Evolution Ruling Tossed Out in Georgia

Atlanta Journal - Constitution ^ | 5/26/06 | Kristina torres, Bill Rankin

[connectthedots]

If you read my entire post at your link, you will see that, I made no unqualified statements as to how Jones would rule. I know far too much about the way judges work to think that they will actually accurately state the facts or properly appl;y them to the law.

[connectthedots]

Your reading comprehension sucks.

[Dimensio]

If you read my entire post at your link, you will see that, I made no unqualified statements as to how Jones would rule.

You stated that you believed that Jones would rule in favor of the defendants, which was a prediction regarding the outcome. When making the statement, you did not offer any qualifiers. After the ruling, you denied making any such predictions. Claiming that my reading comprehension "sucks" does not change what you stated in the past.

[connectthedots]

Why don't you simply repost my entire reply on that thread. Context is everything.

[Dimensio]

Why don't you simply repost my entire reply on that thread.

As you wish.

If I recall correctly, and I may be wrong, but didn't you think that this case will hinge on the Lemon test? If so, it will be interesting to see haow he applies the Lemon test. While Jones cannot completely ignore the Lemon test, it will be interesting to see how he applies it; especially when he asked the parties to take into consideration a recent USSC decision.

I think the judge will rule very narrowly in favor of the defendants, but there won't be any leeway for actually teaching ID in the classroom. I don't see where the plaintiffs had much to gain as a practical matter once the school board modified their 'statement'. on the other hand, the ID folks will consider it quite a psychologial victory if all they win is the ability to make a simple statement that the TOE is controversial and there are other possible explanations for life.

You made a specific statement of belief that the ruling would be in favor of the defendants. I do not see how this is ambiguous.

[connectthedots]

Maybe your screen name should be changed to demented.

[Dimensio]

Maybe your screen name should be changed to demented.

Insulting me will not change your statements.

[js1138]

I "think" you have a rather long history of wrongly predicting the outcome of legal decisions, and not just on crevo threads.

[connectthedots]

Nor your ability to read.

[Dimensio]

Nor your ability to read.

I am able to read. You predicted that the defendants in the Dover case would win. You later denied making any such prediction. You have thus far not explained how my assessment of your two contradictory statements is in error.

[connectthedots]

I don't argue with people who can't see the obvious.

[js1138]

Let's just say you have an interesting history of predicting legal outcomes. Interesting for those of us who have been here a while.

[connectthedots]

And you have a history of being hopelessly ignorant. There is a reason I rarely respond to anything you post.

[js1138]

But you are wondering what I mean by that one, aren't you?

[connectthedots]

Nope. If I could care less, I don't know how.

[Dimensio]

I don't argue with people who can't see the obvious.

I do not see how my conclusion is not obvious. You predicted a verdict in the Dover trial. Later, you denied making any such prediction.

If you wish to argue that you did not actually predict a verdict, then you will need to explain how your statement does not constitute a prediction. Merely repeating a denial in spite of information to the contrary does not change reality.

[csense]

Very well. I will phrase it in a more vague, and likely more sustainable claim: "Most professional scientists agree: evolution is an unproven theory".

You can phrase it anyway you want, just so long as it is a true statement. That said, and considering how often we are reminded here that scientific theories do not lend themselves to proof, I find it highly unlikely that professional scientists would agree to something that was contrary to their principles, so again, I'm going to have to ask that you demonstrate the the truth of this statement.....which should be easy since you seem to believe that it is a sustainable claim.

Look,, all I'm asking for is a true statement. I can pull misleading statements out of my butt all day long...doesn't mean they're true however.

[Dimensio]

You can phrase it anyway you want, just so long as it is a true statement.

As I have said, it is possible to phrase a semantically true statement in such a way as to suggest a falsehood.

That said, and considering how often we are reminded here that scientific theories do not lend themselves to proof, I find it highly unlikely that professional scientists would agree to something that was contrary to their principles, so again, I'm going to have to ask that you demonstrate the the truth of this statement.....which should be easy since you seem to believe that it is a sustainable claim.

How is the statement contrary to the principles of most scientists? Please be specific.

Look,, all I'm asking for is a true statement. I can pull misleading statements out of my butt all day long...doesn't mean they're true however.

It would appear as though you are denying the obvious fact that a true statement can be misleading because you do not wish to accept that you were mistaken.

[scientist]

The stickers read: "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."

Metmom said, "Good grief, how does that translate into a government endorsement of religion? Shouldn't that be said of any scientific theory? So why the meltdown when it's evolution that's being questioned?"

Because evolution is both a theory AND a fact. Beyond any reasonable doubt, evolution has occurred and is occuring now, and its scientific explanation is the theory of evolution, itself widely accepted by all scientists. So the sticker contains falsehoods. Furthermore, its intent is to particularize and demonize evolution as a controversial process, when it is not (among scientists).

ALL science is theoretical, which means it is composed of reliable knowledge, tested hypotheses supported by an immense amount of repeatable evidence, and not by speculation or guesses, which the sticker tries to suggest by misusing the term "theory" in its popular, rather than scientific, sense. The focus on evolution reveals its unconstitutional religious intent.

What if Cobb County public officials mandated a sticker in all Bibles in the county that said the following: "This book contains information on history, science, and philosophy. This material is a theory, not a fact. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered." How would you feel then? Perhaps exactly how scientists and science teachers feel about the biology textbook sticker.

[csense]

What if Cobb County public officials mandated a sticker in all Bibles in the county that said the following: "This book contains information on history, science, and philosophy. This material is a theory, not a fact. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered." How would you feel then?

For this to make sense, one either has to tear up the Bill of Rights, or show that the thing in comparison is also an enumerated right.

Do yourself favor and never use this ridiculous argument again.