Posted on 03/24/2006 4:03:39 AM PST by PatrickHenry
Ho hum.... another day, another simplistic mischaraterization of Intelligent Design Theory...
____
How so? Did the designer not create the designs? Certainly if one is going to posit a designer, it certainly follows that the designer (or the designers designated agent) followed through and created according to the plans drawn up by the designer. Hence, there is a "creator". If there is no creator, how did the designs come to fruition?
It appears that public officials prefer the sheep to meekly accept whatever ruling they make. Voicing dissent must be crushed.
The nutjob of a judge is in less danger than almost anyone on the planet. I am sure that prominent ID supporters have been subjected to the same sort of thing, and no one cares. No one is up in arms. But the darling of the atheist left? Well!
Now if he were a believing Christian, a convert from Islam, in Afghanistan, I'd be concerned for his safety. For that matter, if he were merely an avowed atheist living in any Islamic country he'd require round-the-clock protection, which he wouldn't get.
Judge Jones is no liberal.
Can so too!
(don't expect consistancy from Creationists)
Paging Nehemiah Scudder. Pick up the white courtesy telephone please.
In fairness, the judge had no choice but to rule the way he did because of bad earlier Supreme Court precedent. Similar to Judge Alito once striking down a Pennsylvania pro-life statute.
However, at the time may of us noted that Jones could have simply issued a routine ruling citing precedent and left it at that. The fact that he issued such a rhetorically harsh, grandstanding type ruling made it apparent that he was playing to the media and the leftist law journal crowd. In other words, the Greenhouse Effect was Souterizing him.
His whining and his joining in with O'Connor & Ginzburg on their silly crusade to shut down any disagreement with liberal rulings only confirms that this is the case.
He was "rhetorically harsh" because he didn't appreciate the ID people making up stories that might fly whenever it suited them to do so, and he called them on it.
DI was given the opprotunity to present their "science behind intelligent design".
Why didn't they?
Nah, we was playing to the press corps.
You was?
If by "Darwininsts" you mean scientists who understand evolutionary biolgy and do reaearch in the field, then don't worry.
Places like Japan, Germany, Israel, China and India have plenty of scientists to take up the slack.
LOL! Typo!
LOL.
No, he was disgusted by perjury committed in the name of religion.
How are you today, senator? Long time no see!
And other examples of creationist fraud that turned up, such as the slimeball attempt to pass of that creationist tract, Pandas and People, as a science book:
As Plaintiffs meticulously and effectively presented to the Court, Pandas went through many drafts, several of which were completed prior to and some after the Supreme Court's decision in Edwards [Edwards v. Aguillard], which held that the Constitution forbids teaching creationism as science. By comparing the pre and post Edwards drafts of Pandas, three astonishing points emerge:Source: Kitzmiller et al. v Dover Area School District et al.(1) the definition for creation science in early drafts is identical to the definition of ID;This word substitution is telling, significant, and reveals that a purposeful change of words was effected without any corresponding change in content, which directly refutes FTE's [FTE = the Foundation for Thought and Ethics, the publisher of Pandas] argument that by merely disregarding the words "creation" and "creationism," FTE expressly rejected creationism in Pandas. In early pre-Edwards drafts of Pandas, the term "creation" was defined as "various forms of life that began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive features intact -- fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc," the very same way in which ID is defined in the subsequent published versions.(2) cognates of the word creation (creationism and creationist), which appeared approximately 150 times were deliberately and systematically replaced with the phrase ID; and
(3) the changes occurred shortly after the Supreme Court held that creation science is religious and cannot be taught in public school science classes in Edwards.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.