Jilted by Judge John Jones
Monday January 23rd, 2006. This is show # 16.
PERTINENT QUOTE OF THE SHOW
Monday January 23rd, 2006. This is show # 16.
PERTINENT QUOTE OF THE SHOW
Jilted by Judge John Jones
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
- Status
And a well deserved stinging attack it was. I think the decision had 2 prongs. The first being that ID is not science as science is done and for it to be science the very definition of the scientific method would have to be totally revamped (I recall some testimony even from ID supporters to that effect) the second being that the attempt in Dover was clearly religiously motivated.
You may disagree with it, but the case law in the area clearly states that any attempt to force a literal Genesis interpretation on the science involved is unconstitutional (in addition to being "not science"--but that is a different issue). A review of the decision clearly indicates that there was a great deal of evidence supporting the claim that the underlying motivation of the school board members who pushed the issue was Biblically based creationism. I find it amazing that The Thomas More Center, the legal group that represented the school board would have continued to push this with the knowledge of what the evidence would show. And if they did not know what the evidence would show then double shame on them. The Discovery Institute bailed on this before trial. I do not know the real reason for that but would not be surprised that they were aware of the potential evidence dealing with the religious motivation that would come and and saw the handwriting on the wall.
Our system consistently attempts to separate religion from public policy. While I personally think that legal battles over Christmas creches, menora, etc are stupid--let them be, they are part of our cultural history, the public schools are not the arena to educate in a religious manner and Dover was a situation where certain members of the school board wanted just that.
You may disagree with it, but the case law in the area clearly states that any attempt to force a literal Genesis interpretation on the science involved is unconstitutional (in addition to being "not science"--but that is a different issue). A review of the decision clearly indicates that there was a great deal of evidence supporting the claim that the underlying motivation of the school board members who pushed the issue was Biblically based creationism. I find it amazing that The Thomas More Center, the legal group that represented the school board would have continued to push this with the knowledge of what the evidence would show. And if they did not know what the evidence would show then double shame on them. The Discovery Institute bailed on this before trial. I do not know the real reason for that but would not be surprised that they were aware of the potential evidence dealing with the religious motivation that would come and and saw the handwriting on the wall.
Our system consistently attempts to separate religion from public policy. While I personally think that legal battles over Christmas creches, menora, etc are stupid--let them be, they are part of our cultural history, the public schools are not the arena to educate in a religious manner and Dover was a situation where certain members of the school board wanted just that.
First off, the public schools are not an arena where education of any manner should take place.
Now, as for your remark about the constitution, Jukia, I think you [like our politicians] need to learn to read the constitution. It says that congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion. It does not say that religion cannot be adhered to, or taught in government facilities. There is absolutely nothing in the constitution that says creationism, or ID can not be taught alongside evolution in government schools.:nono:
Now, as for your remark about the constitution, Jukia, I think you [like our politicians] need to learn to read the constitution. It says that congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion. It does not say that religion cannot be adhered to, or taught in government facilities. There is absolutely nothing in the constitution that says creationism, or ID can not be taught alongside evolution in government schools.:nono:
Clearly, you are correct about that. There is no reference in the constitution to ID, creationism or, to the best of my recollection, to science.Lighthouse said:
So ignore the constitutional issues.
Neither ID nor creationism are science. Those who believe they are science are simply wrong.
- Status