Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Religion
Related: About this forumDid Richard Dawkins Hand Creationists Their Next School Strategy?
BY ADAM SHAPIRO JUNE 15, 2016
Since the 1990s the Discovery Institute, a conservative think-tank, has tried to make it easier to teach intelligent design in public schools. They have had some successes, and one big setback: in 2005, the Institute and its allies lost Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, a landmark case that ruled it unconstitutional to teach intelligent design (ID) in public classrooms.
The Discovery Institute denies that the decade since Kitzmiller has been disappointing for them. Still, while the past ten years have seen some success for the intelligent design movement, it has not become the culture-sweeping campaign that some of its founders envisioned.
A recent law review article by legal scholar Casey Luskin, though, outlines a new position that might help bring intelligent design into the classroomor at least back into the courts. Luskins strategy capitalizes on one of the thornier claims in the Kitzmiller decision, and it demonstrates how rhetoric used by New Atheists can sometimes backfire, actually making it easier to challenge evolution-only curricula in courts.
Luskin, until recently a staffer at the Discovery Institute, argues that a key, decades-old legal test has been applied inconsistently. Weakening the test, or throwing out the way it has been applied to ID, could reopen the legal question of teaching ID in public school classrooms.
http://religiondispatches.org/did-richard-dawkins-hand-creationists-their-next-school-strategy/
http://www.discovery.org/f/12038
https://www.aclu.org/files/images/asset_upload_file577_23137.pdf
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
4 replies, 888 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (1)
ReplyReply to this post
4 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Did Richard Dawkins Hand Creationists Their Next School Strategy? (Original Post)
rug
Jun 2016
OP
If I was designed intelligently, I would have a third arm coming from out the middle of my chest.
Hoppy
Jun 2016
#1
"Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no."
muriel_volestrangler
Jun 2016
#3
Hoppy
(3,595 posts)1. If I was designed intelligently, I would have a third arm coming from out the middle of my chest.
That would be so's I could hold packages and open the car door at the same time.
rug
(82,333 posts)2. I would have a detachable homunculus to do that for me.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,355 posts)3. "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines
And Dawkins didn't say evolution must make one an "intellectually fulfilled atheist", but that it made it possible. And Dawkins said that in 1986, so it's not as if this is something new for creationists/IDists to try out.
When a New Atheist figurehead like Richard Dawkins claims that Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist, he substantiates the claim that evolution itself is not neutral when it comes to promoting or inhibiting religion.
...
But Luskin argues not just that atheists have found evolution to be useful, but that evolution in itself is inherently anti-religious. This claim doesnt hold up. Hes right that there is a history of anti-religious invocation of evolution, but theres also a long history of attempts to reconcile evolution and traditional religion, going back to Darwin himself.
...
But Luskin argues not just that atheists have found evolution to be useful, but that evolution in itself is inherently anti-religious. This claim doesnt hold up. Hes right that there is a history of anti-religious invocation of evolution, but theres also a long history of attempts to reconcile evolution and traditional religion, going back to Darwin himself.
And Dawkins didn't say evolution must make one an "intellectually fulfilled atheist", but that it made it possible. And Dawkins said that in 1986, so it's not as if this is something new for creationists/IDists to try out.
rug
(82,333 posts)4. "As with similar "laws" (e.g., Murphy's Law), it is intended as a humorous adage rather than always
being literally true. (3)"
"3. Dawkins, pp. 220-222"