If real life would read the Decision by Judge Jones he would see that the judge went into a brief history of the Creation/ID movement to the 1920's. Judge Jones made the point that, from 1920 till the 1960s, the Creationist side was taught and they (as a direct counter to Darwin) had lobbied state legislatures to actually prohibit the teaching of evolution . There were actual legal sanctions for teaching evolution through this period in many states, so real lifes position doesnt include the fact that for many years prior it was "ALL CReation, all the time"
The Arkansas .
anti evolution law was the first to go (The citation used was the Epperson case where Judge Jones stated that ARkansas' law wanted to preclude evolution because it was contrary to Genesis. (All this was used to lay out the conclusion that, yes indeed ID IS religion.
After USSC struck down the anti-evolution laws, the courts were presented with a "balanced teaching" experiment. This
was struck down in the 6th circuit because it was clearly based on religion.
It was afterthis time (1940's) that Morris' group conceived of "Scientific Creationism" The oxymoron of the last century. In that point judge Jones stated in his opinion that the term (he agrees its self cancelling), was so developed by fundamentalists , he said
"Fundamentalist Organizations were formed to promote the idea that Genesis was supported by scientific data" and in the courts deliberation they considered the SCopes and Epperson decisions in that (in the courts words)"Creation Science Organizations were really Fundamentalist religious entities that wanted Creationism in schools as part of their ministry" (I found this a really well crafted sentence) where everything modifies "Ministry"
Then, from the Mclean decision judge Jones stated that
Creation Science relies upon a "contrived dualism" that recognize only 2 mutually exclusive explanations of life on earth,creationsim and (godless) evolution. Thus Creation science relies upon a supernatural intervention that cannot be explained by natural causes (and as Miller testified for the plaintiffs)
"This cannot be proven by empirical investigation so it is neither testable nor falsifiable)
{Herein the document displays a series of footers that require one to go to the court record wherein the Creationists have appealed on the duality condition by invoking a false reason that "eevolution can neither be tested nor falsfed either"
Ref. Poppers rules on falsifiability. Popper himself claimed that evolutions underpinnings were the classical sciences which, on their own are testable and falsifiable so that the Creationists were arguing at an incorrect level.
Therefore the "balanced teatment approach" was found, by the courts to have no valid purpose in science.
That brought us to 1987 and the EDWARDS decision which struck down the last "pro Creation " teaching law.
Thus faced with this reality , The Creationists came up with Intelligent Design, invoking an argument that went back to Thomas Aquinas. The argument , in the form of a (now) famous (at least among teachers whove mobilized since these assaults) the syllogism reads
"wherever complex design exists, there must have been a designer" and "Nature is really complex so QED"
The plaintiffs side (understandably,) was the only side that saw to bring in a theologian who stated convincingly (remember these are the judges words) that EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS who the designer is. SO judge jones goes on to explain his applied tests , which include the following
IS the teaching of ID trying to provide an endorsement of religion? and
Would a reasonable person (observer) from
1thegeneral public
2the target audience of Dover (the students)
3The citizens of Dover
be convinced as to who the designer is and what would the purpose of this convincing be
To these ends the plaintiffs brought in Barabara Forrest, who wrote "Creations Trojan Horse". In her testimony she established the examples of what the ID leadership has actually been quoted saying. Thus , she and John Hought made the connections convincingly to Judge Jones that "any interested onserver wiould instantly understand who the designer ws"
The defense made some very bad errors. Their key witness < MIke Behe, is still a scientist and he did not lie , either for his side or to the court. He stated his position unambiguously that
"My description of Irreducible complexity is the employ by the designer of a purposeful arrangement of the body parts (of an organism) As such, he employed the very words of William Paley in the 1803 works (Which were brought up and are included in the documents)
The judge, recognizing that the ommission of the word GOD and , instead sunstituting Intelligent Designer, had employed a tactical ommission.
At that point judge jones brings up the defenses witnesse in a basis of "how not to be credible in court"
Both Behe and Minnich (the key witnesses) both admitted that they believe that the designer was GOD.
The judge retained his heaviest technical criticism for the use of "Of PAndas and People"
The fact that it was written by Creationists
was published by a Creationists society
and worst of all
It , in its earlier drafts had substituted Inetelligent Design For the word Creationism , at least 150 times without changing any of the following words. This , in the judges language drew outr some of the harshest technical criticim and the judge used words that were not complimentary about the whole movement.
It reads like a good tv documentary and Im ony about half finished. The judge , in the last half of his 139 page decision, seems to be taking apart the cynical approach employed by the Dover schoolboard in the "pushing" of this dreck (my word not judge jones)
The fact that real life predicted the outcome shows that deep down, in a well presented case where the issues are debated in open air, the case for ID is the same case that was employed by Henry Morris and Duane Gish.
The judge said at the end
I B da judge and I say
1 I find for the plaintiffs
2 The defendents are enjoined from the teaching of ID in science
3 The plaintiffs are entitled to damages and costs.
We can once again look to Pennsylvania as an example of "we may not always get it right but we can fix it when we F**k it up"
and as far as real lifes admonition
Quote:BTW that is now what evolutionists will have to do. Get over it. Now there is no one to blame but yourselves, right?
.
When I get done reading about the duplicity, the fraud, the dishonest approaches to insert ID into theDover curriculum, Ill post a bit of a rebuttal to the above golden shower.
