> In other words, I am not arguing that the judge's decision is neutral,
> judges seldomly are neutral by virtue of having to decide one way or the
> other. What I am arguing is that the Judge's ruling is well supported by
> argument, evidence and fact and is by virtue of its thorougness, quite
> impressive.
It is not supported by argument. It is supported by judicial precedent, and
by the constraints that judges are allowed to work within. This does not
necessarily mean that the decision was "good" in the sense that the Gospel,
or Truth was promoted.
I am going to give the benefit of the doubt to the ID proponents, who as far
as I can tell, were only motivated by trying to make sure that what was
taught in their children's school was balanced and not subjected solely to a
materialistic worldview.
Received on Mon Jan 2 14:35:21 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jan 02 2006 - 14:35:21 EST