The Significance of the Dover Decision

I disagree with his application of case law regardless of the evidence presented before him and regardless of what the evidence could be....seems to be something going over evos heads here.It's not ignoring the evidence, which I don't think a court of law should settle when it comes to science anyway, but it's a view of the 1st amendment that is seen as protecting religious liberty rather than defending it.In fact, I would argue that if ID is religion, that it is wrong to restrict it from being taught along-side of evolution. I am not saying it is religion though. My point is that regardless of how the judge ruled on that point, either way I consider it either a violation of the 1st amendment if it is religion or usurping local government outside the powers of the federal gov it is not, and I trust that over time, a more originalist interpretation of the Constitution will win out. I'd like to say more, but that may take us off-topic.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Education is a different subject so may need to tread lightly here. Imo, high school should be about developing critical thinking schools. If that means, you don't teach biology or other sciences until later or less science, then so be it. Once you have that skill, you can learn anything you want and any science you want, but making people learn a certain set of facts, or pseudo-facts as the case may be, without teaching them to think critically about what they are learning is a huge mistake, imho.

Explained as much as I could already on the 1st amendment....and I am not sure even admin accepts that as on-topic.if you want to discuss Constitutional law, maybe coffee house would be appropiate.

I don't consider a school board special interests, and imo, communities should be allowed to teach their children whatever they darn well please within moral limits....can't teach them to commit crimes for instance.If I lived in a Muslim dominated community, as long as they let other views be taught in an equal manner, I wouldn't complain if they taught about the Koran.....as long as believing isn't really the goal, but education. One of my beefs with teaching evolution is that evos seem more concerned over what people believe rather than what they understand and so are near hysterical over the idea someone that rejects evolution be allowed to influence the curriculum.What does it matter if students not accept evo theory if they understand it? I would think letting students hear strong criticisms of evo theory would help them understand it better.

I think you confuse "conservative" politically with a legal persepective here. I could see a very liberal judge ruling somewhere, for example, that creationism or ID, should be allowed based on not discriminating against a minority, religiously held scientific opinion, and more so if the case were in a very liberal, highly secular, area.

I can't believe that many would. Why would they?Seems like a big disconnect here. You guys think the decision was somehow significant as far as the science. I cannot imagine anyone that understands the courts thinking that at all.It is significant as far as the law. It has no significance as far as science.

Start a thread somewhere else if you want to discuss the law. I am familiar with the Lemon test or used to be. We can discuss it, but keep in mind my position is based on an originalist interpretation of the 1st amendment as fundamental and so "case law" may mean something within the politics of the courts and what they will and will not do, but it doesn't hold the same water with me, as I think the Constitution should trump case law and not the other way around.Justice Thomas holds this same view. Scalia is an originalist, but I think he doesn't take it this far. Roberts....who knows for sure?The more liberal members of the court are inclinded towards the "living document" approach to the Constitution.Why don't you start a new thread so we don't get banned for discussing this?

start a new thread and I will be glad to provide one......but I will expect you to do the same.

That's not the reason. You guys need to take a step back to get a handle where IDers and creationists are at.Maybe this will illuminate you....long before the Discovery Institute, the term "Intelligent Design" was being heavily used in "creationist" and non-evo circles. I remember talking with someone in the 80s about some ideas and used the term "creationist", and the person I was talking with, said, don't you mean "Intelligent Design" for tbe idea I was presenting, and she was right.Of course, there is considerable overlap. The Discovery Institute is but one small facet of the Intelligent Design camp, which is a fairly broad camp in that it can include anything between YEC and theistic evolution.So a court case involving some people in Dover, PA isn't going to be seen as particularly significant to a long-time IDer or creationist or a saltional evo......I am not saying there couldn't be someone that thinks otherwise, but in my experience, the mindset of those disagreeing with Darwin won't be influenced or persauded or even take too much notice of, the Dover case, except maybe to point out it's flaws.It's just not something someone like me sees as all that relevant. In fact, it's quite humorous to see some evos say stuff like "I think creationists have gone into hiding since Dover" or some other idiotic statement. Nothing can be further from the truth. The slow march of truth overcoming deception, as we look at it, is not going to be too far set back with a simple court case.

So discussing the particulars of law is on-topic in a science forum?I'll wait to see what percy thinks before responding. Not trying to make his life difficult, mind you, but seems to me you should bring up issues of legal precedent in a non-science forum, which I asked Trixie to do if she wanted to discuss it further.

If you want to discuss whether and what IDers have published, why not propose a thread for doing so?

Interested in the legal aspect of the case, sure? If I had a bit more money, I might take an interest in seeing if we could appeal because I'd like to see certain precedents brought back before the Supreme court if possible.But in terms of understanding ID or creationism or Darwinism? I'd think you must be smoking something if you think a court case is where one should learn about science.

And my opinion is the exact opposite. Not only are the criticisms valid and not lying, but evos present the theory of evolution in a highly deceptive manner.So let students hear the arguments and consider them for themselves, provided they can argue either way just as well.

True. I think the way to approach it is to find another way to take the issue to court, maybe if another jurisdiction is challenged, and advise the jurisdiction on how to move forward to put the case in the best possible light in terms of the law, and then take it through the process.Also, Federal District courts disagree all the time, completely disagree. At the District level is not where law is made. In fact, just last week I was reviewing a legal motion for summary judgement citing District court cases. The ones we cite, well, it would be a slam dunk, but there are a couple of cases with the exact opposite ruling despite citing the same law. Counsel's advice is that we will win summary judgement based on the judge's opinion of the law, not necessarily what the law actually states. Probably if we lose and appeal it, after the trial of course, we feel we would win, but it may well be cheaper to accomplish the same thing another way.District courts, contrary to what you guys think, are not nearly as significant in terms of establishing case law as you believe. The Dover case doesn't mean all that much.

You mean the fact that there are more ID papers about ID or related to ID themes seeking to establish basic tenets of ID than they are about evolution in terms of it's basic claims and assumptions.....because that's the fact.In defense of evo's, part of that is evos largely accepted Darwinism prior to the current standards within the peer-review system.