Kitzmiller vs. Dover, PA

[jcrawford]

An intelligently designed legal attack is exposing the soft underbelly of neo-Darwinist facism in public education.

Fascinating details emerging from the court transcripts of the historic Evo/ID legal battle in PA.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/k ... dover.html

[MagusYanam]

Quite so. There is a movement afoot, particularly in the plastics industry, to replace these utilitarian implements with the SPORK. Now, a spork is insufficiently tined to serve adequately as a skewering device; the bowl is insufficiently large to serve adequately in liquid processing; the spaces between the tines (or are they hemitines, being no more than half length?) provide drainage that actually interferes with liquid processing; the hemitines, when unprotected by culinary globs skewered on their ends, come into dangerously close apposition to the cheeks, with the danger of physical injury. Clearly, the spork is not only poorly designed, it is dangerous. It bespeaks the breathtaking inanity of those who would foist it upon us.

If you need a spoon drink it. If you need a knife eat it with your hands. What is a fork?

Then it seems, there is only one solution, though it does favour those of us with the ability to use them well.

Chopsticks, my friends, chopsticks: they have no points or cutting edges, they're made of wood and they're too long to choke on. If they're well-made, you won't get any splinters, if that's a concern. If you pick up a piece of food that's too big to chew, bite a piece off with your teeth. Simple and elegant utensils; everyone should learn to use them.

Or maybe it could just be my sinophilia showing through...

[Cathar1950]

Chopsticks, my friends, chopsticks:

What do you mean they have no points? I would like to see the data on them. How many people have used these things? I don't think they will ever catch on and you know it won't be long before some one puts out an eye.
I say bowls and hands. It you don't have hands then find a friend that will feed you. Better yet find a friend that will feed you even if you have hands. I wouldn't trust any of my friends to feed me with a bowl. I know that the humor would just over come their compassion eventually.

[Jose]

Chopsticks? No points? Truly, they are poorly pointed on one end, but on the other.... my, my. The variety in chopstickery is immense, ranging from the dispo wooden ones popular among the Asian eateries of the US, to the elegant lacquered sets and high-tech stainless varieties, to the ultralight backpackers' untensils.

Of course, there are the extra-long cooking chopsticks as well, though I find these awkward (but that's perhaps because one of mine is somewhat warped, not being made of bamboo).

Chopsticks have the additional advantage that one can annoy other diners by using them to drum on the table.

[Cathar1950]

You sure can tell this thread is over. I am getting hungry for Chinese now. Maybe I can get some one to go eat with me tomorrow.

Happy New Years every one.

[MagusYanam]

What do you mean they have no points? I would like to see the data on them. How many people have used these things?

The ones I've used are square cross-sectioned on one end and circular cross-sectioned on the other, and maintain a pretty uniform diametre. They aren't as pointed as forks, was my point, though it would hurt quite badly if you stick one in your eye.

As for how many people use them, chopsticks are one of the most commonplace utensils for about 1/4 of the world's population, having widespread use in China, Japan and Korea.

I say bowls and hands. It you don't have hands then find a friend that will feed you. Better yet find a friend that will feed you even if you have hands. I wouldn't trust any of my friends to feed me with a bowl. I know that the humor would just over come their compassion eventually.

/me grins

Chopsticks? No points? Truly, they are poorly pointed on one end, but on the other.... my, my. The variety in chopstickery is immense, ranging from the dispo wooden ones popular among the Asian eateries of the US, to the elegant lacquered sets and high-tech stainless varieties, to the ultralight backpackers' untensils.

Backpackers using travel chopsticks? Hmmm... I suppose that's not unheard-of, especially given the amount of ramen I remember eating when I was camping out in the Boundary Waters area. (We used spoons, though.)

Chopsticks have the additional advantage that one can annoy other diners by using them to drum on the table.

Amen, brother.

You sure can tell this thread is over. I am getting hungry for Chinese now. Maybe I can get some one to go eat with me tomorrow.

Happy New Years every one.

Ahh, it had to be just before dinner when I visited this site again, didn't it?

Happy New Year, Cathar, Jose and all!

[snappyanswer]

Jose wrote:
Indeed, the verdict is in. This doesn't stop the ID/Creationist camp from trying harder, but they may spend some time licking their wounds and seeking a more subtle approach. That approach may be what they've pushed here and there already--trying to force the inclusion of "arguments against evolution" into the curriculum.

It seems to me, we should focus our efforts on trying to counter the misinformation of the ID/Creationist camp, when they say that accepting evolution absolutely requires abandoning religion. They've done quite well with this argument, convincing many people that it must be true, when it isn't at all. That is: we should try to de-fuse the controversy part of the discussion, so we can talk about the real issues.

But attack and the annihilation of religion IS the goal of many, many, many, people that always, always, always, use evolution to make Christians out to be idots for believing in their religion. And of course that means Christians and Christianity.

An Objective Observer Would Know that ID and Teaching
About “Gaps” and “Problems” in Evolutionary Theory are
Creationist, Religious Strategies that Evolved from Earlier
Forms of Creationism
The history of the intelligent design movement (hereinafter “IDM”) and the
development of the strategy to weaken education of evolution by focusing students
on alleged gaps in the theory of evolution is the historical and cultural background

Next, and as stated, religious opponents of evolution began cloaking
religious beliefs in scientific sounding language and then mandating that schools
teach the resulting “creation science” or “scientific creationism” as an alternative to
evolution. However, this tactic was likewise unsuccessful under the First
Amendment. “Fundamentalist organizations were formed to promote the idea that
the Book of Genesis was supported by scientific data. The terms ‘creation science’
and ‘scientific creationism’ have been adopted by these Fundamentalists as
descriptive of their study of creation and the origins of man.” McLean, 529 F.
Supp. at 1259. In 1982, the district court in McLean reviewed Arkansas’s
balanced-treatment law and evaluated creation science in light of Scopes,
Epperson, and the long history of Fundamentalism’s attack on the scientific theory
of evolution, as well as the statute’s legislative history and historical context. The
court found that creation science organizations were fundamentalist religious
entities that “consider[ed] the introduction of creation science into the public
schools part of their ministry.” Id. at 1260. The court in McLean stated that

Dramatic evidence of ID’s religious nature and aspirations is found in what
is referred to as the “Wedge Document.” The Wedge Document, developed by the
Discovery Institute’s Center for Renewal of Science and Culture (hereinafter
“CRSC”), represents from an institutional standpoint, the IDM’s goals and
objectives, much as writings from the Institute for Creation Research did for the
earlier creation-science movement, as discussed in McLean. (11:26-28 (Forrest));
McLean, 529 F. Supp. at 1255. . . .

Whether an Objective Student Would View the Disclaimer
as a Official Endorsement of Religion
The Supreme Court instructed in Edwards that it has been particularly
“vigilant in monitoring compliance with the Establishment Clause in elementary
and secondary schools.” 482 U.S. at 583-84. The Supreme Court went on to state
that:
Families entrust public schools with the education of
their children, but condition their trust on the
understanding that the classroom will not purposely be
used to advance religious views that may conflict with
the private beliefs of the student and his or her family. Students in such institutions are impressionable and their attendance is involuntary.

INVOLUNTARY ATTENDANCE?

See anything here a facist would love?

Maybe "involuntary attendance" of children to indoctrinate?

But the classroom IS a place where we see the PUPOSEFUL attack on religion. Richard Dawkins as an atheist would be just the latest in that species to attack viciously religion and those that believe in it. But as is also the case it is Christians that are in the center of the cross hairs. And as has been show in other debate topics with MagusYanam, that people that claim to be Christians use evolution to destroy belief in Christ as anything but a pipe dream.

Christians should endeavor to fight against evolution - and never lie about their intentions and goals - as evolution IS directed to destroy them and their children that have to - involuntarily and without any help - be indoctrinated into a worldview that has more in store for them than just a little science class. Everything that Humanists and their religion of Humanism, wants to attain has to be taught through evolution to get to their goals adapted by the masses.

The Judge in the case above railed against the school board as lairs and made them pay court costs as a clear indication of his disdain for these people.

Now, the judge had a right to view these people in that light from the evidence of the court testimony, but it is also clear that Christianty will not be tolerated by the facists that will not allow it to be the foundation for the challenge of what holds their grip on the minds of children in piublic schools.

Neo-facists? No. Real Facists? Seems very likely.

[snappyanswer]

By the way, from the "non-activist" Judge Jones (who sounds like he has political aspirations?):

H. Conclusion
The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts
of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates the
Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the
seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and
moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious,
antecedents.
Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock
assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory
is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in
general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs’ scientific experts testified that the
theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the
scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the
existence of a divine creator.

Yet it is evolutionists that use Darwin's neo-religion time and time again to ridicule and denigrate religion - c'mon we all know . . . "Christianity" - I thinbk that Judge Jones joined (also) into the use of lying to cover up his true intentions.

Further:

To be sure, Darwin’s theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.

The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the
Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.

With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID
have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor
do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As
stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an
alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.

Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an
activist judge.

If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court.
Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction
on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a
constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy.

The breathtaking inanity of the
Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.

This "non-activist" Judge also laid down the guantlet; that if any Christrians dare to come after evolution again, they had better have a lot of money for the cost of going after this unchalllengeable icon worshipped by the "scientific" community of the modern world.

Neo-Darwinism (Facism), or better labeled neo-Religion (Facism), anyone?

This judge knew what he was doing and why. There is no seperation of church and state mentioned anywhere "in the Constitution." That this Judge used this red herring for his support of humanist activism endeavor is also a place where a lie served an agenda.

Judge Jones saw in the dishonesty of the religious (Christian) Dover board members to hide their religious intentions, an angle to attack, that would make an honest refutation of Darwinism by other people, some being Christians, unsettling as an undertaking.

And he took it.

The little ass-covering blurb by Judge jones, about religion not being dissolved by evolution certainly goes against observable evidence, as evolution is always used by anti-religionists.

More was uncovered by Jones' decision than just another defeat of Christianty.

[Lotan]

But attack and the annihilation of religion IS the goal of many, many, many, people that always, always, always, use evolution to make Christians out to be idots for believing in their religion.

Poor fundamentalists. Always under "attack".
I'm sure that there are some who would like to see the annihilation of religion, especially the dangerous fundamentalist varieties. If they use the theory of evolution in their arguments it is no wonder. The theory of evolution is just a small part of the overall picture of the development of our universe which is composed of the findings of virtually every field of science. It is the product of millenia of empirical study. On the other hand, the creation story is just that; a story in a little magic book written in a pre-scientific age. If there were evidence for the biblical creation story, then science would necessarily conform to it, but there isn't so it doesn't. These facts of nature exist independently of Christianity, or any other religion or belief system.

But the classroom IS a place where we see the PUPOSEFUL attack on religion.

Run for cover!
The theory of evolution is no more of a "PUPOSEFUL(sic) attack on religion" than is the heliocentric theory. Besides, which creation story should be regarded as scientific? There are thousands of them. Even bible believers can't agree on one view.

Maybe "involuntary attendance" of children to indoctrinate?

Do you mean like little muslim, buddhist, hindu, and atheist children being taught the Genesis creation story as scientific fact? That's the indoctrination you want isn't it? Hypocrite.

Christians should endeavor to fight against evolution ...

I wish you would have thought of that before the AIDS virus showed up...

The Judge in the case above railed against the school board as lairs and made them pay court costs as a clear indication of his disdain for these people.

If you have actually read their testimonies you'll have seen that they repeatedly and knowingly perjured themselves. Should he admire them for that? As for the court costs, they lost. Maybe Pat Robertson will put his money where his mouth is and bail them out.

Neo-facists? No. Real Facists? Seems very likely

Scientific theory isn't political, but attempts to subvert it are.

[QED]

Now, the judge had a right to view these people in that light from the evidence of the court testimony, but it is also clear that Christianty will not be tolerated by the facists that will not allow it to be the foundation for the challenge of what holds their grip on the minds of children in piublic schools.

Neo-facists? No. Real Facists? Seems very likely.

Facist? Is this the right spelling of the word? It's worth looking up as well because the meaning isn't always properly understood. I understand it as meaning "a government strategy whereby people are persecuted or denied equality on the basis of superficial qualities or beliefs". It's a delicate subject I know but I can't see how a group of people could be discriminated against when they hold to beliefs that contradict many other religions as well as sound scientific knowledge. Surely the very idea of the establishment clause is to prevent such a charge of fascism being directed at the US government?

[MagusYanam]

But attack and the annihilation of religion IS the goal of many, many, many, people that always, always, always, use evolution to make Christians out to be idots for believing in their religion. And of course that means Christians and Christianity.

Those Christians who actually use their heads see no conflict between the idea of evolution (not the independent opinions of several misguided evolutionists) and the basic tenets of their religion. You're creating a false dichotomy here.

And as has been show in other debate topics with MagusYanam, that people that claim to be Christians use evolution to destroy belief in Christ as anything but a pipe dream.

Christians should endeavor to fight against evolution - and never lie about their intentions and goals - as evolution IS directed to destroy them and their children that have to - involuntarily and without any help - be indoctrinated into a worldview that has more in store for them than just a little science class. Everything that Humanists and their religion of Humanism, wants to attain has to be taught through evolution to get to their goals adapted by the masses.

While I am flattered at being singled out as a point in this incivility, what has been shown wherever we have debated is that realistic, thoughtful Christians can believe in evolution (Reinhold Niebuhr, for example) and still hold belief in an actual Christ. All of snappyanswer's points are further disproved in light of the fact that it was a good High Churchman (Charles Darwin) who observed the mechanics of biological evolution and that most of Victorian society (which valued its Christianity perhaps more highly than any subsequent period in Western history) came to accept Darwin's observations as accurate. Some Victorians did see evolution as a metaphor for something greater (Spencerism), but the Victorian Christians of the predominant Ritschlian school were able to reconcile their beliefs in a crucified and risen Christ with biological evolution with no problem whatsoever.

That evolution was thought up to destroy Christianity is utter paranoid rubbish, as is the 'indoctrination' of public schools. The only thing public schooling ever indoctrinated me with is critical thinking - looking at the available evidence, its credibility and relevance, and coming cautiously and methodically to a conclusion in its light.

Also, Christianity is ultimately a humanistic religion, when the word is applied properly. God came down in the person of Christ Jesus - a human being - to preach to the human beings the grace shown to all of them, Jew and Gentile. Jesus helped humanity to relate to its own goodness and to overcome its own flaws and sins through the healing and speaking works of his ministry, the statement of the Crucifixion and the significance to all people of the Resurrection.