Posted on 02/02/2007 8:12:16 PM PST by Mr. Silverback
I wrote "What does this have to do with the current discussion? Pretty mucy nothing, it looks like?"
That should be "Pretty much nothing..."
Over here, Dembski argues that his book The Design Inference counts as being peer reviewed, because it was published as a Cambridge academic monograph, and they get peer reviewed. Then he also notes that an article that used The Design Inference as an indispensible base was published in a peer reviewed journal in 2002.
I'm astounded you don't understand why the idea seems ludicrous. A friend of mine is a judge and he works his butt off for a living. I'm pretty sure if it's really "common practice" for jurists to just adopt one side's brief with some minor editing, he could have gone golfing a lot more.
That said, see post 21 for some thoughts from a Freeper lawyer, and 30 for my cross-examination of gcruse.
If that's true, it is a big deal.
Not to gcruse. He doesn't think he even has to consider it.
When arguments are made on FR and elsewhere, sometimes it's easy to see how strongly or weakly someone believes in his own position.
This sentence is the first in a digression you go on that is illogical and intentionally insulting. They both treated Colson as a propagandist even though it was shown that the judge adopted "facts" in his ruling that were not facts. Their attitude about it is very blase. I'm looking at you accusing me of lying when I clearly did not, and I'm wondering how much you really believe in your position.
Now, either holster the silly accusations or change your name to Walking_Eagle.
Evolution is a philosophy of history too, unless one has invented a time machine.
This is outrageous. The ruling should be overturned immediately.
Right turns are a common practice, but if I turn right and drive through a kindergarten, suddenly it's a whole different ball of wax. Was the guy supposed to attribute and if so did he? Was he supposed to notify the litigants of this action and if so did he...etc.
"Was the Dover school system told about this arrangement?" See "who cares?"
If you were a defendant in sch a case you'd want to find out second hand about such a major decision? I doubt that. And I'm certain that if this judge had put out a decision that was 90% quoted from a Discovery Institute brief, you wouldn't be saying "who cares" about these details.
We are in absolute agreement.
Nice post. Pithy, direct and accurate.
There is a specific time frame during which a ruling can be appealed. It is firmly set in law.
That period expired well over a year ago, with no appeal.
On what grounds, then, would you propose to overturn this ruling?
Are you willing to pay the legal expenses of such a futile legal battle?
Judge Jones claim is correct.
Nope. Go to dogpile and search on...
Intelligent design, peer-reviewed
...and you'll find examples. Of course, they don't matter much to me, because it's like asking why there aren't more pro-life articles in the Planned Parenthood newsletter.
I see no evidene the judge was not impartial.
Let me throw a scenario at you:
Judge John Jones once told Christianity Today that he became a judge hoping that someday he would have a chance “to rule in matters of great importance.”
Before ruling on the case, he went to a Southern Baptist church so he could get proper context for his ruling.
He took 90% of his ruling from a Discovery Institute brief.
His ruling misquoted respected evolutionary scientists on crucial issues of fact in a way that made them look sloppy or biased.
Another news report documents that he plagiarized a sermon from Max Lucado and delivered it at a local seminary.
Now tell me, deep down...do you really believe that wouldn't raise a red flag with you? If an atheist author said the guy might not be impartial you'd say "No, you're wrong, this is an impartial ruling supporting ID in public schools"? Really?
Your humility is truly an example to us all.
Read the rest of the thread and you'll see he's jinking all over the place. Also, take a look at the bottom half of post 50 and ask yourself that question.
Both litigants have all the evidence and the presentatoins by the other party. They also get the judgement. See #39 also.
" Intelligent design, peer-reviewed"
It's not science and on those grounds it does not appear in any scientific journals. The keyword is scientific.
"Of course, they don't matter much to me, because it's like asking why there aren't more pro-life articles in the Planned Parenthood newsletter."
There's no English lit, or sociology articles in a biology pub. either.
" His ruling misquoted respected evolutionary scientists on crucial issues of fact in a way that made them look sloppy or biased."
Such errors made in the finding of fact are cause for an appeal. In this case, there was none.
" Now tell me, deep down...do you really believe that wouldn't raise a red flag with you?"
Anologies are irrelevant. What matters is the facts in this case. Nothing more.
You know ... I don't think so!
I think the key word is FREEDOM ... in this case the freedom of a school district to teach any kind of foolishness that it wants to, Intelligent Design included.
And anyway, it's not THAT bad. It's at least thought provoking. ... Funny thing is, the kids couldn't care less one way or the other!
Ever read Updike's RABBIT RUN ? I always remembered the scene where some kid asks him about a test, and he gives her all kinds of hints and realizes she's not getting them anyway. The test is about dinosaurs and he ( Rabbit ) launches into a rumination on the uselessness of such knowledge. "They're dead, let 'em lie." is the thought that I remember in particular.
no
The school district declined to appeal the ruling.
Name one article.
Old story - new article! Good stuff all around!
ID was shown to be religiously motivated, not science, and as such viopolates the 1st Amendment's establishment clause. The public schools are not to give religious instruction.
"And anyway, it's not THAT bad. It's at least thought provoking. ."
It's bad. It's religiously motivated voluminous junk science. It is not science, and to present it as such is fraud. That fraud was exposed at trial.
"Funny thing is, the kids couldn't care less one way or the other!"
Depends on the kid.
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.