3rd Although we got a scolding for the prolonged partisan wrangling at the State Capitol in recent years, Minnesota ranked third in the overall performance of its governments (a B-plus, tied with six others) in an annual study by Governing magazine. Highest marks were for money management.
As the contents of the report have been sealed, Barrett is unable to offer details, but sources say the most serious of the allegations concerns, in part, the use of the Internal Revenue Service under the Clinton administration to intimidate political foes. The charges in the report could embarrass former members and associates of the Clinton White House, including former first lady and Sen Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., say the sources.
"Some people have said it contains some serious allegations, and when people see the report, they can decide for themselves," Barrett said.
The key word here? National security. The key thought here? Carping Dems are not to be trusted. The key political issue here? There's a good reason why the United States has not been attacked since 9-11: Tough security policies by the entire U.S. government, at home and abroad, designed and administered by the Bush administration, are in place.
 In order to build on their recent polling successes, as well as their policy gains, the Bushies need to articulate a few basic points and then package them into a national message. In other words, they must nationalize the midterm elections of 2006, just as they did in 2002 (when they discussed terror war security) and just as the Gingrich Republicans did in 1994 (when smaller government, lower taxes and no socialized healthcare took center stage).
The atheist evolutionists would not have made such a big case out of the four innocuous paragraphs ordered by the Dover school board unless they were pursuing an ideological cause. They converted the trial into a grand inquisition of religious beliefs instead of addressing science or the statement to be read to students.
>>>>
In an era of judicial supremacy, Judge Jones' biased and religiously bigoted decision is way over the top. His decision will ultimately hurt the evolutionist cause because it shows that the evolutionists cannot defend their beliefs on the merits; they can only survive by censoring alternate views.
Contrary to popular (amongst the wingnuts) belief, the theory of evolution is neutral on the subject of the existence of a creator. There are probably as many scientists who will tell you that the process of evolution confirms their religious beliefs as there are who tell you that studying evolution turned them into atheists. Most mainstream christian churches have no problem with the teaching of the theory of evolution.
It was the Dover school board that was pushing an ideological agenda, and the trial court dealt extensively with the scientific evidence, coming to the conclusion that it is ID which cannot muster an argument with scientific merit. I suggest you read the decision, jethro; it's thorough, it's impeccably reasoned, and quite witty.
Contrary to popular belief, the theory of evolution is neutral on the subject of the existence of a creator. Then there should be no problem mentioning that in class.There are probably as many scientists who will tell you that the process of evolution confirms their religious beliefs as there are who tell you that studying evolution turned them into atheists. Again, there should be no problem mentioning that in class.   Most mainstream christian churches have no problem with the teaching of the theory of evolution. And there are very few people promoting ID have a problem with it, either.
It was the Dover school board that was pushing an ideological agenda, and the trial court dealt extensively with the scientific evidence, coming to the conclusion that it is ID which cannot muster an argument with scientific merit. Federal courts should not be deciding what should or should not be taught in class. The school board, kept in check by the local taxpayers should. But of course you and your ilk are opposed to that. I suggest you read the decision, jethro; it's thorough, it's impeccably reasoned, and quite witty. It is what it is. It is written by a person that does not understand the place of the courts in our governmental system. He is a lot like you in that regard.
On November 19, 2004, the Defendant Dover Area School District announced by press release that, commencing in January 2005, teachers would be required to read the following statement to students in the ninth grade biology class at Dover High School:
The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin's Theory of Evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.
Because Darwin's Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.
Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves.
With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the Origins of Life to individual students and their families. As a Standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on Standards-based assessments.
The above is what pieter and other extremists were opposed to. The fact that they oppose such a thoughtful and inclusive proposal should indicate to any rational person just how intolerant they are.
Your statement that "very few people promoting ID have a problem with [the theory of evolution], either" is laughable. The only thing that ID has going for it is a bunch of specious arguments against the theory of evolution, and the champions of ID are not shy about denouncing the ToE as the cause of most of the evil in the modern world.
Governing Goals * To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies. * To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.
Your statement that "very few people promoting ID have a problem with [the theory of evolution], either" is laughable. It is clear that you are biased. Extremists often are.
I suppose a dull mind would find it dull. As to turgid -- hey -- it's your profession, and you should know that having to make each and every detail perfectly clear is not going to produce prose like USA Today.
So -- tell me where you find Judge Jones's reasoning faulty. Page numbers, please.
Yes, I am biased -- on the side of reason and evidence. I quote you the goals of the Discovery Institute, and you pass over them like there was nothing there.
Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when consid ered 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.
The judge wrote the above. His opinion that it was an "utter waste of monetary and personal resources" shows his bias. A prudent judge, one that does not want to show his bias, would have said that the prior case law requires his decision. But no. He had to put in his personal opinion. He obviously refuses to recognize that to overturn bad constitutional law, the case must be taken to the courts. The legislature cannot do it. The former school board was doing a civic duty defending this case against extremists that have subverted our government.
I suppose a dull mind would find it dull. As to turgid -- hey -- it's your profession, and you should know that having to make each and every detail perfectly clear is not going to produce prose like USA Today.
Most district court decisions seldom exceed a few pages. This trash goes on and on and on.
So -- tell me where you find Judge Jones's reasoning faulty. Page numbers, please. The premise from which he starts is incorrect. We have discussed that before.
His opinion that it was an "utter waste of monetary and personal resources" shows his bias.
Had he written that before the trial, you would be correct, but that was his decision after hearing six weeks of testimony from a lot of expert witnesses. That's not his bias, that is his decision after hearing the evidence.
The premise from which he starts is incorrect. We have discussed that before.
No, we haven't. You've simply stamped your pretty little foot like a prom queen and said "That's wrong!"
You have no interest in reason or evidence. You want certain things quashed and the hell with reason or evidence.
Give me evidence that ID is science and I'll listen. Give me testable hypotheses, design experiments to falsify the premises, show me repeatable, definitive research and I'm in your corner. Until you've actually DONE some science, to insist that your hypothesis be put on an equal footing with one of the most solidly backed theories in the scientific realm is "breathtaking inanity."
Quite frankly, I was disappointed that biochemist Michael Behe, one of the foremost proponents of ID and the creator of the "irreducible ccomplexity" argument, had nothing in the way of experiment or observation to back his views. I really though he had more in his arsenal than this
Had he written that before the trial, you would be correct, but that was his decision after hearing six weeks of testimony from a lot of expert witnesses. That is his personal opinion. That is what an activist judge does. He imposes his personal opinions rather than legal opinions into cases.  Whether it is a waste of taxpayer dollars is in the eye of the beholder and not a legal question. It certainly was not one to be addressed by a court.That's not his bias, that is his decision after hearing the evidence. I
t most certainly did show his personal bias. He would have been wise not to made such a a statement.Â
The premise from which he starts is incorrect. We have discussed that before.
No, we haven't. Yes we have, dumb shit. You've simply stamped your pretty little foot like a prom queen and said "That's wrong!" I Have explained numerous times whyit is wrong. I explained how historically how the plain language of the first amendment was treated when it came to religious issues in the states.  Some states in fact had state religions and school prayer until the likes of Hugo Black expounded their revisionist history. You simply disregard the facts and the reasons that were set forth.
You have no interest in reason or evidence. You want certain things quashed and the hell with reason or evidence.
Give me evidence that ID is science and I'll listen. It is irrelevant that it is science. What is relevant is that students are provided a rounded education not just what extremists like you think should be taught and forced on society through nondemocratic means. What is also relevant is that a court should no be supervising the inner working of what is and is not taught in class. That is a legislative function not a judicial function. Give me testable hypotheses, design experiments to falsify the premises, show me repeatable, definitive research and I'm in your corner. And of course, once again, you miss the point. That argument is fine for making the determination in school board meetings on what should and should not be taught. It is tyranny to have a court usurp legislative prerogatives simply to get the result that you prefer. Until you've actually DONE some science, to insist that your hypothesis be put on an equal footing with one of the most solidly backed theories in the scientific realm is "breathtaking inanity." Is philosophy any less of an academic subject than science? Can the two really  be separated? Only if ones goal is to indoctrinate instead of teach.
It is irrelevant that it is science. What is relevant is that students are provided a rounded education not just what extremists like you think should be taught and forced on society through nondemocratic means.
I see. Whether or not something is science, or scientifically accurate, is irrelevant to what is taught in science class. All righty, then. All that counts to you is what a majority of the school board -- some of whom in Dover admitted not even knowing what ID is -- votes should be taught, regardless of its scientific accuracy. Should astrology be taught in science class? Alchemy? There are real astronomerss out there who think that a stationary Earth is the center of the universe. I'm sure that you know this is balderdash, but should it be taught so that students are given a "rounded education"? There's only so many hours in the day; cut the crap and teach what isbefore playing "what if?"
Is philosophy any less of an academic subject than science?
As I said they can be separated by those that want to indoctrinate instead of teach. Will the extremists sue if ID is taught in philosophy class? In terms that you can understand: You betcha'!
Ron Carey and Brian Melendez don't agree on much, but the chairmen of Minnesota's Republican and Democratic-Farmer-Labor parties concur that state voters are in for unusually spirited, intense and expensive election campaigns in 2006.Â
I see. Whether or not something is science, or scientifically accurate, is irrelevant to what is taught in science class. It certainly is in english, history and art classes. All that counts to you is what a majority of the school board -- some of whom in Dover admitted not even knowing what ID is -- votes should be taught, regardless of its scientific accuracy. It is the role of the school borad to determine what is taught. It is not the role of the federal courts. Should astrology be taught in science class? That would be for the school board to determine not the courts.  There are real astronomerss out there who think that a stationary Earth is the center of the universe. I'm sure that you know this is balderdash, but should it be taught so that students are given a "rounded education"? Again what is taught in a school district is the prerogative of the school board. That power is supposed be checked by the parents and taxpayers of that district. To have the courts make those determinations is undemocratic and has no support in the constitution. There's only so many hours in the day; cut the crap and teach what isbefore playing "what if?" I know you want to impose what you think is right, and to exclude anything that may question it,  with any power you can get your hands on. You have no regard for the democratic process
Is philosophy any less of an academic subject than science?
No.
Can the two really be separated?
Yes. Only if you want indoctrination, not education, as you have made clear that you do. I know compartmentalization is a liberal idea. It is a liberal idea because it does not work in the real world.
"As I said they can be separated by those that want to indoctrinate instead of teach. Will the extremists sue if ID is taught in philosophy class? "
Someone might. You can sue a ham sandwich.
But I bet there would be less criticism if it were taught in a philosophy environment.
I don't think it's "extremists" that that fight this idea. Scientists take their work seriously. They experiment, repeat experiments, seek out evidence and do rigorous research. That should be respected. When other theories, for reasons of politics and religion are given an equal platform next to expansive studies, those people involved in that scientific research get defensive, and rightly so. I'd do it, too.
It's not just a bunch of whaky anti-religion people who fight this. They're educated and have invested their careers in understanding the natural world.
As I said they can be separated by those that want to indoctrinate instead of teach. Will the extremists sue if ID is taught in philosophy class? "
Someone might. Might? No someone will.And they'll most likely be funded by the ACLU
But I bet there would be less criticism if it were taught in a philosophy environment. Not from extremists such as pieter. If it were allowed to be taught there is no reason to prevent it from being mentioned in science class.
I don't think it's "extremists" that that fight this idea. You say that because you do not have a clear idea of what an extremist is.  Scientists take their work seriously. They experiment, repeat experiments, seek out evidence and do rigorous research. All they are doing is trying to figure out what God already did. That should be respected. Very few, and no one here, says otherwise.When other theories, for reasons of politics and religion are given an equal platform next to expansive studies, those people involved in that scientific research get defensive, and rightly so. I'd do it, too. There was no equal platform demanded. It was simply a referenceto a possible alternative.
It's not just a bunch of whacky people who fight this. They're educated and have invested their careers in understanding the natural world. It is only whacky people that resort to the courts to prevent something such as the small reference to ID. Only someone with an irrational fear or hatred of anything that can even be remotely considered a reference to religion would have instituted that suit.
Rat: Scientists take their work seriously. They experiment, repeat experiments, seek out evidence and do rigorous research.
Jethro: All they are doing is trying to figure out what God already did."
Oh, trying to be godlike. It's not a big step for you to say they're doing "the Devil's work." The sciences have been tarred with that since before Galleleo probably.
OK, jethro, let's just cut to the chase, since you're throwing up so much BS. I offered no BS. It is only BS to a bigoted mind such as yours.
Do you feel that Edwards v. Aguillardwas wrongly decided? It was wrongly decided because the first amendment was never intended to ban a school board form mentioning ID. The first amendment was not intended to prevent schools from having school prayer. The first amendment was not intended to prevent states from having state sponsored religions if their citizens so chose, which many did at the time the Constitution was ratified. The first amendment was only intended to prevent the federal government from being involved in the issue, nothing more nothing less. Now I know that that concept has been rejected. But it was done so, not based on history or on the plain words of the amendment, but through usurpation of power by the Supreme Court over the last fifty years or so. In so doing they undermined the liberty that was supposed to be guaranteed by the first amendment.
What is said was: "All they are doing is trying to figure out what God already did." Trying to understand God and what he did is not trying to be God like. Most people, I think, understand they cannot be.
Threatening theological and religous heirarchy with factual scientific study has been a recipe for disaster. The centers for study and research will always be feared by the anti-intellectual. Too open, too free, too influential.
They'll say that there are things that mankind should "just not know."
When I ran for school board last year, this topic was brought up during our debate. My position was that we shouldn't be in the business of teaching ANY form of creationism in the public school and that students and their parents should be allowed to research this themselves. Since there is NO way the government will take evolution off of the program, then ID should be allowed to be mentioned. I'm not sure why so many find this concept so difficult.Â
BTW all 7 of the candidates running during the last election SUPPORTED ID! This tends to show that it is only those with some athiest agenda that would find this unfair.
How does all seven school board members support of ID in education indicate that someone opposed (or finds it unfair, whatever that means) to it has an "athiest agenda?"
My position was that we shouldn't be in the business of teaching ANY form of creationism in the public school and that students and their parents should be allowed to research this themselves. Since there is NO way the government will take evolution off of the program, then ID should be allowed to be mentioned.
You don't see the contradiction between the first and second sentence? ID is creationism in a rented tux.
Threatening theological and religious hierarchy with factual scientific study has been a recipe for disaster. Who is doing that?The centers for study and research will always be feared by the anti-intellectual. Too open, too free, too influential.I think it is the "intellectuals'" that are afraid of freedom, especially freedom of thought.Â
 I believe that some form of ID has been taught for eons in colleges and universities, NOT just Parochial ones either. There are a plethera of colleges that teach ALL forms of philosophical theologies, those of a "Christian" nature especially. They include Oral Roberts U, Bob Jones U, Notre Dame...? The list is endless as are the opportunities for study. It is only the Christian Right that is championing this effort.
The Christian right pays its taxes and should have a voice in what their chidren are taught in their schools.
That is why this is such a wasteful and fruitless debate in our Secular Society, which the United States IS, was designed to be from the beginning and hopefully - shall remain. Why do you believe that lie?
When I ran for school board last year, this topic was brought up during our debate. My position was that we shouldn't be in the business of teaching ANY form of creationism in the public school and that students and their parents should be allowed to research this themselves. Why?Since there is NO way the government will take evolution off of the program, then ID should be allowed to be mentioned. I'm not sure why so many find this concept so difficult. Because many on the left are intolerant.
That's not surprising. You folks wanted to get elected. Opposing it would anger a large group of voters. That is the democratic process. Do you have something against it? Pieter does.
ID is something to think about not something to be suppressed.
ID is not being suppressed. Do we teach astrology in high schools? No. Do we teach homeopathy in high schools? No. If they are not taught in the high schools, are astrology and homeopathy being "suppressed"? No.
The Christian right pays its taxes and should have a voice in what their chidren are taught in their schools.
ID is not being suppressed. It most certainly is. That is what the court case was about. Now I do not expect a dishonest fellow like you to admit it, but it is the truth. Do we teach astrology in high schools? No. Do we have a courts banning it? No. Do we teach homeopathy in high schools? No. Do we have a courts banning it? No. If they are not taught in the high schools, are astrology and homeopathy being "suppressed"? No. Do we have a courts banning it? No. That is the important point that you miss, deliberately I think. Whether to teach astrology or the other topics is a decision that may be made democratically. The decision to teach ID is not allowed to be made. When it is made extremists file law suits and courts impose their arbitrary will.
The Christian right pays its taxes and should have a voice in what their children are taught in their schools.
Wiccans, hindus, muslims and jews pay taxes, too. And they should be allowed to voice their opinion. I am not afraid of the democratic process, you and your ilk are.
ID has not been banned. It has been rightly judged to be non-science and a clear and blatant attempt by creationists to evade the Supreme Court's ruling in Edwards, and thus prohibited from being taught in the public schools.
Believers in ID are free to continue their research -- oops, I mean that they can actually start scientific research on the question, since they by their own admission have done none to date -- and let their hypotheses compete in the marketplace of ideas. As a parallel, plate tectonics was a revolutionary idea when I was in school; its proponents did not start by insisting that it be taught in high school, they sat down, gathered data, analyzed the data, and demonstrated that plate tectonic theory was the best explanation proposed for many unanswered questions in the field of geology. The theory was accepted by the scientific community in record time.
Proponents of ID are welcome to do the same; nobody is stopping them.
ID has not been banned. Tell that to Judge Jones. he said it could not even be whispered in the schools. It has been rightly judged to be non-science and a clear and blatant attempt by creationists to evade the Supreme Court's ruling in Edwards,and thus prohibited from being taught in the public schools. And a judge was qualified to determine what is and is not science. No, they are not. And that is not what the judge in this case did.  He banned ID from being mentioned due to the lie that the first amendment requires it to be banned from schools. All you are capable of doing, pieter, is lying.
Believers in ID are free to continue their research -- oops, I mean that they can actually startscientific research on the question, since they by their own admission have done none to date -- and let their hypotheses compete in the marketplace of ideas. No, ID is banned from the one market place of ideas, probably the most important one, the schools. You are a lying sob, nothing more.As a parallel, plate tectonics was a revolutionary idea when I was in school; its proponents did not start by insisting that it be taught in high school, they sat down, gathered data, analyzed the data, and demonstrated that plate tectonic theory was the best explanation proposed for many unanswered questions in the field of geology. The theory was accepted by the scientific community in record time. What should be taught and not taught in school should not be up to the federal courts. And that is the issue,you jackass. But the courts are the only power your kind has. But that will change and you and your ilk can crawl back under the rock you came from. Proponents of ID are welcome to do the same; nobody is stopping them. They are banned from mentioning it in school. That is censorship. That is antidemocratic. It is intolerant. It is required by hypocrites and liars like you.
"uh...huh?" The most intelligent statement you've ever said.
Â
Your tax dollars at work
GOOD GOVERNMENT
3rd Although we got a scolding for the prolonged partisan wrangling at the State Capitol in recent years, Minnesota ranked third in the overall performance of its governments (a B-plus, tied with six others) in an annual study by Governing magazine. Highest marks were for money management.
Best governed: Utah and Virginia
Worst governed: California and Oregon
Yay for Minnesota!
As the contents of the report have been sealed, Barrett is unable to offer details, but sources say the most serious of the allegations concerns, in part, the use of the Internal Revenue Service under the Clinton administration to intimidate political foes. The charges in the report could embarrass former members and associates of the Clinton White House, including former first lady and Sen Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., say the sources.
"Some people have said it contains some serious allegations, and when people see the report, they can decide for themselves," Barrett said.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,180374,00.html
Psst! jethro! he hasn't been president for five years!
hillary wants to be and you know her fingerprints are all over the scandal.
The key word here? National security. The key thought here? Carping Dems are not to be trusted. The key political issue here? There's a good reason why the United States has not been attacked since 9-11: Tough security policies by the entire U.S. government, at home and abroad, designed and administered by the Bush administration, are in place.
 In order to build on their recent polling successes, as well as their policy gains, the Bushies need to articulate a few basic points and then package them into a national message. In other words, they must nationalize the midterm elections of 2006, just as they did in 2002 (when they discussed terror war security) and just as the Gingrich Republicans did in 1994 (when smaller government, lower taxes and no socialized healthcare took center stage).
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/larrykudlow/2006/01/02/180777.html
The atheist evolutionists would not have made such a big case out of the four innocuous paragraphs ordered by the Dover school board unless they were pursuing an ideological cause. They converted the trial into a grand inquisition of religious beliefs instead of addressing science or the statement to be read to students.
>>>>
In an era of judicial supremacy, Judge Jones' biased and religiously bigoted decision is way over the top. His decision will ultimately hurt the evolutionist cause because it shows that the evolutionists cannot defend their beliefs on the merits; they can only survive by censoring alternate views.
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/phyllisschlafly/2006/01/02/180785.html
Contrary to popular (amongst the wingnuts) belief, the theory of evolution is neutral on the subject of the existence of a creator. There are probably as many scientists who will tell you that the process of evolution confirms their religious beliefs as there are who tell you that studying evolution turned them into atheists. Most mainstream christian churches have no problem with the teaching of the theory of evolution.
It was the Dover school board that was pushing an ideological agenda, and the trial court dealt extensively with the scientific evidence, coming to the conclusion that it is ID which cannot muster an argument with scientific merit. I suggest you read the decision, jethro; it's thorough, it's impeccably reasoned, and quite witty.
Contrary to popular belief, the theory of evolution is neutral on the subject of the existence of a creator. Then there should be no problem mentioning that in class.There are probably as many scientists who will tell you that the process of evolution confirms their religious beliefs as there are who tell you that studying evolution turned them into atheists. Again, there should be no problem mentioning that in class.   Most mainstream christian churches have no problem with the teaching of the theory of evolution. And there are very few people promoting ID have a problem with it, either.
It was the Dover school board that was pushing an ideological agenda, and the trial court dealt extensively with the scientific evidence, coming to the conclusion that it is ID which cannot muster an argument with scientific merit. Federal courts should not be deciding what should or should not be taught in class. The school board, kept in check by the local taxpayers should. But of course you and your ilk are opposed to that. I suggest you read the decision, jethro; it's thorough, it's impeccably reasoned, and quite witty. It is what it is. It is written by a person that does not understand the place of the courts in our governmental system. He is a lot like you in that regard.
On November 19, 2004, the Defendant Dover Area School District announced by press release that, commencing in January 2005, teachers would be required to read the following statement to students in the ninth grade biology class at Dover High School:
The above is what pieter and other extremists were opposed to. The fact that they oppose such a thoughtful and inclusive proposal should indicate to any rational person just how intolerant they are.
Your statement that "very few people promoting ID have a problem with [the theory of evolution], either" is laughable. The only thing that ID has going for it is a bunch of specious arguments against the theory of evolution, and the champions of ID are not shy about denouncing the ToE as the cause of most of the evil in the modern world.
http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html
I suggest you read the decision, jethro; it's thorough, it's impeccably reasoned, and quite witty.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision.html
It is hardly impeccably reasoned. Witty? Not at all. Rather it is dull and turgid.
Your statement that "very few people promoting ID have a problem with [the theory of evolution], either" is laughable. It is clear that you are biased. Extremists often are.
I suppose a dull mind would find it dull. As to turgid -- hey -- it's your profession, and you should know that having to make each and every detail perfectly clear is not going to produce prose like USA Today.
So -- tell me where you find Judge Jones's reasoning faulty. Page numbers, please.
Yes, I am biased -- on the side of reason and evidence. I quote you the goals of the Discovery Institute, and you pass over them like there was nothing there.
Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when consid ered 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.
The judge wrote the above. His opinion that it was an "utter waste of monetary and personal resources" shows his bias. A prudent judge, one that does not want to show his bias, would have said that the prior case law requires his decision. But no. He had to put in his personal opinion. He obviously refuses to recognize that to overturn bad constitutional law, the case must be taken to the courts. The legislature cannot do it. The former school board was doing a civic duty defending this case against extremists that have subverted our government.
I suppose a dull mind would find it dull. As to turgid -- hey -- it's your profession, and you should know that having to make each and every detail perfectly clear is not going to produce prose like USA Today.
Most district court decisions seldom exceed a few pages. This trash goes on and on and on.
So -- tell me where you find Judge Jones's reasoning faulty. Page numbers, please. The premise from which he starts is incorrect. We have discussed that before.
Had he written that before the trial, you would be correct, but that was his decision after hearing six weeks of testimony from a lot of expert witnesses. That's not his bias, that is his decision after hearing the evidence.
No, we haven't. You've simply stamped your pretty little foot like a prom queen and said "That's wrong!"
Give me evidence that ID is science and I'll listen. Give me testable hypotheses, design experiments to falsify the premises, show me repeatable, definitive research and I'm in your corner. Until you've actually DONE some science, to insist that your hypothesis be put on an equal footing with one of the most solidly backed theories in the scientific realm is "breathtaking inanity."
Quite frankly, I was disappointed that biochemist Michael Behe, one of the foremost proponents of ID and the creator of the "irreducible ccomplexity" argument, had nothing in the way of experiment or observation to back his views. I really though he had more in his arsenal than this
Had he written that before the trial, you would be correct, but that was his decision after hearing six weeks of testimony from a lot of expert witnesses. That is his personal opinion. That is what an activist judge does. He imposes his personal opinions rather than legal opinions into cases.  Whether it is a waste of taxpayer dollars is in the eye of the beholder and not a legal question. It certainly was not one to be addressed by a court.That's not his bias, that is his decision after hearing the evidence. I
t most certainly did show his personal bias. He would have been wise not to made such a a statement.Â
No, we haven't. Yes we have, dumb shit. You've simply stamped your pretty little foot like a prom queen and said "That's wrong!" I Have explained numerous times whyit is wrong. I explained how historically how the plain language of the first amendment was treated when it came to religious issues in the states.  Some states in fact had state religions and school prayer until the likes of Hugo Black expounded their revisionist history. You simply disregard the facts and the reasons that were set forth.
Give me evidence that ID is science and I'll listen. It is irrelevant that it is science. What is relevant is that students are provided a rounded education not just what extremists like you think should be taught and forced on society through nondemocratic means. What is also relevant is that a court should no be supervising the inner working of what is and is not taught in class. That is a legislative function not a judicial function. Give me testable hypotheses, design experiments to falsify the premises, show me repeatable, definitive research and I'm in your corner. And of course, once again, you miss the point. That argument is fine for making the determination in school board meetings on what should and should not be taught. It is tyranny to have a court usurp legislative prerogatives simply to get the result that you prefer. Until you've actually DONE some science, to insist that your hypothesis be put on an equal footing with one of the most solidly backed theories in the scientific realm is "breathtaking inanity." Is philosophy any less of an academic subject than science? Can the two really  be separated? Only if ones goal is to indoctrinate instead of teach.
That's an interesting point. Why not teach ID is philosophy classes?
"Can the two really be separated?"
Certainly.
I see. Whether or not something is science, or scientifically accurate, is irrelevant to what is taught in science class. All righty, then. All that counts to you is what a majority of the school board -- some of whom in Dover admitted not even knowing what ID is -- votes should be taught, regardless of its scientific accuracy. Should astrology be taught in science class? Alchemy? There are real astronomerss out there who think that a stationary Earth is the center of the universe. I'm sure that you know this is balderdash, but should it be taught so that students are given a "rounded education"? There's only so many hours in the day; cut the crap and teach what isbefore playing "what if?"
No.
Yes.
As I said they can be separated by those that want to indoctrinate instead of teach. Will the extremists sue if ID is taught in philosophy class? In terms that you can understand: You betcha'!
Ron Carey and Brian Melendez don't agree on much, but the chairmen of Minnesota's Republican and Democratic-Farmer-Labor parties concur that state voters are in for unusually spirited, intense and expensive election campaigns in 2006.Â
http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/13535755.htm
It'll be fun, fun, fun in Minnesota!!!
I see. Whether or not something is science, or scientifically accurate, is irrelevant to what is taught in science class. It certainly is in english, history and art classes. All that counts to you is what a majority of the school board -- some of whom in Dover admitted not even knowing what ID is -- votes should be taught, regardless of its scientific accuracy. It is the role of the school borad to determine what is taught. It is not the role of the federal courts. Should astrology be taught in science class? That would be for the school board to determine not the courts.  There are real astronomerss out there who think that a stationary Earth is the center of the universe. I'm sure that you know this is balderdash, but should it be taught so that students are given a "rounded education"? Again what is taught in a school district is the prerogative of the school board. That power is supposed be checked by the parents and taxpayers of that district. To have the courts make those determinations is undemocratic and has no support in the constitution. There's only so many hours in the day; cut the crap and teach what isbefore playing "what if?" I know you want to impose what you think is right, and to exclude anything that may question it,  with any power you can get your hands on. You have no regard for the democratic process
No.
Yes. Only if you want indoctrination, not education, as you have made clear that you do. I know compartmentalization is a liberal idea. It is a liberal idea because it does not work in the real world.
"As I said they can be separated by those that want to indoctrinate instead of teach. Will the extremists sue if ID is taught in philosophy class? "
Someone might. You can sue a ham sandwich.
But I bet there would be less criticism if it were taught in a philosophy environment.
I don't think it's "extremists" that that fight this idea. Scientists take their work seriously. They experiment, repeat experiments, seek out evidence and do rigorous research. That should be respected. When other theories, for reasons of politics and religion are given an equal platform next to expansive studies, those people involved in that scientific research get defensive, and rightly so. I'd do it, too.
It's not just a bunch of whaky anti-religion people who fight this. They're educated and have invested their careers in understanding the natural world.
OK, jethro, let's just cut to the chase, since you're throwing up so much BS.
Do you feel that Edwards v. Aguillard was wrongly decided?
Someone might. Might? No someone will.And they'll most likely be funded by the ACLU
But I bet there would be less criticism if it were taught in a philosophy environment. Not from extremists such as pieter. If it were allowed to be taught there is no reason to prevent it from being mentioned in science class.
I don't think it's "extremists" that that fight this idea. You say that because you do not have a clear idea of what an extremist is.  Scientists take their work seriously. They experiment, repeat experiments, seek out evidence and do rigorous research. All they are doing is trying to figure out what God already did. That should be respected. Very few, and no one here, says otherwise.When other theories, for reasons of politics and religion are given an equal platform next to expansive studies, those people involved in that scientific research get defensive, and rightly so. I'd do it, too. There was no equal platform demanded. It was simply a referenceto a possible alternative.
It's not just a bunch of whacky people who fight this. They're educated and have invested their careers in understanding the natural world. It is only whacky people that resort to the courts to prevent something such as the small reference to ID. Only someone with an irrational fear or hatred of anything that can even be remotely considered a reference to religion would have instituted that suit.
Rat: Scientists take their work seriously. They experiment, repeat experiments, seek out evidence and do rigorous research.
Jethro: All they are doing is trying to figure out what God already did."
Oh, trying to be godlike. It's not a big step for you to say they're doing "the Devil's work." The sciences have been tarred with that since before Galleleo probably.
OK, jethro, let's just cut to the chase, since you're throwing up so much BS. I offered no BS. It is only BS to a bigoted mind such as yours.
Do you feel that Edwards v. Aguillardwas wrongly decided? It was wrongly decided because the first amendment was never intended to ban a school board form mentioning ID. The first amendment was not intended to prevent schools from having school prayer. The first amendment was not intended to prevent states from having state sponsored religions if their citizens so chose, which many did at the time the Constitution was ratified. The first amendment was only intended to prevent the federal government from being involved in the issue, nothing more nothing less. Now I know that that concept has been rejected. But it was done so, not based on history or on the plain words of the amendment, but through usurpation of power by the Supreme Court over the last fifty years or so. In so doing they undermined the liberty that was supposed to be guaranteed by the first amendment.
Oh, trying to be godlike. It's be a big step for you to say they're doing "the Devil's work."
"Did I say that scientists were trying to be godlike? No."
I think you did.
It's hard to tell what jethro thinks. Or whether.
What is said was: "All they are doing is trying to figure out what God already did." Trying to understand God and what he did is not trying to be God like. Most people, I think, understand they cannot be.
It's hard to tell what jethro thinks. Or whether.
Threatening theological and religous heirarchy with factual scientific study has been a recipe for disaster. The centers for study and research will always be feared by the anti-intellectual. Too open, too free, too influential.
They'll say that there are things that mankind should "just not know."
When I ran for school board last year, this topic was brought up during our debate. My position was that we shouldn't be in the business of teaching ANY form of creationism in the public school and that students and their parents should be allowed to research this themselves. Since there is NO way the government will take evolution off of the program, then ID should be allowed to be mentioned. I'm not sure why so many find this concept so difficult.Â
BTW all 7 of the candidates running during the last election SUPPORTED ID! This tends to show that it is only those with some athiest agenda that would find this unfair.
"BTW all 7 of the candidates running during the last election SUPPORTED ID! "
That's not surprising. You folks wanted to get elected. Opposing it would anger a large group of voters.
"This tends to show that it is only those with some athiest agenda that would find this unfair."
Perhaps you can how this statement has anything to do with the previous one.
"Perhaps you can how this statement has anything to do with the previous one."
What?
How does all seven school board members support of ID in education indicate that someone opposed (or finds it unfair, whatever that means) to it has an "athiest agenda?"
You don't see the contradiction between the first and second sentence? ID is creationism in a rented tux.
Threatening theological and religious hierarchy with factual scientific study has been a recipe for disaster. Who is doing that?The centers for study and research will always be feared by the anti-intellectual. Too open, too free, too influential.I think it is the "intellectuals'" that are afraid of freedom, especially freedom of thought.Â
 I believe that some form of ID has been taught for eons in colleges and universities,
NOT
just Parochial ones either. There are a plethera of colleges that teach ALL forms of philosophical theologies, those of a "Christian" nature especially. They include Oral Roberts U, Bob Jones U, Notre Dame...? The list is
endless
as are the opportunities for study. It is only the Christian Right that is championing this effort.
The Christian right pays its taxes and should have a voice in what their chidren are taught in their schools.
That is why this is such a wasteful and fruitless debate in our Secular Society, which the United States IS, was designed to be
from the beginning
and hopefully - shall remain. Why do you believe that lie?
When I ran for school board last year, this topic was brought up during our debate. My position was that we shouldn't be in the business of teaching ANY form of creationism in the public school and that students and their parents should be allowed to research this themselves. Why?Since there is NO way the government will take evolution off of the program, then ID should be allowed to be mentioned. I'm not sure why so many find this concept so difficult. Because many on the left are intolerant.
That's not surprising. You folks wanted to get elected. Opposing it would anger a large group of voters. That is the democratic process. Do you have something against it? Pieter does.
ID is creationism in a rented tux.
ID is not being suppressed. Do we teach astrology in high schools? No. Do we teach homeopathy in high schools? No. If they are not taught in the high schools, are astrology and homeopathy being "suppressed"? No.
Wiccans, hindus, muslims and jews pay taxes, too.
ID is not being suppressed. It most certainly is. That is what the court case was about. Now I do not expect a dishonest fellow like you to admit it, but it is the truth. Do we teach astrology in high schools? No. Do we have a courts banning it? No. Do we teach homeopathy in high schools? No. Do we have a courts banning it? No. If they are not taught in the high schools, are astrology and homeopathy being "suppressed"? No. Do we have a courts banning it? No. That is the important point that you miss, deliberately I think. Whether to teach astrology or the other topics is a decision that may be made democratically. The decision to teach ID is not allowed to be made. When it is made extremists file law suits and courts impose their arbitrary will.
Wiccans, hindus, muslims and jews pay taxes, too. And they should be allowed to voice their opinion. I am not afraid of the democratic process, you and your ilk are.
ID has not been banned. It has been rightly judged to be non-science and a clear and blatant attempt by creationists to evade the Supreme Court's ruling in Edwards, and thus prohibited from being taught in the public schools.
Believers in ID are free to continue their research -- oops, I mean that they can actually start scientific research on the question, since they by their own admission have done none to date -- and let their hypotheses compete in the marketplace of ideas. As a parallel, plate tectonics was a revolutionary idea when I was in school; its proponents did not start by insisting that it be taught in high school, they sat down, gathered data, analyzed the data, and demonstrated that plate tectonic theory was the best explanation proposed for many unanswered questions in the field of geology. The theory was accepted by the scientific community in record time.
Proponents of ID are welcome to do the same; nobody is stopping them.
ID has not been banned. Tell that to Judge Jones. he said it could not even be whispered in the schools. It has been rightly judged to be non-science and a clear and blatant attempt by creationists to evade the Supreme Court's ruling in Edwards,and thus prohibited from being taught in the public schools. And a judge was qualified to determine what is and is not science. No, they are not. And that is not what the judge in this case did.  He banned ID from being mentioned due to the lie that the first amendment requires it to be banned from schools. All you are capable of doing, pieter, is lying.
Believers in ID are free to continue their research -- oops, I mean that they can actually startscientific research on the question, since they by their own admission have done none to date -- and let their hypotheses compete in the marketplace of ideas. No, ID is banned from the one market place of ideas, probably the most important one, the schools. You are a lying sob, nothing more.As a parallel, plate tectonics was a revolutionary idea when I was in school; its proponents did not start by insisting that it be taught in high school, they sat down, gathered data, analyzed the data, and demonstrated that plate tectonic theory was the best explanation proposed for many unanswered questions in the field of geology. The theory was accepted by the scientific community in record time. What should be taught and not taught in school should not be up to the federal courts. And that is the issue,you jackass. But the courts are the only power your kind has. But that will change and you and your ilk can crawl back under the rock you came from. Proponents of ID are welcome to do the same; nobody is stopping them. They are banned from mentioning it in school. That is censorship. That is antidemocratic. It is intolerant. It is required by hypocrites and liars like you.