Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: AndrewC
My understanding is that DI did not want the trial and thought it was a poor choice.

The DI was in on it from the beginning, giving advice to the board on how to go about introducing ID. The DI got worried after they found out the defense had already exposed their religious motives. That would be a killer since the whole charade is about presenting ID as science, not religion. The DI then quit the case, not wanting to be behind a failed test case, and didn't let Dembski and Meyer testify as planned.

They were smart to pull out. Turns out the Christian ID proponents in question made a mess of it, perjuring themselves under oath.

opposes mandating it in schools because it is a relatively new concept

That is completely opposite of their stated plan to get ID into schools by 2003, regardless of whether it is accepted science. The statement is spin, believable only by those who don't know the facts.

711 posted on 09/06/2009 2:11:39 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 709 | View Replies ]


To: antiRepublicrat
The statement is spin, believable only by those who don't know the facts.

Well, show them. I have posted a newspaper excerpt which indicates what I stated. The wedge document has been explained by the CSC and is no plan for a "test" case, especially in relation to Dover, which, as I demonstrated, was rejected by the Discovery Institute. So show your "conspiratorial" facts. The link I provided to the University of Missouri is fairly clear on the conspiracy in the Scopes case.

717 posted on 09/06/2009 5:46:20 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 711 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson