The Significance of the Dover Decision

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 misinterpreted his statement which read
"I may point out that the judge considers it legal"I still don't thing that it really takes anything away from my post.
The significance of the Dover decision lies in the fact that the Judgement thoroughly laid bare what was at the root of the whole nastly, little mess.Thanks for the heads up Mod. I will eventually get round to editing my post and I will correct this portion with a strikethrough, rather than removing my error, in the interests of transparency.

See post 18.

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.

Dover School parents took the issue to court because they felt it was unconstitutional to require teachers to say what they were being told to say in a science classroom. It turns out that the judge agreed on the constitutionality of it.ID is a formidable entity. It has millions of dollars and a wonderful PR company, it doesn't play by the rules of science, and seeks to infiltrate school board rooms. This is unconstitutional, and 11 parents decided to sue the school board for their actions. The parents won their suit, and in the process ID was shown for what it was with the best arguments out.And you are very right that the 11 parents felt threatened. A religious group had infiltrated their education system and had forced the staff to teach children in a fashion that was unconstitutional. I think it is entirely appropriate to consider this a threat to the education of their children.Evolution didn't need defending in court. All that needed to be shown was that the material presented in the recommended book was fallacious, had a religious interest and was not, actually, science.What is telling is that cdesign proponantists were so incapable of defending their ideas: Several figures tried to file an amicus curiae to get their point of view heard without the awkward cross-examination. All they had were demonstrable falsehoods, misrepresentations and some outright lies. It wasn't a PR success. Still, "teach the controversy!" was an interesting direction that is currently brewing in schools around Florida and Texas.

Well, yes I see a contradiction here, a contradiction of any assumption that you might be attempting to follow the Forum Guidelines. Is this really the most appropriate topic you could find to make these points? I'm going to follow my own advice and not reply to any of your points, but will merely note that they're off-topic.Almost all posts include both on and off topic content. It is only posts that contain no on-topic content, or predominantly off-topic content with only a nod to the topic, that are a problem.--Percy

Randman, I just really wanted to start with a very simple question. Did you read the trial transcripts?A very simple yes or no will suffice.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

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.

Your entire post here is a straw man. What you say in you rpost is true, but the judge didn't rule on teaching ID, he ruled on teaching IDin the science classroom and that's the whole crux of the matter.The judge stated In other words it was the specific ID Policy of the Dover School Board which was declared unconstitutional, not ID itself. He makes a particular distinction between the policy of ID and the policy of the school board wrt ID.I'm sure that most parents wouldn't object to ID being brought up in a Comparative Religion class, but that wasn't the argument at Dover.Can you now do me the courtesy or reading the rest of my initial post on this matter?

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.

No one is claiming that you should read the transcripts to learn about science. You invented this idea. The trial transcripts are important for learning about the genetics of ID and it is something that should be of great intrigue to people who are interested in the EvC debate. What is suprising is that it seems so far that the only people who are knowledgeable about the actual facts of the case seem to be "evos".Do you understand what people are saying when they talk about "cdesign proponentists"? Why then do you feel that you are knowledgeable enough to comment on the significance of the trial. If you don't know what happened, how can you claim that anything was biased or otherwise. Is the only information you have about this trial from DI press releases?

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

One of the things I asked for was not only your opinions but simply a show of hands of who has read the transcripts.I would hope that most of the people who are attracted to this board would have been all over this stuff. I personally was checking the ACLU website every day as the trial unfolded.So speak up, especially creationists, about what you know about this landmark case. So far I think only Trixie and I have explicitly stated that we have read it and randman has explicitly stated that he has not.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

quote:

---

So why would teaching ID be OK outside of the science curriculum and not OK within it?

---

Because ID is not science. It is religion in disguise, dishonestly trying to masquerade as science in hopes of fooling some school boards (to paraphrase the judge's decision).

quote:

---

Sorry, but if that's what it has come to, I think the theory of evolution has a bleak future indeed.

---

Evolution -- A doomed science since 1859.But to return to the OP:

quote:

---

I am just curious randman, have you read either the decision or the trial transcripts in its entirety?

---

You really should read the entire transcript. It is very revealing. For example, the testimony of Kevin Padian by itself is an excellent tutorial on science. Here is a link:Forbidden!Let me know what you think of his testimony.