Nope, the judge displayed no evidence to back up his statements. Stating three sentences that it is not science without facts or evidence does not make it non-scientific.
I can quote the Bible any time I wish.
Amazing, Evos hate when the Bible is quoted but like to quote it themselves. That is the personification of hypocrisy.
Science wins in the real world of ideas. Creationism is useless.
Yeppers, just like global warming. for the last time: The only way Evos win is by way of the court and the communist law of separation of church and state on Americans that goes one way; that government can influence and not the church.
As for Newton and Faraday, everything they discovered was for the greater knowledge of God's hand. No greater ascribing can be stated than this.
And where did you get your "American History" quotes, the Michael Nudow web site? Or maybe Madison's "Detached Memoranda?" Or both? You want quotes of Madison? I can copy and paste too.
Madison in his own words:
“I have sometimes thought there could not be a stronger testimony in favor of religion or against temporal enjoyments, even the most rational and manly, than for men who occupy the most honorable and gainful departments and [who] are rising in reputation and wealth, publicly to declare their unsatisfactoriness by becoming fervent advocates in the cause of Christ; and I wish you may give in your evidence in this way. “
“It is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other.”
“The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established.”
Throughout his Presidency Madison endorsed public and official religious expressions by issuing several proclamations for national days of prayer, fasting, and thanksgiving.
Also, "Detached Memoranda" was "discovered" in 1946 SureMadison expressed his opposition to many of his own earlier beliefs and practices, a new set of beliefs formerly unknown even to his closest friends. Since Madison never made public or shared with his peers his sentiments found in the "Detached Memoranda," and since his own public actions were at direct variance with this later writing, it is ludicrous to argue that it reflects the Founders' intent toward religion.
Was Madison responsible for the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights? Definitely not. In fact, during the Constitutional Convention, it was Virginian George Mason that advocated that a Bill of Rights be added to the Constitution, but the other Virginians at the Convention - including James Madison - opposed any Bill of Rights and their position prevailed. Consequently, George Mason, Elbridge Gerry, Edmund Randolph, and others at the Convention refused to sign the new Constitution because of their fear of insufficiently bridled federal power. Mason and the others returned to their home States to lobby against the ratification of the Constitution until a Bill of Rights was added.
When the Constitution was considered for ratification, the reports from June 2 through June 25, 1788, make clear that in Virginia, Patrick Henry, GeorgeMason, and Edmund Randolph led the fight for the Bill of Rights, again over James Madison's opposition.
Very little of Madison's proposed religious wording made it into the final version of the First Amendment; and even a cursory examination of the Annals of Congress surrounding the formation of that Amendment quickly reveals the influence of Fisher Ames and Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, Samuel Livermore of New Hampshire, John Vining of Delaware, Daniel Carroll and Charles Carroll of Maryland, Benjamin Huntington, Roger Sherman, and Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut, William Paterson of New Jersey, and others on that Amendment.
The failure to rely on Founders other than Madison seems to imply that no other Founders were qualified to address First Amendment issues or that there exists no pertinent recorded statements from the other Founders. Both implications are wrong: numerous Founders played pivotal roles; and thousands of their writings do exist.
Your use and Newdow's use of James Madison is typical of most revisionists: it gives only the part of the story with which he agrees and omits the part with which he disagrees. If you want to take the position that the "Founding Fathers" opposed the right of religion in any segment of our society, then you must provide evidence from more than one Founder; you must show that the majority of the Founders opposed this.
Your hatred of religion and God is all to telling of one that hates or country. If we do not receive our rights from Him than we receive them from man; and We The People are not slaves to your way yet. So go back to the Huffington Post, or get your mind right with God and Free Republic.
The Judge DID rule on the scientific merit of “ID”. He ruled it had none. I don't expect you to agree with the ruling - but it is a lie to claim he made no such determination.
Typical that you cannot argue against a scientific theory without arguing against atheism. I am a Christian - why would I hate when the Bible is quoted? The Pope accepts evolution - do you think he hates when the Bible is quoted?
In the free market science is seen to have value - while creationism is useless. That is where science wins - in the market of ideas. Science and knowledge of evolution leads to the discovery of novel therapeutics - creationism leads to no novel therapeutics because it contributes nothing to an understanding of the natural world.
I provided the source for all the quotes - it is typical that you are unable to refute them - or otherwise deal with them. Madison WROTE the 1st Amendment. I could quote Jefferson as well if you wished - but you would dismiss his quotes as well.
I do not hate God, religion or our nation. I am a believer, a Christian, and a former U.S. Airman. But as is typical - you cannot formulate a coherent argument on your own - you need to attack anyone who disagrees as hating God, being an atheist, a communist, etc. You are not God. Those who oppose your ideas are not in opposition to God.