ID daze in COURT ... Time to place your bets ...

Q:

quote:

---

A rural school board showed a clear bias against teaching evolution before it pushed through

---

A: no one is wearing glasses.
@Washington Post picking up wire feedQ:

quote:

---

“This will be the first legal challenge to intelligent design, and we’ll see whether they have been able to mask the creationist underpinnings and basic orientation of intelligent design,” she said.

---

A: When is a macro a mask? When EVC already said this.(ID is at the status of theory even if Nuggin thinks agreement occurred otherwise.)
@MSN quotes ScottQ:

quote:

---

as science to sidestep a 1987 Supreme Court ruling

---

@NCSEre:source
It is my feeling that the lemon test already failed and that any suchNCSE will only go to the substitution of its rationality THROUGH whatever in ID could become of the event probably.Q:

quote:

---

arguing that it violates the constitutional separation of church and state.

---

A:Home | Cornell Chronicle
@
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.../09/27/AR2005092700246.htmlThere is side stepping of toleration either way
Home | Cornell Chronicle
but no prong could eat the design that remained separate. Reason prevails the argument of the will to power. In the early years of Id there will be no separation of the event any ego wise from the probability of its continued occurrence no matter how ugly(beautiful). Transformation of evolution, that, is possible but one would need to show how biotechnology can change the multiplier effect of investment spending on consumer into only an additive affect if Governments used public funds to green mars, moon and asteroids while strife goes legally on on Earth not why the last president of Cornell could not evolve as he told CU to do by 2015. This is not the same view as White even if the "science" is thesame(sic)

It is a bit more complicated than simply thinking that creationists edit books like we do posts to EVC. Henry Morris responded to me with the word "biology" and the word "creation" and I could clearly sense a meaning he was using for them that WAS NOT any sense I had heard or used before. I think that thinking that P&P was a simple hack job is a far cry from seperating the catch from the rye, but point taken. One could study such terms by starting from the NUMBERS book with title "THE CREATIONISTS" for instance and then wonder what PENNOCK had to add.to all the bablefishy fish...This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 12-14-2005 08:09 PM