, mentions a month of "harvest and feasting," but does not name the feast(s) celebrated in that month; moreover, since according to that calendar the month of "harvest and feasting" is three months before the month of "summer fruit," it is evident that this month is not parallel to the present-day autumn month of Tishrei, the most suitable candidate for the title "the month of
feasting" using the Torah's list of feasts. Most likely the calendar refers what is now Nissan, but the Torah's name for that month -- "the spring month" -- is not mentioned. Neither are any of the other Scriptural names of months -- "the month of Bul," "the month of Ziv," "the month of Eitanim" -- mentioned (for the text of the Gezer Calendar see "Ancient Near Eastern Texts," ed. by J. B. Pritchard, p. 320).

This analyse is very superficial, your apparent "contradiction" is based on a translated word : "kl" It is true that Albright (mentioned in Pritchard) translated it feasting, but if you read more recent scholars you will see that this word was more evidently related to "measuring" may be for taxes. Hoftijzer Dictionnary of the North-West Semitic
Inscription p. 507 vol 1 ; Talmon King Cult Calendar In Ancient Israel p 91 or Renz Handbuch Der Althebraischen Epigraphik p 35

In the contrary the Gezer Calendar is very much related to the Bible, his 12 months are corresponding to the solar year (the same in the Bible). Compare GC with Ruth 1:22 and Exodus 23:16, the same Hebrew terms are used.

read replies (1)
write a reply Related Article(s):
A List of Some Problematic Issues

Title Author Date

Gerald Schroeder Pickett, Megan K. Dec 11, 2005

Hello,

I read with great interest the discussion of Schroeder's attempts at reconciling genesis with science (http://www.talkreason.org/articles/schroeder.cfm), and I am very thankful for finding it and the links included on the website. I have just been informed that Schroeder will be visiting our campus to speak about this nonsense, and I was wondering if you had any advice or other resources for dissecting his views for what they are.

Thank you very much,

Megan K. Pickett
Associate Professor of Physics and Astronomy
Physics Program Coordinator
Department of Chemistry and Physics
Gyte Hall 271
Purdue University Calumet
2200 169th Street
Hammond, IN 46410

Office: 219-989-2283
Fax: 219-989-2130
http://astro.calumet.purdue.edu/~pickett

read replies (1)
write a reply Related Article(s):
Not a Very Big Bang about Genesis

Title Author Date

Link to article "Science & Non-Science..." Kabay, Michel E. Dec 03, 2005

Dear Colleagues,

I hope you will be able to point to an essay called "Science and
Non-Science:
An Epistemological Conflict" that I have written with educators, students
and anyone interested in the current debates about the place (or non-place)
of creationism in science classrooms. I provide yet another resource to
explain how creationism and "intelligent design" cannot reasonably be
termed
theories at all and explore some of the factors leading to pressure for
inclusion of these views into science classrooms.

The URLs for the HTML and the PDF versions of the essay are

http://www2.norwich.edu/mkabay/opinion/science.htm

and

http://www2.norwich.edu/mkabay/opinion/science.pdf

Thank you for your consideration.

Best wishes,

Mich

write a reply

Title Author Date

mark perakh's critique of gerald schroeder Rowe, Daniel Nov 20, 2005

i was fascinated by the critique. 'Not a very Big Bang about Genesis'. I emailed schroeder the article, and he gave an intitial response to it. I was wondering what Dr Perrakh, or perhaps some other correspondantof yours had to say to this response.

Many thanks
Daniel

The major error in the critique as I skimmed it is that the author seems to think I use general or special relativity to match the 6 fays to 15 billion yrs. I do not as is clear from the text. and In SOG I make it clear that is is red shifting and blue shifting due to stretching of space. And it is the Bible's point of view, not God's. That is the one sentence I would change in G&BB where I state God's view of time. I should have written the Bible's view. The view form the beginning is set by the Ramban on his commentary on Day One, rather than a first day.

Gerry

read replies (1)
write a reply Related Article(s):
Not a Very Big Bang about Genesis

Previous | | Next