If you could be bothered to actually read even a smidgeon of the judgement and the judge's description of how the Lemon test applies, you might start to see what is so unique about Dover. It may have been a District Court but the jude ruled on two importnt aspects. He ruled that Pennsylvania State constitiution had been breached as well as the US Constitution.
You say that the US constitution wasnot breached so show us exactly where Jones misapplied lemon.
Lemon is relevant until it is overturned. Since it hasn't been overturned as yet, your insistence that it is irrelevant is just so much uninformed handwaving,
Make your case, show us what's wrong with Lemon, show us where the judge misapplied Lemon. if all else fails you could always (again) declare this off topic and ask me to start another thread.
I will not be diverted. Provide evidence of your assertion, because until you do all you capable of is making unsupported assertions from a position of self-proclaimed and wilful ignorance. I say wilful because you refuse even to read parts of the transcript, even when links have been provided. Before you say anything - it is on topic and will stay in this thread unless an admin deems that supporting your assertions that Dover has no significance because it is wrong, is off topic.
I suggest that in a topic with the title "The Significance of the Dover Decision", providing evidence for your position that it has no significance is very much on topic, especially when you declare it has no significance because it is wrong. That means provide evidence that it is wrong.
I wonder how many different ways I have to say this?
You don't really seem too interested in discussing the significance of the Dover decision, but if I could slip into admin mode for just a bit to comment on one thing:
It may be the author's opinion that his research supports ID, but how are scientists going to know this if he only points it out at ID websites instead of in the paper itself?
Imo, this argument is disingenious.
I wouldn't recommend making these kinds of characterizations. Nor accusations of witchhunts and persecution. These kinds of behaviors represent your modus operandi, it's how you draw threads into fractious discord, and they won't be permitted anymore.
I said a number of things specific to Dover, and if you'd care to comment on any of them I'd be happy to respond.
It's not an extraordinary claim. In fact, the more extraordinary claim is Darwinism and the evidence isn't there.
Uh huh. Your incredulity or personal belief is irrelevant. There are 200 years worth of scientific research and evidence in favor of Evolution, including direct observation of the process.
The only evidence brought forward for ID is incredulity and faith.
Which is why it was struck down at the Dover trial - it's religion in a poor disguise, which cannot be taught in schools, and cdesign proponentists are not actually doing any science. Until they start bringing extraordinary evidence to the table to back up their extraordinary claims (and violating parsimony with an additional entity in the form of a "designer" with no evidence of such an entity is most definitely an extraordinary claim), cdesign proponentists will continue to be mocked in scientific circles, and their BS will not enter classrooms.
When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.
quote:It's not an extraordinary claim. In fact, the more extraordinary claim is Darwinism and the evidence isn't there.
With this statement you demonstrate that you are willing to ignore any evidence that opposes your religious belief; you show that you are not a debater but an unreasoning zealot, blindly clinging to a particular belief and unwilling to even admit that there is evidence to the contrary.
Have you been into a science library? The journals alone take up floors! You claim there is no evidence, but have you read any of those journals? Here is a link to a current issue of Journal of Human Evolution (one of literally hundreds of journals within which the evidence is accumulating):
By the way, that link will also provide the table of contents for a lot of back issues. You can find such interesting titles as "Biomechanics of phalangeal curvature" and "Evidence of amelogenesis imperfecta in an early African Homo erectus" -- and thousands of other articles. And that is just one journal out of hundreds.
What do you call that, chopped liver? Or do you prefer to just sit there and try to wish it all away?
This is the evidence ID only wishes it had; when the Dover trial came along ID found itself holding an empty sack.
I'd appreciate a considered and on-topic reply to my post number 136 above. Either defend your assertions or retract them. If you retract them, you have to stop making them. You choose, the ball's firmly in your court.
Re: Curious to hear from iano, ICANT, other creationists
Who else has read the transcripts and decision? Common people! This is the Scopes trial of our day!
Well, I didnt want to get dragged into a "discussion" with randman, so I have only trolled on this thread...but to answer your question:
I have read the transcripts at least a couple of times and the judges ruling more than that (I even have a copy of it somewhere here in my office). I followed the trial on a daily basis. I loved it. Oddly, I found myself rather sad and lonely when it was over.
Judge Jones, who presided over Kitzmiller v. Dover, is interviewed in PLoS Genetics. The fourth issue of Evolution: Education and Outreach is now available. And Roger Ebert offers his opinion about Expelled.
JUDGE JONES IN PLOS GENETICS
Judge John E. Jones III, who presided over the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial, was interviewed by Jane Gitschier for PLoS Genetics. After recounting his legal career and sketching the legal history of the creationism/evolution controversy, Jones talked about the trial itself. Describing the expert testimony he heard, Jones commented, "I will always remember Ken Miller's testimony in the sense that he did A-Z evolution. And then got into intelligent design. And having laid the foundation with the description of evolution, got into why intelligent design doesn't work as science, to the point where it is predominantly a religious concept." He added, "But Ken Miller went into the immune system, the blood clotting cascade, and the bacterial flagellum -- all three are held out by intelligent design proponents as irreducibly complex, and in effect, having no precursors. He [Miller] knocked that down, I thought, quite effectively -- so comprehensively and so well. By the time Miller was done testifying, over the span of a couple of days, the defendants were really already in the hole."
The expert witnesses for the defense were less impressive to Jones: "Another remarkable moment on the science side was Michael Behe, who was the lead witness for the defendants, and a very amiable fellow, as was Ken Miller, but unlike Miller, in my view, Professor Behe did not distinguish himself. He did not hold up well on cross-examination." And the school board witnesses for the defense, whom Jones lambasted in his decision, he described as "dreadful witnesses ... hence the description 'breathtaking inanity' and 'mendacity.' In my view, they clearly lied under oath. They made a very poor account of themselves. They could not explain why they did what they did. They really didn't even know what intelligent design was. It was quite clear to me that they viewed intelligent design as a method to get creationism into the public school classroom. They were unfortunate and troublesome witnesses. Simply remarkable, in that sense."
Noting that the plaintiffs and defendants both asked for a ruling on the question of whether "intelligent design" constitutes science, Jones said, "if you're going to measure the effect of a particular policy, in this case juxtaposing intelligent design with evolution, on the intended recipients, you have to delve into what the policy is about. What was it about? It was about intelligent design. And to try to determine the effect on the recipients you have to determine what does that concept or phrase stand for? Hence, we got into a search and examination of what exactly does ID say, what is its basis, what are its scientific bona fides or lack thereof. That opens the door for a determination of whether ID is in fact science. And that is what that part of the opinion was. ... I wrote about whether ID, as presented to me, in that courtroom from September to November of 2005, was science, and I said it was not. That it was the progeny, the successor to creationism and creation science. That it was dressed-up creationism."
Looking forward, Jones expressed uncertainty about the long-term effect of the Kitzmiller decision, commenting, "This is speculation on my part -- I don't think that the concept of ID itself has a lot of vitality going forward. The Dover trial discredited that thing that is ID. To the extent that I follow it -- I'm curious about it, but it doesn't go any further than that -- the likely tack going forward is something like teach the controversy, talk about the alleged flaws and gaps in the theory of evolution and go to that place first." He noted that creationists in both Texas and Louisiana seem to be taking such a tack. And, he noted, there is no prospect of the creationism/evolution controversy subsiding any time soon: "They gave me the last word in 'Judgment Day' [a NOVA program on the trial] and I said this is not something that will be settled in my time or even in my grandchildren's lifetimes. It's an enduring, quintessentially American, dispute."