The Significance of the Dover Decision

If you could be bothered to actually read even a smidgeon of the judgement and the judge's description of how the Lemon test applies, you might start to see what is so unique about Dover. It may have been a District Court but the jude ruled on two importnt aspects. He ruled that Pennsylvania State constitiution had been breached as well as the US Constitution.You say that the US constitution wasnot breached so show us exactly where Jones misapplied lemon.Lemon is relevant until it is overturned. Since it hasn't been overturned as yet, your insistence that it is irrelevant is just so much uninformed handwaving,Make your case, show us what's wrong with Lemon, show us where the judge misapplied Lemon. if all else fails you could always (again) declare this off topic and ask me to start another thread.I will not be diverted. Provide evidence of your assertion, because until you do all you capable of is making unsupported assertions from a position of self-proclaimed and wilful ignorance. I say wilful because you refuse even to read parts of the transcript, even when links have been provided. Before you say anything - it is on topic and will stay in this thread unless an admin deems that supporting your assertions that Dover has no significance because it is wrong, is off topic.I suggest that in a topic with the title "The Significance of the Dover Decision", providing evidence for your position that it has no significance is very much on topic, especially when you declare it has no significance because it is wrong. That means provide evidence that it is wrong.I wonder how many different ways I have to say this?

Hi Randman,You don't really seem too interested in discussing the significance of the Dover decision, but if I could slip into admin mode for just a bit to comment on one thing: I wouldn't recommend making these kinds of characterizations. Nor accusations of witchhunts and persecution. These kinds of behaviors represent your modus operandi, it's how you draw threads into fractious discord, and they won't be permitted anymore.I said a number of things specific to Dover, and if you'd care to comment on any of them I'd be happy to respond.--Percy

It's not an extraordinary claim. In fact, the more extraordinary claim is Darwinism and the evidence isn't there.

Uh huh. Your incredulity or personal belief is irrelevant. There are 200 years worth of scientific research and evidence in favor of Evolution, including direct observation of the process.The only evidence brought forward for ID is incredulity and faith.Which is why it was struck down at the Dover trial - it's religion in a poor disguise, which cannot be taught in schools, and cdesign proponentists are not actually doing any science. Until they start bringing extraordinary evidence to the table to back up their extraordinary claims (and violating parsimony with an additional entity in the form of a "designer" with no evidence of such an entity is most definitely an extraordinary claim), cdesign proponentists will continue to be mocked in scientific circles, and their BS will not enter classrooms.

---

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

Aside from the question of whether you're on-topic, can't this reply be summarized as, "Am not, you are!"?Will you be addressing the topic anytime soon?--Percy

Randman has already said that he hasn't read the transcripts so seemingly cannot discuss this with more than superficial depth.Who else has read the transcripts and decision? Common people! This is the Scopes trial of our day!

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

quote:

---

It's not an extraordinary claim. In fact, the more extraordinary claim is Darwinism and the evidence isn't there.

---

With this statement you demonstrate that you are willing to ignore any evidence that opposes your religious belief; you show that you are not a debater but an unreasoning zealot, blindly clinging to a particular belief and unwilling to even admit that there is evidence to the contrary.Have you been into a science library? The journals alone take up floors! You claim there is no evidence, but have you read any of those journals? Here is a link to a current issue of Journal of Human Evolution (one of literally hundreds of journals within which the evidence is accumulating): Journal of Human Evolution, Volume 54, Issue 1, Pages 1-168 (January 2008)By the way, that link will also provide the table of contents for a lot of back issues. You can find such interesting titles as "Biomechanics of phalangeal curvature" and "Evidence of amelogenesis imperfecta in an early African Homo erectus" -- and thousands of other articles. And that is just one journal out of hundreds.What do you call that, chopped liver? Or do you prefer to just sit there and try to wish it all away?This is the evidence ID only wishes it had; when the Dover trial came along ID found itself holding an empty sack.

The sack wasn't empty. It was what they were using to hide their Bible. Which is why they lost, badly.

---

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

I'd appreciate a considered and on-topic reply to my post number 136 above. Either defend your assertions or retract them. If you retract them, you have to stop making them. You choose, the ball's firmly in your court.

The Darwinian judge ruled as expected.Ray

Not entirely true. Some folks were worried that the Bush appointee might not be inclined to follow the law. Fortunately, their worries proved unfounded.The creo witnesses, however, performed as expected, lying, evading, dissembling, the very cream of christian hypocrisy that has come to exemplify most creo apologia.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Well, I didnt want to get dragged into a "discussion" with randman, so I have only trolled on this thread...but to answer your question:I have read the transcripts at least a couple of times and the judges ruling more than that (I even have a copy of it somewhere here in my office). I followed the trial on a daily basis. I loved it. Oddly, I found myself rather sad and lonely when it was over.

So, you've made over 5700 posts on this forum and you still haven't found out what evolution is or how it works.I suggest that either you read a basic biology textbook or that you take up a less intellectually demanding hobby, such as basketweaving.

spam deletedEdited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.

First posted by me elsewhere.-----Taken to School: An Interview with the Honorable Judge John E. Jones, IIITaken to School: An Interview with the Honorable Judge John E. Jones, III | PLOS Genetics-----I was alerted to this by Carol at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/evolutionversuscreationism/ (the precursor of ). Even if you never post there, it may well be worth being a member just to get Carol's tidbits. Just be sure you're set up to receive the messages via e-mail.From Carol's message there:

quote:

---

Dear Friends of NCSE,

​

Judge Jones, who presided over Kitzmiller v. Dover, is interviewed in PLoS
Genetics. The fourth issue of Evolution: Education and Outreach is now
available. And Roger Ebert offers his opinion about Expelled.

​

JUDGE JONES IN PLOS GENETICS

​

Judge John E. Jones III, who presided over the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial,
was interviewed by Jane Gitschier for PLoS Genetics. After recounting his
legal career and sketching the legal history of the creationism/evolution
controversy, Jones talked about the trial itself. Describing the expert
testimony he heard, Jones commented, "I will always remember Ken Miller's
testimony in the sense that he did A-Z evolution. And then got into
intelligent design. And having laid the foundation with the description of
evolution, got into why intelligent design doesn't work as science, to the
point where it is predominantly a religious concept." He added, "But Ken
Miller went into the immune system, the blood clotting cascade, and the
bacterial flagellum -- all three are held out by intelligent design
proponents as irreducibly complex, and in effect, having no precursors. He
[Miller] knocked that down, I thought, quite effectively -- so
comprehensively and so well. By the time Miller was done testifying, over
the span of a couple of days, the defendants were really already in the hole."

​

The expert witnesses for the defense were less impressive to
Jones: "Another remarkable moment on the science side was Michael Behe,
who was the lead witness for the defendants, and a very amiable fellow, as
was Ken Miller, but unlike Miller, in my view, Professor Behe did not
distinguish himself. He did not hold up well on cross-examination." And
the school board witnesses for the defense, whom Jones lambasted in his
decision, he described as "dreadful witnesses ... hence the description
'breathtaking inanity' and 'mendacity.' In my view, they clearly lied
under oath. They made a very poor account of themselves. They could not
explain why they did what they did. They really didn't even know what
intelligent design was. It was quite clear to me that they viewed
intelligent design as a method to get creationism into the public school
classroom. They were unfortunate and troublesome witnesses. Simply
remarkable, in that sense."

​

Noting that the plaintiffs and defendants both asked for a ruling on the
question of whether "intelligent design" constitutes science, Jones said,
"if you're going to measure the effect of a particular policy, in this case
juxtaposing intelligent design with evolution, on the intended recipients,
you have to delve into what the policy is about. What was it about? It
was about intelligent design. And to try to determine the effect on the
recipients you have to determine what does that concept or phrase stand
for? Hence, we got into a search and examination of what exactly does ID
say, what is its basis, what are its scientific bona fides or lack
thereof. That opens the door for a determination of whether ID is in fact
science. And that is what that part of the opinion was. ... I wrote about
whether ID, as presented to me, in that courtroom from September to
November of 2005, was science, and I said it was not. That it was the
progeny, the successor to creationism and creation science. That it was
dressed-up creationism."

​

Looking forward, Jones expressed uncertainty about the long-term effect of
the Kitzmiller decision, commenting, "This is speculation on my part -- I
don't think that the concept of ID itself has a lot of vitality going
forward. The Dover trial discredited that thing that is ID. To the extent
that I follow it -- I'm curious about it, but it doesn't go any further
than that -- the likely tack going forward is something like teach the
controversy, talk about the alleged flaws and gaps in the theory of
evolution and go to that place first." He noted that creationists in both
Texas and Louisiana seem to be taking such a tack. And, he noted, there is
no prospect of the creationism/evolution controversy subsiding any time
soon: "They gave me the last word in 'Judgment Day' [a NOVA program on the
trial] and I said this is not something that will be settled in my time or
even in my grandchildren's lifetimes. It's an enduring, quintessentially
American, dispute."

---

Moose