• 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.

Dover verdict is in!

Sweet. I expected the decision to favour the plaintiffs. but never remotely expected the judge's verdict would be anything like as damning as it was. Everyone seems to be posting their favourite excerpts, so here is mine:

The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.
 
Red Siegfried said:
Guess what, dude? I am. I work in Roseville.

Thanks for the offer .. BTW, I was somewhat biting in my comments, but you guys can tell me if I'm out of line or not - I just edited my post above with a link to the thread.

Sorry, I just can't help baiting the fundies sometimes. Gets me in trouble once in a while.
Click to expand...


Understandable! We should get a Twin Cities meeting of skeptics together. We could all meet at the Liffey in St. Paul for Guinness and fun times.

That offer for a pint stands. Let me know if you're down by me sometime.
 
Morrison's Lament said:
Berlin is cold but nice this time of year, unfortunately I'm moving to Reykja-****ing-vik next week :(

Hey... that rhymes.

If you want a guided tour of the misery that is Reykjavik, you and any other JREF member are welcome, I might even be able to give you a mattress to sleep on :)

--- G.
Click to expand...
The Blue Lagoon is warm all year round!
 
What a great judgment! I'm only about 2/3 of the way through reading it, but here are some highlights:

On whether the disclaimer is religious in nature:

In summary, the disclaimer singles out the theory of evolution for special treatment, misrepresents its status in the scientific community, causes students to doubt its validity without scientific justification, presents students with a religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory, directs them to consult a creationist text as though it were a science resource, and instructs students to forego scientific inquiry in the public school classroom and instead to seek out religious instruction elsewhere. Furthermore, as Drs. Alters and Miller testified, introducing ID necessarily invites religion into the science classroom as it sets up what will be perceived by students as a "God-friendly" science, the one that explicitly mentions an intelligent designer, and that the "other science," evolution, takes no position on religion. (p. 49)
Click to expand...

On whether ID is science:

After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. As we will discuss in more detail below, it is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research. (p. 64)
Click to expand...

On Of Pandas and People, the "textbook" referred to in the Dover School Board's "disclaimer":

Accordingly, the one textbook to which the Dover ID Policy directs students contains outdated concepts and badly flawed science, as recognized by even the defense experts in this case. (pp. 86-87)
Click to expand...

On the goals of the proponents of ID (referred to as the "IDM" for "Intelligent Design Movement"):

After this searching and careful review of ID as espoused by its proponents, as elaborated upon in submissions to the Court, and as scrutinized over a six week trial, we find that ID is not science and cannot be adjudged a valid, accepted scientific theory as it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals, engage in research and testing, and gain acceptance in the scientific community. ID, as noted, is grounded in theology, not science. Accepting for the sake of argument its proponents’, as well as Defendants’ argument that to introduce ID to students will encourage critical thinking, it still has utterly no place in a science curriculum. Moreover, ID’s backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID. (pp. 88-89)
Click to expand...
 
DING DONG THE WITCH IS DEAD!

Does anyone else feel like 'we' won? I'm taking this victory really personally even though I'm childless and British.
 
Morrison's Lament said:
You guys have my heartfelt condolences that this is even an issue over there :(

--- G.
Click to expand...
I don't know about Germany or Iceland, but those of us in the UK have absolutely no reason to feel smug about this: - link

I have enjoyed following the Dover trial and the judgement is more than the icing on the cake - I'm with you, tkingdoll, it does feel like "we" won.
 
I don't care who appointed Judge Jones, but the Judge appears to have the clear thinking of someone in clear command of his facts and not swayed by religious arguments. If this is a Conservative judge (and I've no reason to believe otherwise), then this is the type of Conservatism which I can admire and respect, because it deals head on with religious claims in a secular context without disparagement of religion but standing fully behind established legal precedent which is utterly uncontroversial all the way to the US Supreme Court.

What I hope this judgment does is spur people in Kansas to stand up for their rights under the First Amendment. I note that Red State Rabble is very excited.

Do you think Pat Robertson will issue a fatwa on Judge Jones?
 
Dragon said:
I don't know about Germany or Iceland, but those of us in the UK have absolutely no reason to feel smug about this: - link

I have enjoyed following the Dover trial and the judgement is more than the icing on the cake - I'm with you, tkingdoll, it does feel like "we" won.
Click to expand...

We have no constitution, no separation of church and state - quite the opposite.
 
I wonder what the courst costs and attorney fees are for this trial (the total liability for a civil suit against the previous Dover board members).

I'm not much pleased that there isn't a mechanism of our courts whereby a suit that is seeking a religious initiative is not allowed or is comprehensively informed that civil suits (to recover costs) would be entertained.
 
I'm still wary of the judge declaring ID "not science", though. It isn't of course, but allowing a judge to declare that one way or the other sets a dangerous precedent. I know it's been discussed here at length, but I keep picturing oil companies suing climate researchers over global warming . . .
 
William Parcher said:
I wonder what the courst costs and attorney fees are for this trial (the total liability for a civil suit against the previous Dover board members).

I'm not much pleased that there isn't a mechanism of our courts whereby a suit that is seeking a religious initiative is not allowed or is comprehensively informed that civil suits (to recover costs) would be entertained.
Click to expand...


If I'm not mistaken, they can in fact be held accountable for damages. There would need to be a suit showing damages, but those found to be violating civil rights are held to civil accountability.

I think, in this case, since no damages were sought, none are awarded other than the standard court/attorney costs.

I might be mistaken. I never read the initial complaint.
 
Hawk one said:
But if we evolved from monkeys, how come TragicMonkey exists?
Click to expand...
It's a tragedy, I tell you. A tragedy. ;)

I called into a talk radio program discussing the decision this afternoon and read off the judge's wonderful quote:

"The breathtaking inanity of the Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources."

Ahh... 'tis a good day.
 
fowlsound said:
If I'm not mistaken, they can in fact be held accountable for damages. There would need to be a suit showing damages, but those found to be violating civil rights are held to civil accountability.

I think, in this case, since no damages were sought, none are awarded other than the standard court/attorney costs.

I might be mistaken. I never read the initial complaint.
Click to expand...

Rhetorical question: What price should one pay for attempted murder of the truth?
 
ranson said:
I'm still wary of the judge declaring ID "not science", though. It isn't of course, but allowing a judge to declare that one way or the other sets a dangerous precedent. I know it's been discussed here at length, but I keep picturing oil companies suing climate researchers over global warming . . .
Click to expand...

This might be different. I don't think Judge Jones ruled that ID isn't science... he ruled that it is religion. In a case of oil companies vs. climate researchers it would be science vs. science (with one of them presumably being faulty or meaningfully incomplete science).

I'm concerned that judges might be required to determine if something is religious.
 
William Parcher said:
This might be different. I don't think Judge Jones ruled that ID isn't science... he ruled that it is religion. In a case of oil companies vs. climate researchers it would be science vs. science (with one of them presumably being faulty or meaningfully incomplete science).

I'm concerned that judges might be required to determine if something is religious.
Click to expand...
I believe he did declare ID isn't science.

"The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents." (p.136)
 
Page 64 of the decision begins a whole section on why ID isn't science. That it is religion was discussed as an earlier part of the decision.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom