From
MSN | Outlook, Office, Skype, Bing, Breaking News, and Latest Videos”Intelligent design’ faces first big court test
A federal judge in Pennsylvania will hear arguments Monday in a lawsuit that both sides say could set the fundamental ground rules for how American students are taught the origins of life for years to come.
While judges have considered smaller questions barnacled to the issue, the trial that opens Monday is believed to be the first time a federal court has been asked to decide the fundamental question: Is intelligent design religion or science?
The suit, brought by 11 parents, challenges the Dover Area School District’s adoption last year of an addition to the science curriculum directing teachers ” in addition to teaching evolution ” to tell students about intelligent design and refer them to an alternative textbook that champions it. Three opposing board members resigned after the vote.
The parents contended that the directive amounted to an attempt to inject religion into the curriculum in violation of the First Amendment.
The school board is being defended pro bono by the Thomas More Law Center, a Christian law firm in Ann Arbor, Mich. The case is being heard without a jury in Harrisburg by U.S. District Judge John Jones III, whom President Bush appointed to the bench in 2002.
So you have a
de facto christian group defending ID (and no scientific or secular group?) and you have a Bush appointee making the decision ...
And of course this will be appealed to SCOTUS we can be sure regardless of the decision ... now we get to Roberts and the next appointee?
“Discovery Institute strongly opposes the ACLU’s effort to make discussions of intelligent design illegal. At the same time, we disagree with efforts to get the government to require the teaching of intelligent design,” the institute said in a statement this week.
That is “a disturbing prospect,” the Discovery Institute said ” judges should not be telling scientists “what is legitimate scientific inquiry and what is not.”
Heh. (let's not worry whether ID is a legitimate scientific inquiry, we'll just pretend it is with this claim eh?)
Of course we all agree that judges (and politicians and loudmouthed opinionated but uneducated people) shouldn't be telling scientists what is legitimate scientific inquiry.
One wonders if the DI is worried about losing the court case and all their pretty schenanigans are for naught? They know they can milk this for years as long as it remains a "controversy" ...
Anybody need any expert witnesses?
Enjoy.
{abe} ps -- topic is about what the court decision will be and not about the validity of ID. This could also include the question: "is ID a religious belief" {/abe}
This message has been edited by RAZD, 09*23*2005 06:30 PM
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.