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.
Then you claim that my statement is false concerning the Dover disclaimer.
Well here it is:
"The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.
Because Darwin’s Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations. Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves. With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the Origins of Life to individual students and their families. As a Standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on Standards-based assessments.
Where's the "forced religion" in this statement Itchy?
Nowhere, motivation is the central issue. Your claim to the contrary is silly.
I think the salient point is that Lamaitre derived the BBT from the combination of Hubble's red-shift data and the field equations of GR, not from some religious document or doctrine. The fact that he also found it secularly satisfying is a coincidence, one to which the theory's genesis is clearly unrelated. In short, Lamaitre proposed the BBT because the SCIENTIFIC observational evidence and theorectical calculations demanded and supported it.
In the case of the Dove Case, the tell-tale finger prints of religiously, not scientifically, derived Creationism was all over the "suggested reading material," the board members' motives, and the legal team's impetus to find a school board dumb enough to be their jurisprudential guinea pig.