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

OK, David, judges are human. This is probably most evident at present in
the westernmost circuit, which I believe holds the record for being
overruled on appeal. I'll agree that Jones could have simply slammed the
Dover board down and proscribed /Pandas/. However, Forrest's evidence on
the genesis of /Pandas/ seems to make it clear that ID is a brand of
Creationism despite DI's protestations. So there were grounds for making
an appeal more difficult, so that the appeals would be refused. On the
other hand, Pim, I believe that PA regulations require the teaching of
evolution, but not of origins. If some school board mandated teaching an
atheistic theory of origins, you'd have a better parallel.
Dave

On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 09:19:17 -0800 Pim van Meurs <pimvanmeurs@yahoo.com>
writes:
> 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 15:24:12 2006