Re: Fwd: Judge Jones sided with the Discovery Institute and ruled against the Dove...

David Opderbeck wrote:

> Pim, just because the Judge said it was "essential" doesn't mean it
> really was "essential" or even that he really thought it was
> "essential." There are at least two options: (1) he was mistaken; or
> (2) he was trying to justify doing something that wasn't really
> necessary to the case. Option (1) is certainly possible, and it
> happens all the time. No trial judge is infallible; that's why we
> have multiple layers of appeals courts. But I rather think some
> aspect of option (2) is operative here as well.

Let's look at the Kitzmiller case and replace ID policy with evolution
policy. In other words, the board made the same religious statements,
the only difference is that the policy required evolution to be taught.
Would the court have rejected the policy merely based on the effect even
if the primary purpose of teaching evolution is not a sham although it
may have perceived religious implications?
That's why I see that ruling on ID being science is essential.
Received on Tue Jan 3 12:19:30 2006