Jones expanded on a divided courts holding and ignored SCOTUS precedent, to wit, "there is "no realistic danger that the community would think that the [School Board] was endorsing religion or any particular creed, and any benefit to religion or to the Church would have been no more than incidental". Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free Sch. Dist., 508 U.S. 384, 395 (1993).
And we haven't even started on his activism in setting himself up as a peer reviewer absent any qualification whatsoever.
I would say this however, SCOTUS establishment and free exercise clause jurisprudence is a disgrace. With Alito joining the court their may be a nice little majority available to clean it all up.
And we haven't even started on his activism in setting himself up as a peer reviewer absent any qualification whatsoever.
He didn't have to - Behe's testimony that there is no peer-reviewed ID work - from the plaintiff's witness, no less - was quite damning on its own.
I would say this however, SCOTUS establishment and free exercise clause jurisprudence is a disgrace.
Could be worse - were I actually on the Court, instead of sniping from the sidelines, my first look at First Amendment jurisprudence might be in the direction of the mess that is Miller. Establishment cases are less interesting to me in general though ;)
I know you're discussing 1st Amendment common law, but you also want to allow ID to be taught as though it were science.
But whatever is taught,
every ERV you share with a gorilla, is also found in a chimp. No court can change that.
...and every mutation shared by whales and cows will also be in hippos. No court can change that.
...and every mutation found in both cats and dogs will also be found in bears. No court can change that.
Can ID make predictions like this? Predictions that, so far as they been tested, have proven true. If it's going to replace standard biology it will have to do this, and more besides.
C'mon, just one. Show your work.
"E pur si muovo".