Intelligent Design and the Public Schools

I find it hard to believe you really need someone to walk you though this, but here goes...

He first attempts to gain favor with the audience by complementing them for not believing a silly version of post-modernism. I sincerely doubt that you could find anyone with this viewpoint. What does this have to do with the question: "Should intelligent design be taught alongside evolution in biology classes in Minnesota’s public schools?"?
I've never seen a post-modern argument against ID... although I could think of some in favor of it. Clearly this is an attempt on an emotional level to draw the audence to his side by presenting some sort of common enemy.
In essence it says: "look at all the bad illogical people out there; aren't you glad you're a smart logical person like me?"

Comparing ID in science class to slavery is more than a bit of a streach. And, as Siro pointed out, this is really more of a logcial fallacy. However, we see in the next paragraph how it is used to incite an emotional response. Also note the emphasis in the last line where he puts "the law of the land!" in quotes and ends it with an exclamation point.

Here he is saying that the Supreme Court was wrong on moral grounds. Fine, I would agree with that, but what does it have to do with ID in science class? Ah, that is where we get to the emotional argument part: Here he is trying to pitch ID as science in moral terms. The implication is that if you don't believe that ID belongs in science class, you are morally corrupt, just like all those who were not abolitionists.

Here the analogy becomes more clear: ID is a religious belief; abolition is a religious belief. (I would go with that assessment) Abolitionists didn't really fail the "Lemon Test" in Dred Scott, since the arguements in his favor were based on legal grounds, not religious ones. If they had used religious grounds they probably would have failed by those reasons. This seems to be a broader appeal to throw out separation of church and state because "slavery is bad". Uh, I'm sorry, but that is an emotional appeal and not based on any clear analogy betweent he circumstances.

And so we are treated to the rousing line:

Because... Denial of teaching ID in science class is just like denial of freedom to slaves.
This certainly sounds like an emotional appeal, it doesn't seem to be based on any logical analogy.

I'll give him points for not making comparisons to Hitler or the Holocost, but he came close.


And he makes his point by citing an example where the law was wrong on moral grounds. Thereby implying that court rulings against teaching ID in science class are wrong on moral grounds. And further he is trying to win emotional sympathy by making himself out to be a modern day abolitionist.

How is his argument NOT an appeal to emotion?

Strangely enough, I created fire ants so that you could have this exact discussion in this exact thread at this exact time. The entire existence of fire ants has been for this purpose and this purpose only.

Oh, well there is one other minor purpose but i can't tell you about it and you wil all be long dead when it happens anyway. I can assure you it will be funny, but it wouldn't be funny if I explained it to you now. It will be one of those "have to be there" things.

By stating students are brave to even look into this topic isn't an emotional appeal. Any more than to say a science teacher is brave to teach evolution at a time of such controversy.

An example of an emotional appeal would be something like "we pro-ID people are so unfairly attacked, the anti-ID people are so hateful and mean-spirited." That might be an emotional argument, seeking sympathy.


The point he made concerning slavery was simply that, what is "the law of the land" today may not be the "the law of the land" tomorrow, as he states 'the court is a creature of its time.'

His point was clearly to demonstrate to his students the fact the court ruling recently concerning the teaching of ID in school was NOT the final word on the matter. And he made it very clear that was his point. I find it disingenuous to suggest he was playing on peoples emotions with that point.

His point concerning the religious factor was that if, at that time, the law precluded religious notions to be a determining factor, the slaves wouldn't have been freed. Here is his actual words to that affect...

"Also, most of the abolitionists had a religious motivation – they believed that all people really were created equal. That would have caused them to fail the so called “Lemon Test” used by courts today to determine if a point of view affecting public policy or judicial decisions violates the constitutional provision against “establishing religion.”

His point is only that if we were under the rules of today's courts, we wouldn't be freeing slaves with the argument "all men are created equal".

............... As that is a religious statement.

I think the fact you misread his meaning is evidence of a bias. Before you started reading it your mind was seeking anything to tear it apart. But in your haste you missed his point completely. That's what I think anyway.

Actually, both would be emotional appeals. Yet, neither are very good ones. Stating that a doctor who continues to perform abortions despite the threat of violence against him is brave. Would also be an emotional appeal, but a stonger one, since the level of bravery required is higher


Yes, that would be an emotional appeal for sympathy. In fact this argument gets used later:



Yes, this is certainly the pretext. The very fact that he gave this address after the court ruling is evidence enough that the court ruling is not the final word. However, he belabors the point too long for that to be the sole purpose. Many laws have changed over time, why choose slavery to illustrate this? I certainly do think this choice was intentional and for emotional punctuation.
I highlighted the word "simply" because his goal was not simply to make this one point.
Look again:

Actually, they did. "They ruled that a slave is property and not entitled to the rights of a citizen." The point beame moot once slavery was abolished and there were no more slaves, but as far as I know the ruling stood.
Notice that it is phrased as a challenge.


See, more "courts are bad" they lead to "bloody Civil War".
Not only that but the government is on the side of slavery. This is appearently why the abolitionist states seceeded to form their own separte government.... er wait, that's not right. The pro-slavery states abandoned the government in disgust, not the other way around. This also plays on modern people's distrust of the governement, to garner emotional support for his side. the problem is that he is trying to streach the analogy:
Court ruled against Dred Scott...........Court ruled against ID in science class
Galvanized abolishonists....................Galvanized ID advocates
Bloody Civil War...............................veild threat?
Government against emancipation......Government against ID in science class
abolishion based on religious belief.....ID based on religious belief
courts wrong then.............................courts wrong now
abolishonists right then......................ID advocates right now
He even says this:

He is intentionally trying to compare the fight to get ID into science class with the emancipation movement and even says that. To not consider this an emotional appeal is disingenuous.

And this is related to "Should intelligent design be taught alongside evolution in biology classes in Minnesota’s public schools?" how?


And now you are making an emotional appeal (and a strawman) by making conjectures about my motives. Do my motives (even if you are right) invalidate my claims?

Emotional arguments aren't bad in and of themselves, but when you are trying to argue for recognition and inclusion as science they really don't belong.

Oh, and please match your repsonses up with the quotes from my post instead of big monlithic blocks. We obliged your requests.

Excuse me if someone else mentioned this, but I just have to point it out anyway. I didn't bother reading through the dreck of replies.



Okay, wait, let me repeat that... somethin' aint right there...



Did he just admit to being a quack or what?

I feel so so sorry for the people that take their kids to this Witch Doctor if he's not an academic of science.

Yeah he did, and I pointed this out on page 1. (sort of). Then the thread died for awhile. Then someone necro posted into it because Kevn went and started ANOTHER thread on essentially the same topic without addressing the continuing lack of merit in what he is attempting to present.

You can have the last word. If you feel that makes your point, fine. I'll let it speak for itself. Night

So you have no well thought out, researched, and composed rebuttal? Color me not suprised. Would you like help with that or something?

Nah, in that league of modern ignoratti, "academic" is used with the same connotation of baseless, imputed disdain as "communist" was during the height of the cold war. He may be a fine pediatrician; he's just using coded rhetoric that is interpreted by his audience as meaning "people who are clearly not right-thinking like you and me".

Looks like dogdgeball man took his ball home in frustration never to return - or at least until next week when he tries to start it all over again. I've no doubt that he'll bring new information and arguments to his next reposting of someone else's incoherent, unsupportable sermon. Lucky us.

Actually, no. You don't have to be particularly well versed in the sciences to be a doctor...Someone who studies evolution has a different academic grounding than a geologist who has a different academic grounding that a physicist who has a different academic background than a doctor, etc.

It's also worth nothing that a pediatrician, as far as that goes, is not particularly high up on the "Doctor" scale... treating runny noses and scraped knees is a lot different than performing experimental cross-species translants and brain surgery.

It no more makes him a quack than, say, a computer technician is a "quack" technician because he can't lay out the circuit board for a video card. Its just not the same area of and level of expertise.

Yes, I think my point does speak for itself, and so to summarize:

I'm sorry man, that's not true. I majored in zoology in college, and all pre-med students had to major in zoology. They all had to take classes on all levels of biology, including molecular biology, genetics and evolution. They also had to take extensive courses in physics and chemistry.

To say he doesn't have to be well versed in the sciences is outright untrue. To say he's not an academic in sciences, yet parade himself around as an MD is rather scary IMHO. You don't get into Medschool without having the extensive background in the sciences.



That's like saying a guy with a double major in physics is 'not high up' compared to someone who's a rocket scientist working for NASA. It doesn't add up and the opinion is relative. A pediatrician had to start out like all doctors of all fields. It's not until later in their education do they become specialized.

Again, to say he's an "MD" which is medical doctor no matter what his specific practice, means he's an academic in the sciences. He may not be a thermonuclear physicist, but he's still a Doctorate of Medical Sciences.

IOW, he's a quack.

That doesn't mean he's well versed in it, sorry. It means he's studied it. I've studied physics and chemistry too, although my major doesn't require it - But I certainly wouldn't say that I'm "versed" in the sciences to the extent that a person who focused on it is.



Which still doesn't make you an expert on the subject. I just see it as a man acknowledging his limitations. Still don't see how that makes him a quack - you don't know anything about his competence in medicine, anatomy, etc.



Which doesn't mean he's involved in the higher end research side of it, is what I'm getting at. Yes, an MD is still a fairly impressive bit of work - but it's not the end of the road.



Again, you don't know anything about his competence as a doctor.

I have a friend who is a professor of philosophy of evolution at a Kansas University. One of his so-called geologist "colleagues" believes the world is about 6000 years old due to his religious beliefs.

Frankly, I can't see how you can be a geologist and a short-earther without your head 'asploding, but it does happen. Having a pile of letters after your name may mean that you'd been taught properly, but that doesn't mean that it was retained nor replaced.

Sigh. At least I'm not my friend; kinda like being Daniel in the lion's den to intentionally mix metaphors. Here is a flash place where you can color Daniel and a drowsy lion. It may increase your understanding.

I think that story is considered apocryphal, which means that most proddies don't accept it as part of the bible.

For my experience people posting dictionairie entries have nothing to say (worth to read) as in your case.
Oh, and come back as soon you found out what the definition of SCIENTIFIC THEORY is.
(hint, its for shure not a assumtion based on limited knowledge)
Thank you.

If my post isn't "worth to read", why do you keep replying to my posts?

Maybe for the same reason that kids tease the "mentally-challenged" kid on the schoolyard? It may be heartless, cruel, unnecessary, and unproductive, but they do it anyway and seem to derive some enjoyment from it.

Just guessing....

For the benefit of others, would be a sad world where the religious fanatics is the only voice heard.

At least you admit you are defending your religious beliefs in this thread.

Who is this in response to?

Its Kevins response to me, he lives in the delusion that the theorie of evolution is an theological concept and therefore its ok to brainwash children in school with his religions creation mythologies.
Why his religions myths should be held in higher value than that of the tahitians for example is behond me.

For my opinion everyone brainwashing a child this way should be put into prison immediatly for serious child abuse, no way someone with this background can study any form of biological, geological or physical science, they would have to work with concepts going 100% against what they believe is true.

In other words, they are cut of from theese areas of study.

every day is necropost day!