• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Kansas ID Case......What is going on?

Ed

Philosopher
E
Joined
Aug 4, 2001
Messages
8,658
Brown, someone? The news that I get seems to be repeating the same wireservice story.
 
I was going to bump Brown's really great thread on the case, but it's another victum of the upgrade. :(

Searching Yahoo! News doesn't give any relevant new information.
 
Upchurch said:
I was going to bump Brown's really great thread on the case, but it's another victum of the upgrade. :(

Searching Yahoo! News doesn't give any relevant new information.
Click to expand...

I figured it was gone hence my thread.

I have my suspicions on how it is going but I want, nay, I demand meat.
 
I thought the case was done and over with and that Kansas has implemented the new "science standards" starting Sept 2005.
 
Brown PM'ed me last week and said he was due to have some minor surgery done and would be off the board for a little while. I thought he was going to post something, I hope that I haven't screwed up.

So we'll have to find a replacement for Brown's highly regarded (by me at least) posts for awhile...there's never a lawyer around when you need one...:cool: :eek:
 
thaiboxerken said:
I thought the case was done and over with and that Kansas has implemented the new "science standards" starting Sept 2005.
Click to expand...
It's not Kansas. The cuurent case (the one Browns thread was about) is from Dover, Pennsylvania.
 
In the now missing thread, I linked to a Discovery Institute press release where they had begun the process of distancing themselves from the trial saying "what they're talking about is not 'Intelligent Design'" or some such.

Here is another Discovery Institute press release
Eighty-five scientists have filed an Amicus Brief in the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial asking the Judge to "affirm the freedom of scientists to pursue scientific evidence wherever it may lead" and not limit research into the scientific theory of intelligent design. Not all the signers are proponents of intelligent design, but agree "that protecting the freedom to pursue scientific evidence for intelligent design stimulates the advance of scientific knowledge."
Click to expand...
Funny. (1) I thought they weren't talking about ID. (2) I thought they were merely talking about whether or not ID should be taught as a scientific principle in public highschool classrooms not that the judge could somehow shut down "research" into ID "theory".


Sorry, are my use of quotation marks a little too sarcastic?


eta: Here is the original press release I refered to
 
Under cross-examination by school board lawyer Richard Thompson, Forrest acknowledged that she had no evidence that board members who voted for the curriculum change had either seen or heard of the Discovery Institute document.
Click to expand...

Source

Update on the trial in Pennsylvania.


About that quote...

What does it matter if the board members hadn't heard of the Discovery Institute when the question at hand is whether intelligent design is a course in metaphysics or science.

Stupid tactic on cross. If the other side was allowed redirect they should have torn that apart.
 
PS, you can get the latest (and follow the progression of reporting) from MSNBC.com here.

Now we can debate the bias of MSNBC all day, but it's one place I found that updates on developments.


Edit:

P.s. The Kansas case updates are on that page too.
 
Upchurch said:
I was going to bump Brown's really great thread on the case, but it's another victum of the upgrade. :(

Searching Yahoo! News doesn't give any relevant new information.
Click to expand...
Shouldn't have gone, try searching for threads Brown has started. (ETA) Or look on the old forum and link to there.)
 
Last edited:
Mojo said:
The ACLU of Pennsylvania has a blog about the case, complete with links to court transcripts.
Click to expand...

I started a thread with your link in Paranormal. Not sure where one would rightly put a discussion of this topic but I figured that it was best to cover the bases.

I neglected to credit you for the link for which I apologise and will fix now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom