Replies

Would you have a problem with voters who decided that they wanted their children to be taught about the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

NO.

I would rather trust the voters than the judges regarding what best to teach their kids.

This country is based on freedom. Including the freedom to believe anything you want as long as you don't harm anybody else.

I would also be very uncomfortable with a judge who decided what is and what is not science without considering testimony, evidence, precedent, and so forth. That is undoubtedly judicial activism. But, Judge Jones did not take it upon himself to decide what is and what is not science. He listened to the testimony of DEFENSE expert witnesses. Please note that I did mention that the expert witnesses who claimed intelligent design was at best a fringe science were from the DEFENSE.

BTW, any person who uses his head should not be too worried about the word -- FRINGE. Most new discoveries that were later accepted were considered "fringe" during their infancy ( and that included Darwin's theory of evolution ).

Copernicus and Galileo were considered "fringe" during their times. Suffice it to say this -- you do not make a decision regarding what a community decides what their children should be exposed to based on this one testimony alone.

In fact, a case can be made that the Dover trial was about censorship. Dover never even required that ID be taught in school. It simply made the book OF PANDAS AND PEOPLE a recommended reading ( not even REQUIRED ) for those who are interested in looking at the case for ID. YET, for the Darwinists, this was enough to bring a lawsuit.

In other words, Judge Jones ruled because of the testimony of the defense experts on your side of the argument.

If you are talking about his ruling that there should not even be a statement suggesting that students can read a book on their own if they are interested simply because ID is at a fringe state today ( similar to the fringe state that Galileo and Copernicus' ideas were ), then that says a lot about Judge Jones' decision more than anything else... which is to say -- IT IS ISN'T BASED ON SCIENTIFIC REASONING AT ALL. Which makes MY POINT. I don't want an individual deciding for my county what and what not to recommend as reading material. That infringes on my freedom.

If you want to disown them, fine with me.

Hey, I do not want to disown the fact that Copernicus and Galileo were considered fringe during their time. Why should this be disowned ? The word FRINGE is a NEUTRAL connotation. You seem to want to equate FRINGE with FALSE. That is an unwarranted extrapolation ( much as evolutionists are doing extrapolating what they see in the micro-world to the macro-world ).

I thank you for your fairness when you emphatically state that you would not have a problem with voters who wanted their children to learn about the Flying Spaghetti Monster in public science classrooms.

I agree with you that it could be argued that Kitzmiller involved censorship of a sort. I agree with you that students should have the freedom to check out a book like Of Pandas and People.

But, censorship was a minor issue in the case. I direct you to the following statement, which was added to the biology curriculum in 2004:

Students will be made aware of the gaps/problems in Darwin’s theory and of other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent design. Note: Origins of life is not taught.

This was problematic. As the defense expert witnesses themselves acknowledged, under the NAS (i.e. accepted) definition of theory, intelligent design is not a theory. Judge Jones used this testimony in his ruling.