• 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 Penn ID trial

Diogenes said:
I really liked:
Click to expand...

Anytime a rational mind looks at this movement, that's exactly what they're going to find. I'm glad the judge had the courage to spell it out so explicitly. It's going to do a lot of damage to ID when that comment hits the talking-head-24-hour-news-echo-chamber. Damage that should have been done by journalists years ago, but it's welcome today all the same.
 
The Bloomberg article has a few more quotes:
In his opinion, Jones said the key issue is ``whether Intelligent Design is science,'' and said, ``we have concluded that it is not.''

Jones said the concept of Intelligent Design, ``cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.''
Click to expand...
Did I mention I like this judge?
 
I don't think that we could have hoped for a better opinion. Judge Jones did a tremendous, excellent job. :)
 
My favorite bit:
Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an
activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. 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.
Click to expand...
 
Yeehah!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this ruling about as broad as we could have hoped? By declaring ID to be inherently religious and inseparable from its Creationist origins, doesn't that make it much harder for IDers to claim elsewhere that it's compatible with Constitutional requirements?
 
It's local. It can't be cited as precedent elsewhere unless it is from a higher court in local cases. It is also unlikely to be appealed...
 
delphi_ote said:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/evolutio...4MoQtms0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--

:clap:

Victory!
Click to expand...

The yahoo site says
HARRISBURG, Pa. - "Intelligent design" cannot be mentioned in biology classes in a Pennsylvania public school district, a federal judge said Tuesday,

New Scientist
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8493
Pennsylvania science teachers will not be forced to advocate "intelligent design" after a judge ruled that that the theory is really religion in disguise.


Is 'cannot be mentioned' or 'will not be forced', i.e. is it completely banned from discussion or can it be 'mentioned' voluntarily?

Thanks
 
"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."
Click to expand...

Is he saying they lied in court under oath? Is that not perjury?



P.S. I also like (from the Yahoo)

"The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy," Jones wrote, calling the board's decision "breathtaking inanity."
Click to expand...
(my bold)
 
CFLarsen said:
Institute for Creation Research

No comment. Yet.
Click to expand...
No, but I did find this.

Thirty days hath September,
April, June and November;
February has twenty-eight alone,
All the rest have thirty-one,
Except in Leap Year, that's the time
When February's days are twenty-nine.

So goes the nursery rhyme which helps us remember how many days are in a particular month. Why the difference? Why aren't they all the same? Wouldn't a perfect creation as described in Genesis have a more regular pattern?

...

What could happen to change Earth's orbit? Its angular momentum is vast, and just like a spinning gyroscope is hard to adjust, the earth's motion resists change. It would take a mighty force to alter it.

The Bible does speak of such an event. Without giving all the details it indicates that the great Flood of Noah's day forever altered Earth's systems. If Earth's orbit has changed, this is when it happened. With the fountains of the great deep relocating a huge volume of liquid, moving continents, possible asteroid bombardment, etc., shifting the location of much mass, the length of the day, the length of the year, and the tilt of the axis could have all changed. We don't have the details as to precise amounts or forces involved, but at least we have certain knowledge of an event capable of doing the job.
Click to expand...
I must visit their site more often.
 
Last edited:
PatKelley said:
It's local. It can't be cited as precedent elsewhere unless it is from a higher court in local cases. It is also unlikely to be appealed...
Click to expand...

Quite true, Pat. But it appears (and I have not read the whole thing yet) that this is such a strongly-written opinion and will get such wide dissemination that it will set a precedent that other judges can (and presumably will) refer to when (and it will happen again) they have a case like this. Judges can read, after all.

I wonder how those Board Members in Kansas feel?

OK, Creationism shot down by the Surpremes, ID never made it out of the lower courts, so what new method of packaging will the Discovery Institute (and has any group ever been more mis-named?) come up with?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom