The Significance of the Dover Decision

Since you mentioned my name, I thought I should post but the topic has little interest to me.I am not sure how much litigation you have been involved in, but it is inconceivable to me that a reasoned person would consider a legal proceeding a good judge or forum to decide scientific theory. It is equally puzzling to see evos actually think somehow the case has any merit within science or scientific opinion whatsoever.It's baffling in fact. The law is strictly about legal rules, precedent, etc,.....it is not about scientific truth. That's not me dodging. If you want to think that, I really don't care. It's just reality. In fact, legal proceedings and litigation are often not even about the truth, period, but about the rules.As far as science, I think all the facts and arguments for Intelligent Design and against it are more easily available elsewhere. Thinking a trial transcript is the way to learn about the subject, either it's strengths or weaknesses shows, to me, a profound misunderstanding and ignorance of the differences between litigation and science.In fact, if the judge ruled in favor of teaching Intelligent Design, I would say the same thing. I may point out that the judge considers it legal, but it really has no bearing on whether it is true or not.Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Trixie, I did not complete reading your entire post as it appears you greatly misunderstood what I wrote. I suggest you reread it and pay attention to the context.

So let's imagine that a judge rules the opposite. Would you then agree with the judge?I suspect you would not, and you would correctly argue that a judge is not an arbiter of what is science and what is not.Furthermore, what the judge was really deciding was whether it was legal as he interprets the Constitution, and his interpretation and may be the current SCOTUS law is such that it discriminates against religous teaching, expression and thought. Imo, that approach is deeply wrong and a serious violation of the 1st amendment that guarantees the federal government not restrict the free exercice of religion.So as far as I am concerned, if ID is considered religion (even though it is clearly science imo), that is not grounds for a federal judge to restrict it's teaching in schools because it is not genuinely respecting an establishment of religion, and this is, imo, a very important point. The way it is now, the mere idea of a Creator or God must be excluded from a public school curriculum, based on this judges ruling, because it is religion.That's a violation of the 1st amendment and imo, will one day be overturned because the statute referring to an establishment of religion must of necessity entail a specific religion and organization. The law was there could not be a national church, nor religious expression be hindered. The idea was to allow as much religious expression as possible, not estabish the US as a secular soceity.By restricting the mere notion of God from science or anything else, what the courts are doing is the exact opposite of the 1st amendment. They are establishing secularism as the official ideology/religion to the exclusion of all else, and that's wrong, deeply wrong.So as far as I am concerned, simply because there is a religious component within a scientific theory does not invalidate it.....otherwise, evolutionism couldn't be taught..Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Really? I have asked here for peer-reviewed papers that establish the basic claims and assumptions of Darwinism, and they are non-existent.In fact, there are probably more published papers on ID than papers seeking to establish the basic claims of evos.

IDers are publishing articles, discussing theory, etc, etc,....The people trying to silence them are evolutionists. They have even resorted to using the courts to silence proponents of Intelligent Design, and yet there appears to be little self-awareness among evos of what they are trying to do.Think about it.Scientists who use courts to protect their theory are likely to find, in the long run, their theory cannot stand on it's own merits.Scientists who seek to silence other scientists with scorn, derision, persecution, etc,....probably don't have a very strong case to begin with, or else they would relish the publication and dissemination of their opponent's ideas provided their's could be presented along-side it or rebut it with later publications.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

I think what the "whole, nastly, little mess" is that evolutionists feel so threatened and think their theory is so weak that they resort to defending it in court by trying to silence their enemies. Heck, just the fact evos brought a legal challenge, to my mind, validates that Intelligent Design is considered a formidable alternative that they fear whether they will admit or not.

Sorry. I wasn't trying to break the rules but discuss "the significance of the Dover decision" per the thread title. For me, what I posted is the significance.

No, and I am not remotely interested in reading a court transcript to learn about science. In fact, I am baffled that so many evos would think reading a trial/court transcript is a good way to learn about and discuss science.I did read some of the judge's comments, and I have responded to his line of reasoning on this thread.

So why would teaching ID be OK outside of the science curriculum and not OK within it?To me, the whole episode of relying on a judge to decide what can be taught in science class is farcical. Sorry, but if that's what it has come to, I think the theory of evolution has a bleak future indeed.

Simple. I am responding to the interpretation of the law regardless of which way the case went. I would have thought you could see that, but I suppose not.

If they taught both, it wouldn't be that much of a concern. Show the arguments for one and the other.However, what I would really like to see, something I recall the ID camp pushing instead of what happened at Dover, is to teach the criticism of evolutionary theory when it is presented. That doesn't occur. What is largely taught is not factual, nor honest.

The thread is about the significance of the decision, right?And yet you think the law and the intepretation of the law is off-topic?amazingI think you guys are under the mistaken impression this was a scientific decision rather than a legal one. Try to remember this was a court of law, not science, and that doesn't make the law necessarily right either.Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

I've already answered that. What part of my response did you not understand? The area of law being misinterpreted is the 1st amendment to the Constitution.

unbeleivable...

So the upshot is you indoctrinate kids because you say they are not ready to critically think about it, and yet you think that's education and work very hard to keep all criticisms of evo theory out of the curriculum......I couldn't take you guy's stance with a straight-face....just telling you the truth here.Edited by randman, : No reason given.