Originally Posted by
Ed
While I would like a finding today at the latest, I appreciate what the judge is doing. He knows that his finding is going to be cited and re-cited and he wants to get his ducks in a row bigtime.
Remember that interchange (from memory) about yet another phrase for ID/creationism and a lawyer saying "are we going to be having the same case except about xxx?" and the judge said "not in my courtroom".
He knows the finding right this second, his words will be far more important than the judgement itself.
That's from the forthcoming third edition of "Of Pandas and Men". The first said:
Quote:
"Creation means that various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent creator, with their distinctive features already intact — fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc."
The second, published after the 1987 Supreme Court decision that creationism was religion and not science said:
Quote:
"Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact — fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings, etc."
The next version 3.0 will have the sentence:
Quote:
"Sudden appearance means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact — fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, and mammals with fur and mammary glands, etc."
Hence, the query by the plaintiff's lawyer:
Quote:
As Eric Rothschild, one of the lawyers for the plaintiffs in the Panda Trial, asked in court, "Will we be back in a couple of years for the 'sudden appearance' trial?"
Judge John E. Jones III retorted, "Not on my docket."
All of the above quotes from Argento's column
"Of Behe and Mammary Glands"