Replies

If the judge was convinced by the I.D. testimony and ruled that it was Science and included the arguments of the defense in his decision, would that make him not ‘cometent’ enough to think for himself?

The "judge" is not qualified to rule on what is science and what isn't science. He is no more qualified to decide that ID isn't science than courts are qualified to hold that CO2 is a pollutant which is exactly what a majority of the SCOTUS held.

The "judge" overeached and because he overeached you hold him as an exemplar of judicial excellence when in fact he's an activist masquerading as a scientist.

Pretty funny actually.

He was asked to rule by both sides if I.D. was Science. Only when he came up with the obvious answer that it is not Science did you think he was an activist.

Do not judges USUALLY include the arguments of the lawyers of the prevailing side?

Did not both sides ask him to rule on if I.D. was Science?

I am not a Historian, but I am intelligent enough and educated enough to know that “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” and “Hitler’s Diaries” were frauds and not a part of the actual historic record except as frauds. I am not a Lawyer, but I can listen to Judge Thomas’s arguments and follow along, and make a determination is something is actually part of the Constitution or just an emanation or penumbra. I am not a Garbage man, but I can make a determination what needs to be thrown out or not.

You are apparently not a Biologist, but somehow you think you are competent enough to render a decision on if Natural selection and mutation are sufficient to account for common descent of species. You are apparently not a Lawyer, but somehow you think you are competent enough to render a decision about what is or is not judicial activism.

Use logic much?