Origin of board decision probed [Dover Evolution trial, 03 Nov]

York Daily Record [Penna] ^ | 03 November 2005 | MICHELLE STARR

[PatrickHenry]

Tomorrow is supposed to be the last day of the trial.

[PatrickHenry]

EvolutionPing

A pro-evolution science list with over 310 names. See the list's explanation at my freeper homepage. Then FReepmail to be added or dropped. See what's new in The List-O-Links.

[USConstitutionBuff]

Another day, another batch of lies.

Does anyone think the Church gave the books to the school to NOT advance a religious purpose?

[<1/1,000,000th%]

It's seems to be wrapping up quickly.

Looks like the school board is anxious to lose and move on to the next level.

[furball4paws]

"Equal Time"?

A statement that there may be another explanation is a long way from "Equal Time".

If you balanced all the "facts" of ID with Darwin in equal time, Biology class would take, what, maybe 30 seconds?

[furball4paws]

The more you post, the more pathetic this mess is. I'm surprised the Thomas More Law Center bothered with this.

[js1138]

On to the next level.

[furball4paws]

I very much doubt that there will be a next level. As I understand it an appeal does not introduce new testimony or facts. The current judges decides the facts. What would there basis be for appeal?

[js1138]

Incompetent counsel.

[balrog666]

Eating their own?

[furball4paws]

How could competent counsel fix the stupidity of the defendants?

[js1138]

Perhaps they could get the trial discarded, settle with the parents and avoid a national precedent.

As it stands now the judge could rule against both the school board and "Pandas". If he finds Pandas to be creationism as a fact under the law, that will derail DI for a while.

[Coyoteman]

Supt. Richard Nilsen sent him to the Messiah College seminar on March 26, 2003.

Continuing ed?

[furball4paws]

I doubt the ACLU is in a settling mood.

[js1138]

Insanity?

[BikerNYC]

Looks like the school board is anxious to lose and move on to the next level.

Indeed. From dumb to dumber.

[PatrickHenry]

As I understand it an appeal does not introduce new testimony or facts. The current judges decides the facts. What would there basis be for appeal?

It will be strictly based on legal issues -- specifically, whether the facts, as the judge finds them, mean that the school board's actions violated the First Amendment. The currently prevailing case on this is LEMON v. KURTZMAN, 403 U.S. 602 (1971).

I've posted this a few weeks ago, but it's relevant now that the case is winding up.

That case lays out the three-pronged "Lemon test":

First, the statute [or state action] must have a secular legislative purpose;

second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion,

finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion."

Is there anyone who imagines that the mandatory ID statement which the Dover school board imposed on the schools can pass that test? (Don't get hung up on the word "statute." The school board's mandate undoubtedly qualifies as "state action" under the 14th Amendment.)

By the way, in Selman v. Cobb County School District, the Georgia textbook sticker case, the court cited and relied on the Lemon test. But there's a bit of Supreme Court politics involved here. In Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education v. Freiler, a creationism case where the Supreme Court denied certiorari (in 2000, only 5 years ago), Rehnquist, Scalia & Thomas indicated that they'd like to re-visit the Lemon test. So it's going to be a long and bumpy ride.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Do I see Kobe Bryant in there?

(Running for cover.)

[furball4paws]

The best that the IDers can hope for is a very narrow decision, which I think will be the case. The board can drop it's attempt and hope they don't get booted out of office. Then the IDers can go along blithely saying the Dover case was a fluke and badly handled and look for a setting where the actors are better looking and try again.

For the judge to slap them hard I think is unlikely since judges hate to be overturned.

[Right Wing Professor]

I just got back from a 'panel discussion' on ID vs. evolution. Paul Nelson of DI was there, and he was about as understated as I've ever heard a DIer be. He said DI pleaded with Dover not to institute the policy, and then pleaded with Thomas More not to defend them. They seem resigned to lose, and they're just hoping it will be a narrowly written decision, and not something that officially deems ID to be a religious belief.