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.
So by the disclaimer's definition, ID isn't even a theory? Works for me.
Yawn.
You tell me I'm wrong on motivation being the central issue
No I don't. Try reading it again. Here it is with the parts you obviously didn't bother to actually read highlighted:
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.Are we clear now? Or are you going to dance around it some more and continue to misrepresent what I've actually written?
You were wong on the MANNER in which motivation is the issue. You were also wrong when you stated that the curricula itself wasn't also a "center" of the trial and lawsuit -- it most certainly was.
and then go on to tell why motivation is central to the issue. I must have missed the content once again.
Indeed you did miss it. Try reading my post again until you grasp it for a change. Or stop misrepresenting it in a disingenuous attempt to ridicule what I *actually* wrote (as opposed to your straw man version of it).
Then you claim that my statement is false concerning the Dover disclaimer.
Indeed.
Where's the "forced religion" in this statement Itchy?
The part where it's a Trojan-Horse attack on science in the service of a religion. The part where it twists the truth in the service of a religion. The part where it misrepresents science education in the service of a religion. The part where it is disingenuously crafted to make ID-creationism sound on par with evolutionary biology. The part where it pushes "Of Pandas and People", which lies about science in the service of a religion. The part where moneys were raised in churches with the express purpose of supporting religion via this change in the classroom. The part where the board members crafted it *as* support for their religion, *as* a way to advocate God to the students.
Try reading the actual trial transcripts if you want to come up to speed on this issue.
Nowhere, motivation is the central issue. Your claim to the contrary is silly.
You yet again misunderstand or are misrepresenting what I wrote. Cut it out. I said that *you* misunderstood the nature in which motivation is the issue. I said that motivation *is* the issue, just not in the way you have mispresented it. You have misrepresented the manner in which their motivation is at issue.
Deal with what I actually write, or go pester someone else with straw man attacks. I want to discuss the actual issues, not some twisted misrepresentation of them and of what I have actually written.