Posted on 04/24/2009 8:47:19 PM PDT by DevNet
Apparently, the briefs were written by the ICR’s own James J.S. Johnson, whom FindLaw describes as a “family lawyer.” Mr. Johnson is not listed in Martindale-Hubbell (which is where you should go to read peer reviews on anyone you’re thinking of hiring as a lawyer), but he does write some crazy, crazy stuff for ICR’s website. (ICR’s local counsel in Texas seems to be the firm of Adams, Lynch & Loftin, P.C., but they do not appear to be actively involved in the litigation so far.)
I should add that “family law” generally means as “divorce law,” and in general, I would not trust a divorce lawyer to bring a sec. 1983 compliant in federal court, any more than I would feel qualified to represent someone in divorce proceedings. There are very few hard-and-fast specialties in the law (with the exception of people like bankruptcy lawyers, who have their own bar and own courts) — so this isn’t unethical or illegal, but it is very, very weird. If you called me up and asked me to incorporate your business in Delaware or represent you at a custody hearing, I would very politely refer you to one of my colleagues who actually does that sort of work for a living. It’s not like we have a shortage of lawyers in this country or anything. :)
With that in mind, the first thing that strikes me about the complaint is the bizarre, blog-like use of bold, italics, underline, large and small caps, different fonts and different font sizes — all in the first two pages. No sensible litigator would file something that looks like this in federal court.
(Excerpt) Read more at evaluatingchristianity.wordpress.com ...
I guess I have missed out on the 'technology' that has resulted in teaching young minds of mush they are offspring over time from great apes.
Look who is in control of all that technology and powerful military. HOW did that happen?
No - you are Jukeman and I hate crime to!
I do NOT get this supposed irony. What does my typing, on a computer, plugged into a power source that gives me access to the internet to answer your comment, have anything to do with the claim that humanity came from a primordial hot steaming pot of pond scum?
None of that would exist with out science.
What is this thing you call science? And who decided who would be in control over this thing you call science?
Why don’t you tell me?
You hate crime “to” - what?
Tell you what? This is your thread, and I can only guess that you are in the don't trust creationists nor their lawyers, camp.
I responded to the notion this is about 'trust', and that is what got my interest in your post. And you made a claim things would not exist without science. My question was what is this thing you call science.
Science? Are you using that word as an object?
INTREP
“Considering Christian apologetics from an atheist’s perspective.
Okay, some quick background on the issue, taken from NCSE Reports, Mar-Apr 2008.”
Even as one outside the Creationist’s camp I find your post and the article silly. And tiresome.
The atheistic evolutionists have panicked at the idea that world may not have to bend the knee to them in all matters concerning Science.
The Temple of Darwinism is just a mausoleum tarted up.
What do think the NCSE is all about? In their own words it exists to keep evolution in the teachings of pubic schools and creationism out.
And according to its Executive Director, Eugenie Scott,
“Evolution applies to astronomy, physics, chemistry, biochemistry, anthropology, biology, geology — you name the field, and evolution will relate to it, like as not.”
(Quoted from Debates and the Globetrotters at The TalkOrigins Archive)
Copyright © 1994-1997 by Eugenie Scott)
“you name the field.....” and evolution applies!
The irony is that while typing on a computer connected to the internet you said “look where scientific methodology has brought the country”. Without scientific methodology, there would be no computers and there would be no internet. Pretty straight-forward.
Science is the systematic observation of natural events and conditions in order to discover facts about them and to formulate laws and principles based on these facts. 2. the organized body of knowledge that is derived from such observations and that can be verified or tested by further investigation. 3. any specific branch of this general body of knowledge, such as biology, physics, geology, or astronomy.
Nobody decided who would be in control. As a “conservative” you should like the idea that there is no government body controlling it.
Even greater irony to me is that unless and until I physically sit in front of and physically stroke the keyboard the results from that scientific methodology sits very quite and idle.
Conservatism functioned far more efficiently and without intrusion prior to the reemergence of that eons old 'systematic observing methodology' got declared the law of the land.
Keyword here is 'systematic' as in system think. The 'system' think as ordained as in an attempt to replicate Moses bringing down the TEN COMMANDMENTS, is at the very core of big and bigger and now biggest possible government the system can legislate. Remember you did say science through 'systematic' observation ...... formulate laws and principles based on these FACTS.... When in FACT evolution from that great mythical primordial hot steaming pot of pond scum, is a delusion upon which system think is founded.... More laws formulated from system think ... but for the sole purpose of system preservation. NOTHING conservative about any of the system think.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.