Monday, March 31, 2008


Ready ... Aim ...

Okay, I can't wait to give you this from the Calvary Chapel decision.

It seems that the Discovery Institute's Own Foot Firing Squad was out in force for the case. In particular, Michael Behe managed to discharge a round into the plaintiff's oxfords.

The issue was the University of California's decision to reject biology courses that used Biology: God's Living Creation (published by A Beka) or Biology for Christian Schools (published by Bob Jones University) as the primary text in the course. Behe was the plaintiff's "biology expert" (oh, the irony!) and the court found:

Plaintiffs' evidence also supports Defendants' conclusion that these biology texts are inappropriate for use as the primary or sole text. Plaintiffs' own biology expert, Professor Michael Behe testified that "it is personally abusive and pedagogically damaging to de facto require students to subscribe to an idea . . . . Requiring a student to, effectively, consent to an idea violates [her] personal integrity. Such a wrenching violation [may cause] a terrible educational outcome." [Emphasis added]

Yet, the two Christian biology texts at issue commit this "wrenching violation." For example, Biology for Christian Schools declares on the very first page that:

(1) "'Whatever the Bible says is so; whatever man says may or may not be so,' is the only [position] a Christian can take . . . ."

(2) "If [scientific] conclusions contradict the Word of God, the conclusions are wrong, no matter how many scientific facts may appear to back them."

(3) "Christians must disregard [scientific hypotheses or theories] that contradict the Bible."

Based in no small part on Behe's testimony, the court found the there was, at least, a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the rejection of the plaintiffs' biology courses was reasonable.

Didn't these people know what happend the last time Mikey got near a courtroom?

Behe is such a master of using universalistic phrases in "support" of sectarian interests, which predictably end up exposing sectarian intent.

I have to wonder what is mounted on his wall, the heads of his various allies through the years?

Of course I have to admit that it's very hard to support his sectarian allies through pluralistic principles. He manages to make the hard look, well, impossible.

Glen Davidson
What amuses me is his smug assurance that he is convincing. After his Kitzmiller testimony, he said something like "I thought that went rather well."

I'm sorry I missed seeing this one before I read the decision and posted this same clip to PT yesterday.

I don't suppose you might consider adding an rss feed? I keep forgetting to hand check this blog, even though I really enjoy it.
There is an RSS feed through Feedburner but every time I try to put a widget on the page I screw it up somehow. But maybe I'll try again. I know you can reach the RSS feed through Internet Explorer.

Oh, and thanks!
What amuses me is his smug assurance that he is convincing. After his Kitzmiller testimony, he said something like "I thought that went rather well."

That is funny, especially since he seems sincere when he makes those statements.

He is apparently genuinely clueless about science, which makes me think that he's more the "cookbook" type of scientist (learn a few methods, follow the recipes) than one who could ever discover anything truly novel.

Glen Davidson
Sehr interessant!
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

. . . . .


How to Support Science Education