The Significance of the Dover Decision

Me too, I enjoy reading court transcripts for some weird reason so I was all over them.

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.

Yes, school boards should be able to judge this for themselves. But what would you do if you thought that your kids were attending a school which was giving them a poor education by virtue of breaking the constitution? Let us say, your children were being taught, in biology, that the Koran is a book which is considered by many to be an a perfect book for understanding the world and stands alongside the germ theory of disease as an appropriate code for handling illness?You might not do so, but I'm sure you'd understand that some Christians might sue the school board for allowing this unconstitutional behaviour.If ID requires gaining support by appealing directly to credulous children rather than gaining support in the adult scientific community, then it has a bleak future indeed.

I read pretty fair chunks of both Judge Jones final summary and the court transcripts, but not the whole thing.TTFN,WK

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.

But you understand that some parents might legitimately challenge the promotion of the Islamic religion by a public body if the Koran was referenced as a legitimate alternative body of knowledge concerning disease? As I said, ID started pushing "Teach the controversy" when it became clear that they couldn't get "Teach ID!" through. The criticisms of various hypothesis require first understanding the hypothesis. Before you can understand the hypothesis you need to first understand evolution. Since most schools spend only a small amount of time on evolution, it would be impractical to teach people from almost zero knowledge to knowing what evolution is, to some of the various controversial hypotheses and their proponents and criticisms. That is the kind of thing that takes a lot of background knowledge to really appreciate and is more suited to a dedicated course, such as at university.You might not think what is taught is honest, but the vast majority of experts in the relevant fields disagree with you. Who should school boards listen to when deciding a curriculum? I vote for the relevant experts in the relevant fields.

quote:

---

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.

---

So you want both science and religion taught in science classes? And, let me guess, you would want your religion taught to the exclusion of the some 4,000 other extant world religions?And the "teach critical thinking" and "teach the controversy" are just propaganda lines thought up by the Discovery Institute to try to get their view of religion (in the disguise of ID) taught in science classes. Within evolutionary theory there are no such "controversies" for "critical thinking" to deal with. There are a lot of fun problems to solve, but the Discovery Institute isn't interested in real science. They are interested only in their strawman version of science.The Dover trial laid bare the pathetic attempts to disguise ID as a science. You really should read the transcripts.

Which laws that the judge cited and interpreted in order to reach a final judgement do you think were interpreted incorrectly? Did the judge misapply the Lemon test. Or with regard to Lemon and all the other cases which he cited, was the judge correct in his interpretation of case law.Given that the only way to know if the judge was correct or not is to begin by asking "Well, what did he say and how did he apply case law to this particular trial" and the only way to find this out is by actually reading the judgement, you are disqualifying yourself from commenting meaningfully on the legality or otherwise of the judge's decision.Unless you can find legal flaws in his reasoning process and case law interpretation, your opinion is uninformed and you'll certainly never find any flaws in the Judgement if you don't read it.This sort ofthing may constitute yet another point of significance of the Dover trial. People who allow their partisan views to dictate their uninformed opinions are forced to openly admit to just how uninformed their opinion is.I would really like to have a debate with someone who has actually read the judgement, yet has come to a different opinion from me as to whether the judge erred in fact or in law. I've yet to come across one, but I think it would be a very fruitful discussion. Are you prepared to do this? You would have to actually read the judgement in all it's unedifying glory and the transcripts to see if the judge actually had evidence on which to make the statements he made.

Well that is not what this thread is about. You can talk all day about how you don't like or you disagree with the decision...... in another thread.Feel free to continue to claim bias having only the CNN version of events. It would not be the first time we have seen someone on this board speak so sure handily about something they have only cursory familiarity.Edited by Jazzns, : No reason given.

---

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

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.

Well, that much you are right about.What that means is that the judge reached his decision based on the evidence that the parties presented to him. By admitting that you haven't read any of the trial transcripts, you have disqualified yourself from having an informed opinion about the correctness of the decision.You have your own ideas about what evolution consists of, as well as creationism, the law, and fluffy puppy dogs, for all I know. However, your ideas are irrelevant. The judge based his decision on the evidence in the case. Unless you're aware of what the evidence was, your belief about the correctness of the decision is worth no more than my opinion on who should win the Westminster dog show.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

No this thread is not about talking about whether the decision was right. I don't care that you don't like what happened. What I find amazing is that you feel your opinion should be just as valid even though you admit you have only cursory knowledge of the case.I saw you added this in edit: No one is claiming that this is a scientific decision. If you think this then you are vastly misunderstanding people and vastly misunderstanding the purpose of this thread.Edited by Jazzns, : No reason given.

---

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