Judge Says No to ID

Dang it how many times do I have to repeat this? ID has absolutely NOTHING to do with religion. Are you reading this?

Yes and I wasn't born yesterday nor was that judge who handed down the decision.

If you are right, why can't you post the part of ID that establishes a religion?

Ask the court, not me. They defined it as a thinly veiled attempt to impose their own religious beliefs on school children. How can any right minded person anywhere at anytime think this is ok? Answer me that one please.

You can't show me how ID establishes a religion, buy insist it does?

The judge also didn't explain how teaching ID would establish a religion, or even that it was a religious idea. His opinion stemmed from his opinion the supporters of ID were believers in God.

If you can't show ID establishes a religion, or show the transcript page that shows the judge explaining how ID establishes a religion I will have to say both you and the judge (ex-lawyer appointed by a politicians, the two least trusted professions) don't understand the establishment clause.

Well I would say that you are talking about your religious beliefs instead of the law which is what this thread is about. You obviously haven't read all of my posts so please go back 200 or so posts and review them.

If you want to debate evolution start a new thread! This one is about the criminals caught red handed and busted for it.

If you're going to call well documented, sourced, and reviewed research 'biased' then I don't know of any information anywhere either of us can point at to support either of our arguements. You don't have to read the commentary if you don't want to, you can follow the linkthroughs and read the information upon which they are presenting. You can also follow the subsequent articles found in the information YOU linked me to. Either way it all says the same stuff.

Also, if you have a problem with well documented information, you should stop reading now because that's really all we have to work with... I don't like making stuff up.



Astronomers are qualified to talk about that which is in the sky, physicists work with, well, physics, astrophysicists work with macrophysics (physics in the universe at large). So far, so good... Which of these are qualified to speak about evolution of life? None.



Paleontologists DO study dinosaurs, woot you found someone, except that according to other paleontologists his only merit accomplishment is that he organized a conference to disseminate his ideas about the cambrian explosion in china. So someday he might have something intelligent to say on the subject I guess...



This guy, is also apparently qualified. But given that he is talking about the origin, rather than the evolution, I don't think he would appreciate being used to support something he certainly wouldn't. He is also almost certainly speaking metaphysically here and not presenting a serious scientific arguement for what he is saying. The man did a lot of good science before he died and you should just leave him be.



It is wrong to quote Einstein. He is not qualified (he never addressed biology) to talk about evolution. Origin of life in metaphysics debates, fine.



At least give the whole damn quote!! He was speaking about his book and why he did not include conjecture about possible intermediataries in it with the illustrations about available fossiles. So he is certainly not supporting design. In fact, he would treat ID as badly as he treats natural selection. If he hasn't seen proof of it, it's not science to him.





Wald is commenting on the metaphysics of origin of creation. Which evolution does not address. You probably CAN find many evolution scientists who do have problems with various origin theories, but you won't find many that will cast doubt on evolution itself.

So if you want to pit ID against various origin theories, okay fine. No problem. But so far you have not quoted anyone credible who DOES have problems with evolution.

Now as to the legality of the case... Michael Behe, a major proponent and 'scientist' for ID said that the way he was using science, astrology was also science. Do you really want to elevate Miss Cleo to the level of university Professor?

The judge did explain the the people who donated the books did it with funds collected IN a church. If that's not religiously motivated, I don't know how it can be made more clear. Beyond that he doesn't have to show anything.



You can request a transcript from the court reporter, they usually cost money and I'm certainly not going to do so for you. The media has several paraphrased accounts I'm sure you can dig up but if you want facts you'll go for the transcript.

Also, leading experts of ID were called in to explain it to the Judge. That's the point of expert witnesses. They explain it as best they can and then a judge decides based on evidence. Their explanation was insufficient.

You also seem to be under the misapprehension that our judges are appointed. In Pennsylvannia, they are elected. In recent elections one or two were kicked out for refusal to turn down a pay raise passed by the state legislature. (Us working class people aren't hot on the greedy folk). But overall we are largely a purple state even though we've voted blue on the last couple of presidential elections.

He has to show a religion is being established. The religious beliefs and actions of those who support ID are not in question, and as a judge he has no right to judge a theory's constitutionality on those thing.

EITHER Religion is definately being established when you go and collect money in a church for a textbook for a science class that an expert witness testifies as being on scientific par with astrology.

OR this was an example of a group of nonreligiously motivated people, who, for some reason, decided to push a really unscientific book into a science class.

Either way they were wrong to do so. Thus the ruling is not at fault in the slightest.

We will have to agree to disagree.

The issue before the judge was simply whether teaching ID constitutes a breach in the establishment clause, does teaching ID seek to establish or promote a particular religion over other religions?

If he didn't peer into the personal lives of those who support ID, he would have had to rule the other way. He was able to look at their personal lives, and make judgements of their motives rather than the actual issue of whether ID promotes a religion over other religions. He ignored the teachings of ID in that he didn't care ID never mentions God, a god, many gods, or even aliens. That is left to the student to fill. He just made a ruling based totally on the belief structure of one side of the debate.

That should scare us all, thinking a judge may decide a case based on what we believe, what books we read, who we associate with etc.

Judges are taking more power to themselves, ignoring the laws and constitution. They are judging issues based on personal biases rather than the constitution and the actual issues at hand.

http://www.sciohost.org/ncse/kvd/kitzmiller_decision_20051220.pdf
If you keep posting without research you're only backing up my earlier 'willfull ignorance' arguements. But then again, if you continue to maintain such, I will have to agree to disagree with you. I can't possibly agree with someone who won't... well... read.

Can you just cut and paste the part that verifies ID is actually establishing a religion?

You really should read the whole thing in order to understand how this conclusion was reached.

From a pdf, no.

i read it.

How about telling me the page number and paragraph?

You've already been nicely quoted a summary conclusion. The explanation thereof is several pages and you really should read it. The entire decision is actually a good read if you want to print it out and/or take the time. It covers expert testimoney, case law history, precedent, and a whole host of other things that lead to the decision being made the way it was.

every day is necroposting day...

I couldn't bump one of the better examples because of this: