Judge Jones discusses his opinion in Kitzmiller v. Dover

Philadelphia Inquirer ^ | 26 February 2006 | Staff

[PatrickHenry]

Please remember to use moderator-compliant FReepSpeak^tm. We now say "frequently-repeated error," sometimes called (after the poster has received numerous corrections) a "compulsively repeated error" instead of the harsher term. Everyone be nice.

[PatrickHenry]

Evolution Ping The List-O-Links

A conservative, pro-evolution science list, now with over 350 names. See the list's explanation, then FReepmail to be added or dropped. To assist beginners: But it's "just a theory", Evo-Troll's Toolkit, and How to argue against a scientific theory.

[PatrickHenry]

Here's a link to the opinion they're discussing: Kitzmiller et al. v Dover Area School District et al..

[wita]

First let me state, I have not read the opinion, but I must ask the judge, what trait is it that makes a judge certain that nothing outside the confines of his or he court matters much?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"There were Roman judges who ruled against Christianity too."

Judge Jones didn't rule against Christianity. And creo/ID'ers are always saying that ID isn't about religion at all, so how does an anti-ID ruling have anything to do with Christianity? :)

[jalisco555]

First let me state, I have not read the opinion, but I must ask the judge, what trait is it that makes a judge certain that nothing outside the confines of his or he court matters much?

While I'm not an attorney I believe the point is that in any trial the jurors should decide based on the facts submitted at trial. They may not make their own investigations since that might taint their decisions. This is not unique to this case.

[From many - one.]

Check back to see if thread evolves.

[From many - one.]

Check back to see if thread evolves.

[ClaireSolt]

I am upset about this on two counts. First, school boards, not federal judges should decide curriculum. Second, scientists, not lawyers should determine what science is. He could have and should have declined to take the case. The arrogance of lawyers should be reigned in, and they should not rule.

[ml1954]

There were Roman judges who ruled against Christianity too. They sure put a stop to Christianity, didn't they?

It's amusing to start the morning with extremist hyperbole.

[wintertime]

In my opinion, both sides asked the judge to rule on the scientific validity of intelligent design. He did exactly that.

The intelligent design defenders erred in asking the judge to rule that ID is valid science. This isn't the real problem.

The REAL problem is that government schools can NOT ever be neutral politically, culturally or moral and ethically ( that means religion). Government schools can NOT be neutral in content or consequences.

This means that government schools establish and uphold the political, cultural, and moral and ethical ( religion) worldviews of some while at the same time undermining those of others.

The solution of course is complete separation of SCHOOL and state.

By the way, I personally support evolution.

[wita]

...and precisely the reason that jury nullification is an issue in America. The judge becomes judge and jury when he shuts out certain testimony that IHHO is not relevant and requires the jury to bow to his views on what should and should not come into his or her courtroom.

Some might say that is the right of the judge, others, especially the accused and the jury, might not agree.

[wintertime]

First, school boards, not federal judges should decide curriculum.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

The biggest political bullies control the school board. They then gets to crush the freedom of conscience of many.

Education can not be neutral in content or consequences.....So...when did it become OK for voters to establish the worldview of some ( with religious consequences) while actively undermining the most cherished traditions of others ( with religious consequences)?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"The point is that one commie judge usually isn't enough to stop an idea whose time has come."

1) The Judge isn't a communist, and his ruling is sound.
2) ID has had its day and lost. It's thousands of years old, and in its modern form, is about 2-3 hundred years old. There is almost no difference in the arguments Paley out forth in 1802 (and which Darwin successfully argued against in "The Origin of Species") and those proposed today be the ID movement.
3) ID claims to be nonreligious, yet ever time someone makes an argument against it, they are called anti-Christian bigots. Very telling.

[PatrickHenry]

Found a short piece on this from the National Center for Science Education National Center for Science Education. In it's entirety:

In a brief interview with the Philadelphia Inquirer (February 26, 2006), Judge John E. Jones III, who presided over the trial in Kitzmiller v. Dover, discussed the outcome of the case. A few highlights:

• The controversial part of the ruling was whether intelligent design is in fact science. Lost in the post-decision debate was that both sides, plaintiffs and defense, asked me to rule on that issue.

• I wanted [the opinion] to stand as a primer so that folks on both sides of the issue could read it, understand the way the debate is framed, see the testimony in support and against the various positions ... and what is heartening to me is that it's now evident that it's being used in that way ...

• To my mind ... it would be a dreadful waste of judicial resources, legal resources, taxpayer money ... to replicate this trial someplace else. That's not to say it won't be, but I suspect it may not be ...

The interview was conducted on February 14, 2006, before Jones delivered a talk at the Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia's new Mt. Airy School of Religion, the Inquirer noted.

[PatrickHenry]

Yeah, yeah. I know. No apostrophe in "its."

[Snowbelt Man]

Get rid of the government monopoly on education and the debate will cease to exist. The perversion of the "Establishment Clause" by the ACLU and the never ending expansion of government into every area of public life will ultimately result in proselytizing by Christians to be deemed a hate crime. It may take another couple of decades - but, mark my words, it is the inevitable consequence of this philosophy.

[MRMEAN]

The solution of course is complete separation of SCHOOL and state

Agree...The Alliance for the Separation of School & State has some good information.