Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Junior
Of course -- once his peers had a chance to look at his work . The religion of the scientist is not in question. Putting religion in science classes is.

No Junior, the facts are the facts. The argument in the Dover lawsuit centers around the motivations of the school board, not the curricula. The statement they wrote is non religious in nature, period.

Those that support federal intervention on that basis would also have to support federal intervention in Lemaitre's case. His peers looked at his work and held that he was wrong because they were committed to a static universe. If Dover is the model, this would have prevented his theory from an airing in public schools until the scientists, who were evidently wrong in their criticisms, finally came to their senses and testified in a federal court of law that 'Yeah even though the guys a Catholic Monk we now think it's OK for Podunk High School to allow it past the front door.

Is that your idea of what federal courts and science should do?

162 posted on 11/09/2005 10:23:49 AM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies ]


To: jwalsh07; Junior
[Of course -- once his peers had a chance to look at his work . The religion of the scientist is not in question. Putting religion in science classes is.]

No Junior, the facts are the facts.

Indeed.

The argument in the Dover lawsuit centers around the motivations of the school board, not the curricula.

Wrong on two counts.

First, the court case *did* indeed spend a lot of time on "the curricula" as well (such as it was).

Second, the point wasn't the "motivations of the school board" as such. If they were, for example, religiously motivated to teach better science, that wouldn't have been an issue. The problem was that their motivation was TO INTRODUCE RELIGION into the classroom in a Trojan-Horse manner. In that respect, it most certainly *is* perfectly relevant and appropriate to examine their motivations.

The statement they wrote is non religious in nature, period.

False, period.

Those that support federal intervention on that basis would also have to support federal intervention in Lemaitre's case.

Complete nonsense.

His peers looked at his work and held that he was wrong because they were committed to a static universe.

...irrelevant to your attempted argument.

If Dover is the model, this would have prevented his theory from an airing in public schools until the scientists, who were evidently wrong in their criticisms, finally came to their senses and testified in a federal court of law that 'Yeah even though the guys a Catholic Monk we now think it's OK for Podunk High School to allow it past the front door.

Horse manure. You're completely and utterly missing the point. No one was trying to push Lemaitre's work into schools *as* a Trojan Horse for religious indoctrination. The fact that Lemaitre himself was religious is completely beside the point, although for some reason you keep trying to make it the point, despite the fact that no one else is.

Is that your idea of what federal courts and science should do?

Your straw man version? Of course not. The real-life version? Yes indeed.

173 posted on 11/09/2005 10:44:03 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson