|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Re: The Crafty Attacks on Evolution |
26 Jan 2005 04:31:51 AM |
|
|
maff wrote:
maff wrote:
The Crafty Attacks on Evolution
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/23/opinion/23sun1.html?pagewanted=all&position=
School boards need to recognize that neither creationism nor
intelligent design is an alternative to Darwinism as a scientific
explanation of the evolution of life.
Creationism
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d1f8c35b1798931f
Intelligent design
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/9bffa0938bd2f64f
Keeping Darwin in the Schools (7 Letters)
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/24/opinion/l24evolution.html
Susan Jacoby
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d31972080232d817
Darwin's Critics and Their Tactics (4 Letters)
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/26/opinion/l26evolution.html
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: The Crafty Attacks on Evolution |
24 Jan 2005 05:44:45 PM |
|
|
maff wrote:
maff wrote:
The Crafty Attacks on Evolution
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/23/opinion/23sun1.html?pagewanted=all&position=
School boards need to recognize that neither creationism nor
intelligent design is an alternative to Darwinism as a scientific
explanation of the evolution of life.
Creationism
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d1f8c35b1798931f
Intelligent design
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/9bffa0938bd2f64f
Keeping Darwin in the Schools (7 Letters)
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/24/opinion/l24evolution.html
Comments by Robert M. Schoch, and Leigh M. Van Valen; replies by Hsu.
"Comments and Replies on 'Darwin's three mistakes'" _Geology_ 15: 175-8
(1987). From one of Hsu's replies, the last 3 paragraphs:
Van Valen denies that Darwin espoused social Darwinism. I disagree,
but I shall not quibble over the issue. The fact remains that
Darwinism has a social origin. As a recent student of Darwinism has
pointed out, "the extrapolation from Darwinism to either humanity or
society are not separable from Darwin's own views, nor are they
chronologically subsequent. They are integral" (Young, 1985).
Darwin did not fool all of his contemporaries. I cite Frederick
Engels in my Reply to Schoch's Comment (above) that the whole
Darwinist teaching of the struggle for existence is but a "conjurer's
trick." Arguments on the basis of the social philosophy of his time
were the basis for Darwin's interpretation of the history of life,
and his theory was then transferred back to provide the scientific
basis in support of social Darwinism as the eternal law of human
society. "The puerility of this procedure is so obvious," Engels
wrote in 1875, "that not a word need be said about it."
I wish Engels had dwelt more on the "puerility of this procedure," so
as to show the true color of "the argument of noise and sneers with
which (Darwinists) tried to put down... everyone... who did not
subscribe to the infallibility of the God Darwin and his prophet
Huxley," as Tristram said in 1860. Darwin has made mistakes, and his
mistakes have brought misery to humanity. Facing the bias and
obstinacy of Darwinists, I feel almost tempted to join my colleague,
Paul Feyerabend (1975, p. 7), who proposed to lead "three cheers to
the fundamentalists in California who succeeded in having a dogmatic
formulation of the theory of evolution removed from the textbooks and
an account of Genesis included."
Young, R.M. "Darwinism _is_ social" in David Kohn, ed., _The Darwinian
Heritage_ (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1985), 609-640.
Feyerabend, Paul. "How to defend society against science" _Radical
Philosophy_ (vol 2, yr 1975), 4-8.
"Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing...
that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field
Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I
tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology seminar in the
University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all
I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said,
'I do know one thing-- it ought not to be taught in high school.'"[Colin
Patterson. Cited in Phillip E. Johnson, _Darwin on Trial_ (1993), 10.]
T0E good for taxonomy?: 1973 Fairbairn (a creationist); 1982 Colin
Patterson; 5 November 1981 Patterson
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0402161147.29fee40e%40posting.google.com
Simpson, Eldredge in _Synthese_, Ager, Corner, Rosen, Grasse, Patterson,
Raup, Stanley
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.981222231509.19980I-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
Susan Jacoby
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d31972080232d817
.
|
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Court Decisions |
25 Jan 2005 06:01:00 AM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
maff wrote:
maff wrote:
The Crafty Attacks on Evolution
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/23/opinion/23sun1.html?pagewanted=all&position=
School boards need to recognize that neither creationism nor
intelligent design is an alternative to Darwinism as a scientific
explanation of the evolution of life.
Creationism
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d1f8c35b1798931f
Intelligent design
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/9bffa0938bd2f64f
Keeping Darwin in the Schools (7 Letters)
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/24/opinion/l24evolution.html
[...]
So why weren't you able to present your Christian fascist apologetics
in court?
McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/mclean-v-arkansas.html
Read the U.S. District Court decision in which "balanced treatment" for
creationism and evolution in Arkansas public school science classrooms
was ruled unconstitutional.
Edwards v. Aguillard: U.S. Supreme Court Decision
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard.html
Read the U.S. Supreme Court decision dealing with creationism in public
school science classrooms. The majority opinions and the dissenting
opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia are provided along with the amicus
curiae brief filed by 72 Nobel Prize winning scientists.
Epperson v. Arkansas: U.S. Supreme Court Decision
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/epperson-v-arkansas.html
Read the U.S. Supreme Court case which ruled unconstitutional
Arkansas's law forbidding the teaching of evolution in state-supported
schools.
Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/peloza.html
California public school teacher John Peloza sued his school district,
claiming he should not be required to teach evolution or refrain from
teaching about his religious beliefs. The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals ruled against him on the substantive portions of his claim.
Daniel v. Waters
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/daniel-v-waters.html
Biology teachers, parents, and National Association of Biology Teachers
sued in 1975 to overturn Tennessee's "balanced treatment" law. The U.S.
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that requiring creationism to be
taught and requiring disclaimers about evolution violated the First
Amendment.
Wright v. Houston I.S.D.
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/wright-v-hisd1.html
Houston, Texas, students sued to prevent the school district from
teaching evolution, believing it infringed their First Amendment
rights. The federal courts dismissed the case for failure to state a
claim upon which relief could be based.
Selman v. Cobb County School District
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/cobb/selman-v-cobb.html
The decision of the district court stricking down a Cobb County,
Georgia requirement that a sticker with a disclaimer be placed on all
textbooks that discuss evolution. The amicus curiae brief filed by
several pro-science organizations is also included.
.
|
|
|
|
|
