The Significance of the Dover Decision

Randman made the following claim in another thread: Which is basically the DI party line concerning Dover. Anyone who has read the transcripts and the decision (which I have done more than twice) I don't believe could make this argument in good faith.Randman seems to flip the situation around when he says, "It was a sham and is viewed that way by everyone that isn't an evo." I understand the situation to be the exact opposite. Pretty much the only people advocating this idea are those who are ideologically aligned with the DI. There is no better illustration of this than the other attempts to inject ID into the classroom at other districts around the county that tabled their decision because of Dover. If it was universally believed that the decision was "a sham" like randman claims, then why did the other tuck tail and run?I personally challenge randman to support his contention that anyone who is not an evo views the trial as a sham.For the rest of the board, I am curious to what you know or don't know about the trial. I posed the question to randman: Who has read it all? Alternatively, how much have you read?I also asked him: This was one of the most important evidences as part of the trial that showed the genetics of ID to classical creationism. My fear is that many IDers or creationists haven't read the trial transcripts and subsequently don't understand the significance of this evidence which was uncovered or the trial itself. So my question to creationists who HAVE read the transcripts is:

• Do you understand the issue regarding the "cdesign proponentist" situation that was uncovered during the trial?
  ​
• How did the evidence regarding the dubious tactics of leaders in the ID movement in rebranding creationism as ID as shown by the "cdesign proponentist" evidence affect your position on ID or creationism?

The moderator can choose whatever forum they feel is appropriate.Edited by Admin, : Modify title, minor edits.

---

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Well put subbie.What I don't understand is why more creationists have not read the transcripts.Had the trial gone the other way, in favor of ID, I would STILL have been interested in the case itself. If I found myself in opposition to the decision I would be picking apart every detail of every witness to try to show how this case was biased or flawed.Randman however is just handwaving it away yelling "1st ammendment" all the way to pews.How can you disagree with the decision without knowing the details of the case?Its like saying that the New York Giants cheated in their win over the Green Bay Packers without ever having watched the game!

---

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

I think one significant thing is certainly that the DI hardliners did not feel like they had a case and withdrew. Here they had a conservative judge in a conservative part of the country and yet they backed down.The only thing more favorable for them would have been for this to happen in Texas which is what we are seeing right now. I wonder if they will be more bold.

---

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

Because this is an important application of creationism injected into the school system. This is what they want. This is why the modern creationism movement exists.You really cannot fathom why a creationist might be interested in this case? Really?

---

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 lemon test is part of why this ruling is significant. It is also important for the understanding of the decision if you had read it.The lemon test is on topic.

---

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

I don't know why Percy moved it here and I didn't really care. But the significance is relevant with respect to the lemon test because Dover provides precedent that ID policy can be applied to lemon.Why does it seem that inconvenient issues for you cause you to hide behind false off-topic claims?

---

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

Just because you post doesn't mean you say anything.

---

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

If you had read the trial transcripts you would know that in fact it was the ID side that was making the claim that there needed to be an equivalent to "affirmative action" in order for ID to have a chance to BECOME a science. They actually ADMIT that ID has no research but that it should be included in schools anyway to encourage interest so that someday it might find a breakthrough. If you had read the trial transcripts you would know that it was specifically for this reason that it was concluded that ID did not belong. More importantly, it was the ID side itself that was trying VERY hard to distance itself from the notion that ID is teleology. Had you been a witness for the ID side you would have completely and utterly torpedoed their case! In fact, the constitution and the justice system exists to protect the public from this nonsense that the majority can dictate whatever they want. The significance of this trial is that it was a perfect application of the principle of protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority based on the constitution. You would have made an EXCELLENT witness for the plaintifs in this case.

---

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

This thread is not the place to bring up if ID really has published.Where this CAN be brought into the topic is to simply note that the defense in the Dover trial could not or did not produce any ID papers.If they existed, why did the defense not use them. Did they simply not know about them? Could not Behe or any of the other defense expert witnesses informed the defnese team about them?

---

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

Then why do you think the Dover defense team did not use the existance of so many ID publications in trial?Why then did the expert testimony of the defense advocate for "affirmative action" for fledgling theories that currently have no scientific support?If you had read the transcripts you may have know these things.

---

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