Kansas Citizens for Science

[Jack Krebs]

I posted four little mini-posts at the Panda's Thumb tonight: here

I'm not going to repost here because the formatting tags we use here and the tags we use at the Panda's Thumb are different, and it's too late to take the time to translate them all.

So if interested, you can go over to the Panda's Thumb to read, and then come back here to comment.

[Hrafn]

On the threat of a lawsuit, my opinion is that it'll quite simply never happen.

Firstly the purported grounds for the suit, that the Standards' endorsement of Methodological Naturalism (whether they wrap it up as 'Materialism' or not) is 'Endorsement of Religion' is a non-starter. Not only is Methodological Naturalism ubiquitous in Scientific Research, but it is also ubiquitous in the very court system that Calvert & co will be attempting to use to overturn it.

Secondly, what are they going to use for expert witnesses? Behe managed to destroy any residual credibility he had at Dover. The other pro-ID witnesses who showed up were at best ineffective, and at worst helped the plaintiffs' case. As to the witnesses who didn't show up, I rather doubt if Dembski would be willing to subject his precious ego to cross-examination, even if their attorney didn't decide that he's simply too unpredictable, and has too many inflammatory and otherwise unhelpful statements on the record, to be a useful witness. Additionally, his academic career has been going downhill recently, so he is hardly a prestigious witness any more. Stephen Meyer might prove a capable witness on Philosophy of Science, but would still require expert support on the purely scientific side. Additionally, he would potentially be vulnerable to questions on his involvement with Sternberg in getting his paper published. This leaves the ID side calling on their second tier of 'experts' or perhaps a prominent Creationist scientist from outside the ID movement or outside the US.

Anybody like to theorise on what the 'best' team of expert witnesses that the IDers could muster might look like?

My best guess, off the top of my head, would be:
Stephen Meyer (Philosophy of Science)
Alvin Plantinga (Theology)
Jonathan Wells (Biology -- he'd be considerably less credible than Minnich, but also less ineffective/wishy-washy)

I do not however consider that such a team would be competitive against the Dover pro-Science team (who, due to their success at Dover, would be the default choice for any similar court case).

It would be strategically foolish for the IDers to attempt to mount another court case unless they have either (1) a particularly iron-clad case (which they lack); (2) a competitive team of expert witnesses (which they also appear to lack); or (3) preferably both.

[Josh Rosenau]

I especially love how he says that materialism and naturalism are the same thing, then gives conflicting definitions for the two ideas. He would get shredded in court.
_________________
What's new at Thoughts from Kansas?

[les]

Calvert's letter is a joke--among the more egregious errors, he starts out by assuming that the standards "promote" materialism. He then builds a straw-man caricature of materialism, and concludes the promotion is unconstitutional. Neither the assumption nor the definition would easily survive challenge. On the suppression of "relevant scientific argument," he's arguing that the Constitution requires inclusion of supernatural explanations; and citing the losing side in McLean v. Arkansas for support. If someone is foolish enough to sue in reliance on this--even if they get by issues of standing, damages, etc.--I'd be surprised if they even get to the stage of worrying about who their witnesses will be. If they do get that far, as Josh points out, the bench is gettin' kinda thin on that side.
_________________
The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.
--Albert Einstein

[FL]

[Jack Krebs]

Yes, and a good place to start would be the misconception that evolutionary science is incompatible with Christianity, and more specifically, that accepting that there are undirected elements in evolution, from a scientific viewpoint, is incompatible with a belief in divine guidance.

Here's a question I've asked you, FL, that you haven't answered: every day, and through the course of your life, there are and have been chance events that happen that turn out to be significant to you. Does the presence of these chance events mean that God has not been involved in providing guidance and in fact design for your life?

Are you willing to discuss this question from the viewpoint of Christian theology?

[FL]

[Jack Krebs]

FL writes,

[rmadison]

[WideAwake Inventor]

Initially this thread was on the topic of

[Jack Krebs]

Very nice post.

[/cheerleading]

[FL]

[Hrafn]

[Josh Rosenau]

[FL]