Judge Jones Follows ACLU, Ignores Contrary Facts

[MizSterious]

A lot of scientists are coming to the realization that there is a Higher Power at work in creating all that there is. This judge and the "scientists" he quotes are looking like the flat-earthers of old.

[SmoothTalker]

What is so obnoxious about this case, is that this guy is a Bush nominee. One of the big cries to the base over the past twenty years is that we had to win elections so we could take control of the judiciary so this is frustrating.

[jim_trent]

I think MOST scientists already know there is a higher power at work. The problem is that science teaches the "how". Religion teaches the "why" That is why the two should be kept separate. Unfortunately, the creationists don't see any difference between the two questions.

[clee1]

Agreed.

I am a Bible-believing, God-fearing Christian, and I don't want gooberment-sponsored religious indoctrination of your kids in public schools either.

MY kids will be going to private Christian schools or will be homeschooled in any case, for for me the point is nearly moot.

However, gooberment-sponsored religious indoctrination of kids is what theocracies like the Taliban do; It will happen in America over my dead body.

[montag813]

A lot of scientists are coming to the realization that there is a Higher Power at work in creating all that there is

PROVE it. If you cannot, then it does not belong in Science class.

[truthfinder9]

So what happens when the "how" turns out to be God? That's what design shows. I know, according to Darwinian Fundies, we can't detect design and there's no science, but anyone who actually reads the design materials finds out otherwise. The Darwinian Fundies have no qualms about using evolution to "disprove" God, but then turn around and say science can't be used to "prove" God.

The Two Faces of Darwinists

[Sarastro]

What is so obnoxious about this case, is that this guy is a Bush nominee. One of the big cries to the base over the past twenty years is that we had to win elections so we could take control of the judiciary so this is frustrating.

Excuse me, but I thought we wanted judges who enforced the Constitution, not made new extra-Constitutional law. Judge Jones merely observed that the first amendment is still in effect. Sounds like just what we demanded.

[Paloma_55]

Electromagnetic waves were "supernatural" until a physicist figured out how they worked.

Gravity is still somewhat "supernatural".

The human spirit is still "supernatural".

[Paloma_55]

The root cause of the problem is two fold.

1) The extremist position that even suggesting there is a higher power somehow translates to indoctrination. The original situation was not to teach ID only, it was to inform children that evolution is a *theory* with holes in it, that there are alternative theories, and ID is one of them.

2) The government takeover of the education of our children. By taking our money forcefully through taxation and then applying it to education of the masses, the government has essentially taken away the ability for people to choose where their kids go. VOUCHERS.

[truthfinder9]

You miss the point entirely. Design supporters don't say origins is "supernatural" and they can figure it out. They are saying the evidence of an intelligent designer is as obvious as looking at a car and knowing it was designed. Detection of design is fundamental to forensics, archaeology, cryptology, etc, but Darwin Evangelists will turn around and say design isn't scientific. Which is it then? Depends what day it is for them.

[truthfinder9]

You miss the point entirely. Design supporters don't say origins is "supernatural" and they can't figure it out. They are saying the evidence of an intelligent designer is as obvious as looking at a car and knowing it was designed. Detection of design is fundamental to forensics, archaeology, cryptology, etc, but Darwin Evangelists will turn around and say design isn't scientific. Which is it then? Depends what day it is for them.

[linda_22003]

Apparently the judges were supposed to support the "base's" religious ideas. If they don't, they're de facto "activistjudges".

[mlc9852]

Does this judge have a biology degree?

[highball]

Excuse me, but I thought we wanted judges who enforced the Constitution, not made new extra-Constitutional law. Judge Jones merely observed that the first amendment is still in effect. Sounds like just what we demanded.

Exactly.

You've hit the nail on the head, but some people care more about scoring points for their political agenda than they do the Constitution. So they'll decry him as an "activist judge" when he's nothing of the sort.

PC is garbage, no matter what. The school board was attempting to insert their own PC into the schools, and they were wrong to do it.

No wonder that the Discovery Institute didn't want to be involved in this case - it was a loser from the start, and they were afraid of the fallout on their agenda. They were right to be scared.

[clee1]

Agreed.

I don't like evolution being presented as fact any more than I like public schools teaching creationism.

If I had my way, there would be no gooberment educational system.

[highball]

that there are alternative theories, and ID is one of them.

Sounds good, but is patently false. ID is not a scientific theory unless you're willing to redefine the word.

[js1138]

The root cause of the problem is that ID is being promoted by the Discovery Institute, which is on record stating ID is a foot in the door towards destroying empiricism as the basis for science.

It doesn't help their case that their textbook "Pandas and People" was distributed in early drafts with "Creationism" where it now says Intelligent Design.

It doesn't help that Michael Behe testified under oath that there is no research supporting the specific claims of irreducible complexity.

It doesn't help that the Discovery Institute says ID is not ready to be taught as science in schools.

All this is openly available from sources that are not biased against the Discovery Institute.

A side issue not raised at the trial is why the school board wanted ID taught anyway. ID is not Biblical, and most of the major ID advocates with scientific credentials are on record saying they accept common descent and a 4.5 billion year earth. The places where ID diverges from natural selection are pretty technical and obscure -- not something that can be taught at the high school level.

[Oztrich Boy]

A side issue not raised at the trial is why the school board wanted ID taught anyway.

Probably hepped up on goofballs

[MHalblaub]

"So what happens when the 'how' turns out to be God? That's what design shows."

Something designed is no prove of god. Only prove of a design process.

"I know, according to Darwinian Fundies, we can't detect design and there's no science, but anyone who actually reads the design materials finds out otherwise."

Other fundies know how to detect design or intelligence behind em-waves. The ID guess lack of a proper idea how to detect design. The construct Irreducible complexity failed for that purpose on logical errors.

"The Darwinian Fundies have no qualms about using evolution to 'disprove' God, but then turn around ..."

You have problems to differ a scientist saying "we don't need god to explain that" from Friedrich Nietzsche's "Gott ist tot."

"...and say science can't be used to "prove" God.

Natural science can't be used to 'prove' anything like that.