Dover verdict is in!

KingMerv00 · 20th December 2005, 12:37 PM

Sweet.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/20/in...ign/index.html

kmortis · 20th December 2005, 12:38 PM

**Dances a dance of joy**
I guess there IS some intelligent life here on earth.

ETA: Doubly so now that I've read the article

Quote:

Jones -- an appointee of President Bush, who backs the teaching of Intelligent Design -- defended his decision in personal terms.

prewitt81 · 20th December 2005, 12:41 PM

Fantastic! I just found out myself.

HeyLeroy · 20th December 2005, 12:46 PM

Quote:

"To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions," Jones writes.

.

Gee, isn't this what we've been saying here all along?

Schneibster · 20th December 2005, 12:47 PM

* Schneibster does a happy dance.

Morrison's Lament · 20th December 2005, 12:50 PM

You guys have my heartfelt condolences that this is even an issue over there

--- G.

kmortis · 20th December 2005, 01:01 PM

Originally Posted by HeyLeroy

.

Gee, isn't this what we've been saying here all along?

[Eric Idle]No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, yes.[/Eric Idle]

KingMerv00 · 20th December 2005, 01:41 PM

Originally Posted by Morrison's Lament

You guys have my heartfelt condolences that this is even an issue over there

--- G.

What's Berlin like this time of year? Can I stay at your place?

Rockstar · 20th December 2005, 01:48 PM

Now that Intelijunt Desine is unconstitutional, the question is when will we get Creationism dressed up like something else again.

Eden Descent Theory?
Sudden Appearance From Nothing Theory?

chance · 20th December 2005, 01:53 PM

What's the spin on this decision going to be from the YEC's and or ID proponents, i wonder?

CFLarsen · 20th December 2005, 01:54 PM

It's a good day.

Bronze Dog · 20th December 2005, 01:57 PM

Originally Posted by Rockstar

Now that Intelijunt Desine is unconstitutional, the question is when will we get Creationism dressed up like something else again.

Eden Descent Theory?
Sudden Appearance From Nothing Theory?

We've been discussing what it'll get dressed up as.

Ducky · 20th December 2005, 01:57 PM

I am now going to par-tay.

Par-tay like it's 1999 I tell you.

(I'm old.)

So how fast is the Kansas board gonne be sued about this?

Morrison's Lament · 20th December 2005, 02:00 PM

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

What's Berlin like this time of year? Can I stay at your place?

Berlin is cold but nice this time of year, unfortunately I'm moving to Reykja-***********-vik next week

Hey... that rhymes.

If you want a guided tour of the misery that is Reykjavik, you and any other JREF member are welcome, I might even be able to give you a mattress to sleep on

--- G.

rwguinn · 20th December 2005, 02:16 PM

Originally Posted by chance

What's the spin on this decision going to be from the YEC's and or ID proponents, i wonder?

they'll probably use something like this to show just how rapidly it happens...
"See--We said it was quicker than Evolution can explain"

Ducky · 20th December 2005, 02:52 PM

I just read the decision in full. This part is particularly sweet:

Quote:

We will also issue a declaratory
judgment that Plaintiffs’ rights under the Constitutions of the United States and the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have been violated by Defendants’ actions.
Defendants’ actions in violation of Plaintiffs’ civil rights as guaranteed to them by
the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 subject Defendants to
liability with respect to injunctive and declaratory relief, but also for nominal
damages and the reasonable value of Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ services and costs
incurred in vindicating Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.

So not only did Jones say it's not science and that it violates the constitutional rights of students, but they left the defendants open to civil suit seeking compensation.

Nice message. Not only did the judge say "You're wrong" but he also said "and you can pay for it too."

That'll make IDers think twice...

ETA:
Sorry, I misread. It does not mean they are open to monetary damages per se, it means the defendants have to pay court costs and attorney's fees. That's standard.

HighRiser · 20th December 2005, 03:14 PM

I'm soooooo glad science and common sense have prevailed in this case!

Red Siegfried · 20th December 2005, 03:31 PM

Hahahaha. I just got banned from freerepublic.com during a thread about the Dover case for telling a guy who was pursuing a Master's degree in lab tech that "not caring whether he's right or wrong [about ID]" (his words) is pretty sad and that I hope my lab equipment doesn't start rounding pi to 3. Besides, if he didn't care if he was right or wrong, why was he arguing with me?

It's slightly annoying, but for a site that claims to love freedom of speech they are very quick to ban anyone who disagrees with ID, labelling them a troll. And I'm a pretty conservative guy who agrees with most of the rest of what they have on that site!

Funny how these boards let trolls blather on and on and on, on the off chance that they might have something important to say and in some cases they have to actually break the law before they get banned. Who is more tolerant in that case - skeptics or creationists? (I won't go calling all conservatives intolerant, however, because I know they're not - I AM a tolerant conservative - a REAL conservative.)

They are trying to frame the argument as saying that kids should be free to discuss ID in school. I agreed, saying that kids should be free to discuss just about anything in school, but ID still shouldn't be part of the science curriculum.

Maybe I went too far when I said that if kids want to believe ID is science and evolution is a conspiracy against them, that's cool with me because the world needs ditchdiggers too and I like getting my fries nice and hot. What do you think?

Tell me if you think I was out of line:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1544168/posts

Ducky · 20th December 2005, 03:35 PM

Originally Posted by Red Siegfried

Hahahaha. I just got banned from freerepublic.com during a thread about the Dover case for telling a guy who was pursuing a Master's degree in lab tech that "not caring whether he's right or wrong [about ID]" (his words) is pretty sad and that I hope my lab equipment doesn't start rounding pi to 3. Besides, if he didn't care if he was right or wrong, why was he arguing with me?

It's slightly annoying, but for a site that claims to love freedom of speech they are very quick to ban anyone who disagrees with ID, labelling them a troll. And I'm a pretty conservative guy who agrees with most of the rest of what they have on that site!

Funny how these boards let trolls blather on and on and on, on the off chance that they might have something important to say and in some cases they have to actually break the law before they get banned. Who is more tolerant in that case - skeptics or creationists? (I won't go calling all conservatives intolerant, however, because I know they're not - I AM a tolerant conservative - a REAL conservative.)

They are trying to frame the argument as saying that kids should be free to discuss ID in school. I agreed, saying that kids should be free to discuss just about anything in school, but ID still shouldn't be part of the science curriculum.

Maybe I went too far when I said that if kids want to believe ID is science and evolution is a conspiracy against them, that's cool with me because the world needs ditchdiggers too and I like getting my fries nice and hot. What do you think?

Tell you what: I'd buy you a beer for that banning if you were in the Twin Cities.

Nice job.

Red Siegfried · 20th December 2005, 03:41 PM

Guess what, dude? I am. I work in Roseville.

Thanks for the offer .. BTW, I was somewhat biting in my comments, but you guys can tell me if I'm out of line or not - I just edited my post above with a link to the thread.

Sorry, I just can't help baiting the fundies sometimes. Gets me in trouble once in a while.

BillC · 20th December 2005, 03:42 PM

Sweet. I expected the decision to favour the plaintiffs. but never remotely expected the judge's verdict would be anything like as damning as it was. Everyone seems to be posting their favourite excerpts, so here is mine:

The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.

Ducky · 20th December 2005, 03:43 PM

Originally Posted by Red Siegfried

Guess what, dude? I am. I work in Roseville.

Thanks for the offer .. BTW, I was somewhat biting in my comments, but you guys can tell me if I'm out of line or not - I just edited my post above with a link to the thread.

Sorry, I just can't help baiting the fundies sometimes. Gets me in trouble once in a while.

Understandable! We should get a Twin Cities meeting of skeptics together. We could all meet at the Liffey in St. Paul for Guinness and fun times.

That offer for a pint stands. Let me know if you're down by me sometime.

BillC · 20th December 2005, 03:46 PM

Originally Posted by Morrison's Lament

Berlin is cold but nice this time of year, unfortunately I'm moving to Reykja-***********-vik next week

Hey... that rhymes.

If you want a guided tour of the misery that is Reykjavik, you and any other JREF member are welcome, I might even be able to give you a mattress to sleep on

--- G.

The Blue Lagoon is warm all year round!

Jon. · 20th December 2005, 03:48 PM

What a great judgment! I'm only about 2/3 of the way through reading it, but here are some highlights:

On whether the disclaimer is religious in nature:

Quote:

In summary, the disclaimer singles out the theory of evolution for special treatment, misrepresents its status in the scientific community, causes students to doubt its validity without scientific justification, presents students with a religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory, directs them to consult a creationist text as though it were a science resource, and instructs students to forego scientific inquiry in the public school classroom and instead to seek out religious instruction elsewhere. Furthermore, as Drs. Alters and Miller testified, introducing ID necessarily invites religion into the science classroom as it sets up what will be perceived by students as a "God-friendly" science, the one that explicitly mentions an intelligent designer, and that the "other science," evolution, takes no position on religion. (p. 49)

On whether ID is science:

Quote:

After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. As we will discuss in more detail below, it is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research. (p. 64)

On Of Pandas and People, the "textbook" referred to in the Dover School Board's "disclaimer":

Quote:

Accordingly, the one textbook to which the Dover ID Policy directs students contains outdated concepts and badly flawed science, as recognized by even the defense experts in this case. (pp. 86-87)

On the goals of the proponents of ID (referred to as the "IDM" for "Intelligent Design Movement"):

Quote:

After this searching and careful review of ID as espoused by its proponents, as elaborated upon in submissions to the Court, and as scrutinized over a six week trial, we find that ID is not science and cannot be adjudged a valid, accepted scientific theory as it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals, engage in research and testing, and gain acceptance in the scientific community. ID, as noted, is grounded in theology, not science. Accepting for the sake of argument its proponents’, as well as Defendants’ argument that to introduce ID to students will encourage critical thinking, it still has utterly no place in a science curriculum. Moreover, ID’s backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID. (pp. 88-89)

tkingdoll · 20th December 2005, 03:49 PM

DING DONG THE WITCH IS DEAD!

Does anyone else feel like 'we' won? I'm taking this victory really personally even though I'm childless and British.

Rolfe · 20th December 2005, 04:06 PM

Rolfe.

Dragon · 20th December 2005, 04:10 PM

Originally Posted by Morrison's Lament

You guys have my heartfelt condolences that this is even an issue over there

--- G.

I don't know about Germany or Iceland, but those of us in the UK have absolutely no reason to feel smug about this: - link

I have enjoyed following the Dover trial and the judgement is more than the icing on the cake - I'm with you, tkingdoll, it does feel like "we" won.

Panelman · 20th December 2005, 04:11 PM

Anybody know where we could send some thanks or some attaboy's to Judge Jones.

Diamond · 20th December 2005, 04:22 PM

I don't care who appointed Judge Jones, but the Judge appears to have the clear thinking of someone in clear command of his facts and not swayed by religious arguments. If this is a Conservative judge (and I've no reason to believe otherwise), then this is the type of Conservatism which I can admire and respect, because it deals head on with religious claims in a secular context without disparagement of religion but standing fully behind established legal precedent which is utterly uncontroversial all the way to the US Supreme Court.

What I hope this judgment does is spur people in Kansas to stand up for their rights under the First Amendment. I note that Red State Rabble is very excited.

Do you think Pat Robertson will issue a fatwa on Judge Jones?

Diamond · 20th December 2005, 04:24 PM

Originally Posted by Dragon

I don't know about Germany or Iceland, but those of us in the UK have absolutely no reason to feel smug about this: - link

I have enjoyed following the Dover trial and the judgement is more than the icing on the cake - I'm with you, tkingdoll, it does feel like "we" won.

We have no constitution, no separation of church and state - quite the opposite.

hellaeon · 20th December 2005, 04:30 PM

PRAISE THE LORD

this rules, what a great day

Hawk one · 20th December 2005, 04:34 PM

But if we evolved from monkeys, how come TragicMonkey exists?

William Parcher · 20th December 2005, 05:40 PM

I wonder what the courst costs and attorney fees are for this trial (the total liability for a civil suit against the previous Dover board members).

I'm not much pleased that there isn't a mechanism of our courts whereby a suit that is seeking a religious initiative is not allowed or is comprehensively informed that civil suits (to recover costs) would be entertained.

ranson · 20th December 2005, 05:46 PM

I'm still wary of the judge declaring ID "not science", though. It isn't of course, but allowing a judge to declare that one way or the other sets a dangerous precedent. I know it's been discussed here at length, but I keep picturing oil companies suing climate researchers over global warming . . .

Ducky · 20th December 2005, 05:46 PM

Originally Posted by William Parcher

I wonder what the courst costs and attorney fees are for this trial (the total liability for a civil suit against the previous Dover board members).

I'm not much pleased that there isn't a mechanism of our courts whereby a suit that is seeking a religious initiative is not allowed or is comprehensively informed that civil suits (to recover costs) would be entertained.

If I'm not mistaken, they can in fact be held accountable for damages. There would need to be a suit showing damages, but those found to be violating civil rights are held to civil accountability.

I think, in this case, since no damages were sought, none are awarded other than the standard court/attorney costs.

I might be mistaken. I never read the initial complaint.

patchbunny · 20th December 2005, 05:51 PM

Originally Posted by Hawk one

But if we evolved from monkeys, how come TragicMonkey exists?

It's a tragedy, I tell you. A tragedy.

I called into a talk radio program discussing the decision this afternoon and read off the judge's wonderful quote:

"The breathtaking inanity of the Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources."

Ahh... 'tis a good day.

Red Siegfried · 20th December 2005, 06:03 PM

Originally Posted by fowlsound

If I'm not mistaken, they can in fact be held accountable for damages. There would need to be a suit showing damages, but those found to be violating civil rights are held to civil accountability.

I think, in this case, since no damages were sought, none are awarded other than the standard court/attorney costs.

I might be mistaken. I never read the initial complaint.

Rhetorical question: What price should one pay for attempted murder of the truth?

William Parcher · 20th December 2005, 06:11 PM

Originally Posted by ranson

I'm still wary of the judge declaring ID "not science", though. It isn't of course, but allowing a judge to declare that one way or the other sets a dangerous precedent. I know it's been discussed here at length, but I keep picturing oil companies suing climate researchers over global warming . . .

This might be different. I don't think Judge Jones ruled that ID isn't science... he ruled that it is religion. In a case of oil companies vs. climate researchers it would be science vs. science (with one of them presumably being faulty or meaningfully incomplete science).

I'm concerned that judges might be required to determine if something is religious.

patchbunny · 20th December 2005, 06:18 PM

Originally Posted by William Parcher

This might be different. I don't think Judge Jones ruled that ID isn't science... he ruled that it is religion. In a case of oil companies vs. climate researchers it would be science vs. science (with one of them presumably being faulty or meaningfully incomplete science).

I'm concerned that judges might be required to determine if something is religious.

I believe he did declare ID isn't science.

"The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents." (p.136)

ranson · 20th December 2005, 06:20 PM

Page 64 of the decision begins a whole section on why ID isn't science. That it is religion was discussed as an earlier part of the decision.

20th December 2005, 12:37 PM	#1
KingMerv00 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Philadelphia Posts: 14,459	Dover verdict is in! Sweet. http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/20/in...ign/index.html

20th December 2005, 12:38 PM	#2
kmortis Biomechanoid Director of IDIOCY (Region 13) Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: New Texas (aka SOMD) Posts: 31,994	Dances a dance of joy I guess there IS some intelligent life here on earth. ETA: Doubly so now that I've read the article Quote: Jones -- an appointee of President Bush, who backs the teaching of Intelligent Design -- defended his decision in personal terms.
	__________________ -Aberhaten did it - "Which gives us an answer to our question. What’s the worst thing that can happen in a pressure cooker?" Randall Munroe -Director of Independent Determining Inquisitor Of Crazy Yapping - Aberhaten's Apothegm™ - An Internet law that states that optimism is indistinguishable from sarcasm Last edited by kmortis; 20th December 2005 at 12:41 PM.

20th December 2005, 12:41 PM	#3
prewitt81 Notoriously Glorious Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 2,218	Fantastic! I just found out myself.
	__________________ Knowledge is Power! "If we want to teach the Moon is green cheese then we'll do it!" -- Eric Hovind defending his father's pro-creationist stance. (http://www.kent-hovind.com/) "Believe those who seek the truth. Doubt those who find it."

20th December 2005, 12:46 PM	#4
HeyLeroy Vegan Cannibal Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 5,567	Quote: "To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions," Jones writes. . Gee, isn't this what we've been saying here all along?
HeyLeroy Vegan Cannibal Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 5,567	__________________ Cows are in large numbers, and do not serve any other purpose, other than to eat grass, and moo -- makaya325 I ♥ my kids. I ♠ my dog. I ♣ my baby Harp Seal.

20th December 2005, 12:47 PM	#5
Schneibster Guest Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 3,966	* Schneibster does a happy dance.
Schneibster Guest Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 3,966

20th December 2005, 12:50 PM	#6
Morrison's Lament Critical Thinker Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 271	You guys have my heartfelt condolences that this is even an issue over there --- G.

20th December 2005, 01:01 PM	#7
kmortis Biomechanoid Director of IDIOCY (Region 13) Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: New Texas (aka SOMD) Posts: 31,994	Originally Posted by HeyLeroy . Gee, isn't this what we've been saying here all along? [Eric Idle]No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, yes.[/Eric Idle]
	__________________ -Aberhaten did it - "Which gives us an answer to our question. What’s the worst thing that can happen in a pressure cooker?" Randall Munroe -Director of Independent Determining Inquisitor Of Crazy Yapping - Aberhaten's Apothegm™ - An Internet law that states that optimism is indistinguishable from sarcasm

20th December 2005, 01:41 PM	#8
KingMerv00 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Philadelphia Posts: 14,459	Originally Posted by Morrison's Lament You guys have my heartfelt condolences that this is even an issue over there --- G. What's Berlin like this time of year? Can I stay at your place?

20th December 2005, 01:48 PM	#9
Rockstar Scholar Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 91	Now that Intelijunt Desine is unconstitutional, the question is when will we get Creationism dressed up like something else again. Eden Descent Theory? Sudden Appearance From Nothing Theory?
Rockstar Scholar Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 91	__________________ A day without booze is like...well, actually I have no idea what that's like... http://rockstarramblings.blogspot.com

20th December 2005, 01:53 PM	#10
chance Critical Thinker Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 430	What's the spin on this decision going to be from the YEC's and or ID proponents, i wonder?
chance Critical Thinker Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 430

20th December 2005, 01:54 PM	#11
CFLarsen Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 42,371	It's a good day.

20th December 2005, 01:57 PM	#12
Bronze Dog Copper Alloy Canid Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 4,993	Originally Posted by Rockstar Now that Intelijunt Desine is unconstitutional, the question is when will we get Creationism dressed up like something else again. Eden Descent Theory? Sudden Appearance From Nothing Theory? We've been discussing what it'll get dressed up as.
	__________________ Stop Sylvia Browne Warning: Beware of contaminated water supplies! Suspected source of contamination: Sarah-I A non-Rockstar Rambler and dissector of Doggerel

20th December 2005, 01:57 PM	#13
Ducky Guest Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 11,933	I am now going to par-tay. Par-tay like it's 1999 I tell you. (I'm old.) So how fast is the Kansas board gonne be sued about this?
Ducky Guest Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 11,933

20th December 2005, 02:00 PM	#14
Morrison's Lament Critical Thinker Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 271	Originally Posted by KingMerv00 What's Berlin like this time of year? Can I stay at your place? Berlin is cold but nice this time of year, unfortunately I'm moving to Reykja-***********-vik next week Hey... that rhymes. If you want a guided tour of the misery that is Reykjavik, you and any other JREF member are welcome, I might even be able to give you a mattress to sleep on --- G.

20th December 2005, 02:16 PM	#15
rwguinn Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes Posts: 11,098	Originally Posted by chance What's the spin on this decision going to be from the YEC's and or ID proponents, i wonder? they'll probably use something like this to show just how rapidly it happens... "See--We said it was quicker than Evolution can explain"
	__________________ "Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end." "I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275

20th December 2005, 02:52 PM	#16
Ducky Guest Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 11,933	I just read the decision in full. This part is particularly sweet: Quote: We will also issue a declaratory judgment that Plaintiffs’ rights under the Constitutions of the United States and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have been violated by Defendants’ actions. Defendants’ actions in violation of Plaintiffs’ civil rights as guaranteed to them by the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 subject Defendants to liability with respect to injunctive and declaratory relief, but also for nominal damages and the reasonable value of Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ services and costs incurred in vindicating Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. So not only did Jones say it's not science and that it violates the constitutional rights of students, but they left the defendants open to civil suit seeking compensation. Nice message. Not only did the judge say "You're wrong" but he also said "and you can pay for it too." That'll make IDers think twice... ETA: Sorry, I misread. It does not mean they are open to monetary damages per se, it means the defendants have to pay court costs and attorney's fees. That's standard.
Ducky Guest Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 11,933	Last edited by Ducky; 20th December 2005 at 02:55 PM.

20th December 2005, 03:14 PM	#17
HighRiser Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: High above Indianapolis Posts: 1,905	I'm soooooo glad science and common sense have prevailed in this case!

20th December 2005, 03:31 PM	#18
Red Siegfried Muse Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 584	Hahahaha. I just got banned from freerepublic.com during a thread about the Dover case for telling a guy who was pursuing a Master's degree in lab tech that "not caring whether he's right or wrong [about ID]" (his words) is pretty sad and that I hope my lab equipment doesn't start rounding pi to 3. Besides, if he didn't care if he was right or wrong, why was he arguing with me? It's slightly annoying, but for a site that claims to love freedom of speech they are very quick to ban anyone who disagrees with ID, labelling them a troll. And I'm a pretty conservative guy who agrees with most of the rest of what they have on that site! Funny how these boards let trolls blather on and on and on, on the off chance that they might have something important to say and in some cases they have to actually break the law before they get banned. Who is more tolerant in that case - skeptics or creationists? (I won't go calling all conservatives intolerant, however, because I know they're not - I AM a tolerant conservative - a REAL conservative.) They are trying to frame the argument as saying that kids should be free to discuss ID in school. I agreed, saying that kids should be free to discuss just about anything in school, but ID still shouldn't be part of the science curriculum. Maybe I went too far when I said that if kids want to believe ID is science and evolution is a conspiracy against them, that's cool with me because the world needs ditchdiggers too and I like getting my fries nice and hot. What do you think? Tell me if you think I was out of line: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1544168/posts
Red Siegfried Muse Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 584	__________________ Books are from the Devil and TV is twice as fast. -Master Shake Last edited by Red Siegfried; 20th December 2005 at 03:38 PM.

20th December 2005, 03:35 PM	#19
Ducky Guest Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 11,933	Originally Posted by Red Siegfried Hahahaha. I just got banned from freerepublic.com during a thread about the Dover case for telling a guy who was pursuing a Master's degree in lab tech that "not caring whether he's right or wrong [about ID]" (his words) is pretty sad and that I hope my lab equipment doesn't start rounding pi to 3. Besides, if he didn't care if he was right or wrong, why was he arguing with me? It's slightly annoying, but for a site that claims to love freedom of speech they are very quick to ban anyone who disagrees with ID, labelling them a troll. And I'm a pretty conservative guy who agrees with most of the rest of what they have on that site! Funny how these boards let trolls blather on and on and on, on the off chance that they might have something important to say and in some cases they have to actually break the law before they get banned. Who is more tolerant in that case - skeptics or creationists? (I won't go calling all conservatives intolerant, however, because I know they're not - I AM a tolerant conservative - a REAL conservative.) They are trying to frame the argument as saying that kids should be free to discuss ID in school. I agreed, saying that kids should be free to discuss just about anything in school, but ID still shouldn't be part of the science curriculum. Maybe I went too far when I said that if kids want to believe ID is science and evolution is a conspiracy against them, that's cool with me because the world needs ditchdiggers too and I like getting my fries nice and hot. What do you think? Tell you what: I'd buy you a beer for that banning if you were in the Twin Cities. Nice job.
Ducky Guest Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 11,933

20th December 2005, 03:41 PM	#20
Red Siegfried Muse Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 584	Guess what, dude? I am. I work in Roseville. Thanks for the offer .. BTW, I was somewhat biting in my comments, but you guys can tell me if I'm out of line or not - I just edited my post above with a link to the thread. Sorry, I just can't help baiting the fundies sometimes. Gets me in trouble once in a while.
Red Siegfried Muse Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 584	__________________ Books are from the Devil and TV is twice as fast. -Master Shake

20th December 2005, 03:42 PM	#21
BillC Bazooka Joe Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 5,547	Sweet. I expected the decision to favour the plaintiffs. but never remotely expected the judge's verdict would be anything like as damning as it was. Everyone seems to be posting their favourite excerpts, so here is mine: The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.
BillC Bazooka Joe Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 5,547

20th December 2005, 03:43 PM	#22
Ducky Guest Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 11,933	Originally Posted by Red Siegfried Guess what, dude? I am. I work in Roseville. Thanks for the offer .. BTW, I was somewhat biting in my comments, but you guys can tell me if I'm out of line or not - I just edited my post above with a link to the thread. Sorry, I just can't help baiting the fundies sometimes. Gets me in trouble once in a while. Understandable! We should get a Twin Cities meeting of skeptics together. We could all meet at the Liffey in St. Paul for Guinness and fun times. That offer for a pint stands. Let me know if you're down by me sometime.
Ducky Guest Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 11,933

20th December 2005, 03:46 PM	#23
BillC Bazooka Joe Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 5,547	Originally Posted by Morrison's Lament Berlin is cold but nice this time of year, unfortunately I'm moving to Reykja-***********-vik next week Hey... that rhymes. If you want a guided tour of the misery that is Reykjavik, you and any other JREF member are welcome, I might even be able to give you a mattress to sleep on --- G. The Blue Lagoon is warm all year round!
BillC Bazooka Joe Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 5,547

20th December 2005, 03:48 PM	#24
Jon. Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 3,450	What a great judgment! I'm only about 2/3 of the way through reading it, but here are some highlights: On whether the disclaimer is religious in nature: Quote: In summary, the disclaimer singles out the theory of evolution for special treatment, misrepresents its status in the scientific community, causes students to doubt its validity without scientific justification, presents students with a religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory, directs them to consult a creationist text as though it were a science resource, and instructs students to forego scientific inquiry in the public school classroom and instead to seek out religious instruction elsewhere. Furthermore, as Drs. Alters and Miller testified, introducing ID necessarily invites religion into the science classroom as it sets up what will be perceived by students as a "God-friendly" science, the one that explicitly mentions an intelligent designer, and that the "other science," evolution, takes no position on religion. (p. 49) On whether ID is science: Quote: After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. As we will discuss in more detail below, it is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research. (p. 64) On Of Pandas and People, the "textbook" referred to in the Dover School Board's "disclaimer": Quote: Accordingly, the one textbook to which the Dover ID Policy directs students contains outdated concepts and badly flawed science, as recognized by even the defense experts in this case. (pp. 86-87) On the goals of the proponents of ID (referred to as the "IDM" for "Intelligent Design Movement"): Quote: After this searching and careful review of ID as espoused by its proponents, as elaborated upon in submissions to the Court, and as scrutinized over a six week trial, we find that ID is not science and cannot be adjudged a valid, accepted scientific theory as it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals, engage in research and testing, and gain acceptance in the scientific community. ID, as noted, is grounded in theology, not science. Accepting for the sake of argument its proponents’, as well as Defendants’ argument that to introduce ID to students will encourage critical thinking, it still has utterly no place in a science curriculum. Moreover, ID’s backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID. (pp. 88-89)
Jon. Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 3,450

20th December 2005, 03:49 PM	#25
tkingdoll Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 12,382	DING DONG THE WITCH IS DEAD! Does anyone else feel like 'we' won? I'm taking this victory really personally even though I'm childless and British.

20th December 2005, 04:06 PM	#26
Rolfe Adult human female Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: NT 150 511 Posts: 50,593	Rolfe.
	__________________ "The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

20th December 2005, 04:10 PM	#27
Dragon Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 1,639	Originally Posted by Morrison's Lament You guys have my heartfelt condolences that this is even an issue over there --- G. I don't know about Germany or Iceland, but those of us in the UK have absolutely no reason to feel smug about this: - link I have enjoyed following the Dover trial and the judgement is more than the icing on the cake - I'm with you, tkingdoll, it does feel like "we" won.
Dragon Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 1,639

20th December 2005, 04:11 PM	#28
Panelman Student Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 27	Anybody know where we could send some thanks or some attaboy's to Judge Jones.
Panelman Student Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 27

20th December 2005, 04:22 PM	#29
Diamond Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 4,729	I don't care who appointed Judge Jones, but the Judge appears to have the clear thinking of someone in clear command of his facts and not swayed by religious arguments. If this is a Conservative judge (and I've no reason to believe otherwise), then this is the type of Conservatism which I can admire and respect, because it deals head on with religious claims in a secular context without disparagement of religion but standing fully behind established legal precedent which is utterly uncontroversial all the way to the US Supreme Court. What I hope this judgment does is spur people in Kansas to stand up for their rights under the First Amendment. I note that Red State Rabble is very excited. Do you think Pat Robertson will issue a fatwa on Judge Jones?
Diamond Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 4,729

20th December 2005, 04:24 PM	#30
Diamond Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 4,729	Originally Posted by Dragon I don't know about Germany or Iceland, but those of us in the UK have absolutely no reason to feel smug about this: - link I have enjoyed following the Dover trial and the judgement is more than the icing on the cake - I'm with you, tkingdoll, it does feel like "we" won. We have no constitution, no separation of church and state - quite the opposite.
Diamond Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 4,729

20th December 2005, 04:30 PM	#31
hellaeon Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 1,488	PRAISE THE LORD this rules, what a great day

20th December 2005, 04:34 PM	#32
Hawk one Emperor of the Internet Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Right below The Hat. Posts: 13,685	But if we evolved from monkeys, how come TragicMonkey exists?
	__________________ Boynott everything! If only health care was like video games. Then the ones who could pay for it would get it, and the ones who couldn't would die, like nature intended for people without money. A perfect system, right? RIGHT? Last edited by Hawk one; 20th December 2005 at 05:45 PM.

20th December 2005, 05:40 PM	#33
William Parcher Show me the monkey! Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 26,112	I wonder what the courst costs and attorney fees are for this trial (the total liability for a civil suit against the previous Dover board members). I'm not much pleased that there isn't a mechanism of our courts whereby a suit that is seeking a religious initiative is not allowed or is comprehensively informed that civil suits (to recover costs) would be entertained.
	__________________ Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.

20th December 2005, 05:46 PM	#34
ranson Scheme Monkey Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 1,045	I'm still wary of the judge declaring ID "not science", though. It isn't of course, but allowing a judge to declare that one way or the other sets a dangerous precedent. I know it's been discussed here at length, but I keep picturing oil companies suing climate researchers over global warming . . .
ranson Scheme Monkey Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 1,045

20th December 2005, 05:51 PM	#36
patchbunny Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2004 Location: Right about... here. Posts: 1,854	Originally Posted by Hawk one But if we evolved from monkeys, how come TragicMonkey exists? It's a tragedy, I tell you. A tragedy. I called into a talk radio program discussing the decision this afternoon and read off the judge's wonderful quote: "The breathtaking inanity of the Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources." Ahh... 'tis a good day.
	__________________ "So, they laugh at my boner, will they? I'll show them! I'll show them how many boners the Joker can make!" -- The Joker, Batman #66