Judge rules against ‘intelligent design’

[reverend B]

critias,
it is the highest form of flattery to not respond to anothers post. i thank you.

 

[Critias]

I wonder if even you noticed the change I bolded. Of course, none of us believes we are wrong. But, yes, the nature of faith is such that we can be wrong. So for you to call me (as you did) an idolator on the basis that you cannot be wrong in your interpretation of scripture indicates that you have put your interpretation of scripture above the truth of scripture, whatever it is. Believing that your interpretation of scripture is correct is not a problem. Believing that it cannot be wrong is.

From your response here, I see you have yet to understand what I was saying to you. It was not on my basis of faith that I said what I did. There is something wrong when a person confesses that their knowledge of something is greater than God's message of given knowledge that we find in the Bible.

I haven't placed my interpretation of Scripture over Scripture. When Scripture says, Jesus is the only way, I believe Jesus is the only way. When Scripture says God created the world in six days, I believe God created the world in six days. When Scripture says Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit in Mary's womb, I believe Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit in Mary's womb.

It has been various TEs who have said each of the above are incorrect understanding of Scripture. Today people say when the Bible says God so loved the world, it doesn't mean God so loved the world.(an example mind you)

I guess that is just the way it is.

As to the incarnation, resurrection, divinity of Christ, that is not idolatry from any Christian perspective. But, as I mentioned, it is from the viewpoint of Islam. And also Judaism. Atheists don't believe in God at all, so they don't accept these beliefs about Jesus. And to Buddhists, beliefs about God are irrelevant.

Then it does follow if I say I cannot be wrong about Jesus being the Son of God that I am an idolater by your statement and viewpoint, correct?

Do we know which of these beliefs are right and which are wrong?

No we do not. We know what we believe, but we do not know that what we believe is right is right. As far as we know the most fundamental core of Christianity is based on false belief.

I am convinced that what God says cannot be wrong. I am convinced that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, God Himself and I am not wrong. I haven't ever considered that I might be wrong about who Jesus is. It is a belief that has been so ingrained in me that I know I am not wrong about Him. That is what faith is, not the belief that we can be wrong, but the belief that we know it cannot be wrong.

That is always the risk on which faith rests: that we could be committing ourselves to something/someone which is fictitious. After all, if we had objective assurance that we were right, we would have no need for faith.

As this may or may not be one of your concerns that your faith in Jesus could be wrong, I don't share that faith. It is faith that God has given me that convicts me to know that what He said about His Son is True and cannot be wrong.

From your statement, we obviously don't agree on what faith is. The part we don't agree on is that faith is the added belief that we can be wrong. I see no need to doubt God and the faith that He has given us and consider that ultimately He could be wrong, because that is where our faith comes from. You don't obtain faith on your own, it is from God.

Finally, I suggest you not pursue this line any further, as it is likely to lead you into more flaming. If you must respond, pm me.

I appreciate your concern, but I am fine, thanks.

 

[Critias]

critias,
it is the highest form of flattery to not respond to anothers post. i thank you.

Well, you are welcome. Merry Christmas.

 

[gluadys]

From your response here, I see you have yet to understand what I was saying to you. It was not on my basis of faith that I said what I did. There is something wrong when a person confesses that their knowledge of something is greater than God's message of given knowledge that we find in the Bible.

I would agree with that. But we have not been discussing God's message. We have been discussing fallible human perceptions and interpretations of God's message as contained in scripture.

I haven't placed my interpretation of Scripture over Scripture. When Scripture says, Jesus is the only way, I believe Jesus is the only way. When Scripture says God created the world in six days, I believe God created the world in six days. When Scripture says Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit in Mary's womb, I believe Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit in Mary's womb.

I don't have any quarrel with this. But I expect I interpret all of these differently than you do. For example, I have no quarrel with saying God created the world in six days. But I understand those days to be literary rather than literal.

Then it does follow if I say I cannot be wrong about Jesus being the Son of God that I am an idolater by your statement and viewpoint, correct?

You and every other Christian in the world, including myself. So you would be in good company. We do not have objective verification that Jesus is the Son of God. This is knowledge based on faith, on the evidence of things not seen, not on evidence that can be demonstrated. Therefore we can be wrong about it. We take the risk of faith when we commit ourselves to this belief and act on the basis that it is true. To outsiders, like Muslims, this appears to be idolatry.

We cannot show others that what we believe is true. What we can do is invite them to share our faith that it is true. We can invite them to take the same risk of faith that we do.

I am convinced that what God says cannot be wrong.

Granted. That is not the issue.

I am convinced that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, God Himself and I am not wrong. I haven't ever considered that I might be wrong about who Jesus is. It is a belief that has been so ingrained in me that I know I am not wrong about Him. That is what faith is, not the belief that we can be wrong, but the belief that we know it cannot be wrong.

Faith, by definition, is not knowledge. The conviction of faith is strong, but it doesn't confirm it as knowledge. It confirms your belief in its truth. Nor did I say that faith was the belief that we can be wrong. Faith is the belief that we are right, in spite of the objective possibility that we may be wrong. In fact, the certainty of faith that we are right, always carries with it the objective uncertainty that we are. Otherwise there would be no necessity for faith at all.

As this may or may not be one of your concerns that your faith in Jesus could be wrong, I don't share that faith. It is faith that God has given me that convicts me to know that what He said about His Son is True and cannot be wrong.

It is not one of my concerns. My faith in Jesus is rock-solid. For the same reason as yours. As you say, faith is given by God. That is why we have inner certainty as to its truth.

What we do not have is external, objective validation of this inner certainty. And that is why we could, objectively, still be wrong. How do I know this inner certainty really came from God when I cannot know for certain that God even exists? Yet to believe as I do, I am utterly dependent on this God whom I only know as he gives me faith to do so.

From your statement, we obviously don't agree on what faith is. The part we don't agree on is that faith is the added belief that we can be wrong.

It is not really an addition. It is simply the nature of faith.

I see no need to doubt God

Nor do I. I have never suggested we doubt God. I wish you would stop implying that I am.

and the faith that He has given us and consider that ultimately He could be wrong,

Really, you are going over the top here. No one is suggesting that God is wrong. We are talking about human errors of comprehension and/or interpretation. When will you get that straight?

This is the problem. You react to the possibility that a human interpretation of scripture may be wrong as if it were an assertion that God is wrong. You react to the possibility that YOU may be wrong as an accusation that God is wrong. Well, are you God?

If not, why are you upset by the suggestion that you may be fallible? Not God, not scripture, but YOU.

 

[mark kennedy]

Incorrect perceptions are incorrect perceptions. We all need to be on the alert to correct them. The judge said quite specifically that he was making no comment on the truth of ID/creationism, only on their scientific validity.

That was not the question before the court, the question was whether or not ID was religiously oriented. If so according to the Lemon law, it constituted endoresement by the government and the Judge found that it did. I read the decision and he doesn't even mention irreducible complexity. The question was whether or not Pandas and People was a creationist textbook. He compared it to previous editions and found ID substituted for creationism 150 times. The case had nothing to do with scientific validity whatsoever.

I would disagree that a scientific fact is true only in a certain context. A fact is a fact no matter what the context. It is perception that changes, not the facts. And in science, it is facts that change perceptions.

Ivory soap floats, that is a scientific fact but so what if it does. The fact is confined to the limited context of that fact. Intelligent design has two aspects, irreducible complexity and intelligent design. Irreducible complexity is simply the energetic costs of evolution, the change must create more benefit then it costs. If a buisness is producing widgets and the cost of the widgets were just barely above their operating costs then they can stay in the widget buisness. They may want to expand their operation and bring in new machinary that is better and more efficient but the costs must be offset by the profits. For a brief period there might be a tight economic market that require them to improve their productive fittness. This creates a bottleneck effect, if you will, from the diminished profits due to capitol investments.

It's an awkward analogy I admit but the energetic costs of adaptation is an unavoidable problem for evolution in general and Darwinism in particular.

In order to get to the conclusion of Intelligent Design you have to leave the context of empirical testing. What ID does is challange the philososphical and intellectual moorings of Darwinism. Creationists and ID scientists and philosophers are being run in circles in the labyrinth of experiential data. ID goes to the heart of the problem, the apriori assumptions of mainstream scientific postivism.

Amen! I used to be indifferent to science, but when I had to make a choice it was biology I found most interesting. I still see nothing interesting about chemistry, but my son finds it intruiging. I find theology more interesting than science, but I feel no need to chose between them.

Then we seem to have came to some pretty simular conclusions. I have long prefered the life sciences to paleontology and geology, it's just more tangable and you can see it work under a microscope. Theology works different then the inductive approach to scientific observation and demonstrations. For instance Peter admonishes to grow our faith in this way:

"But also for this very reason, giving all diligenece, add to you faith virtue, to virtue knowledge, to knowledge self control, to self control perseverance, the perseverance goliness, to godliness brotherly kindness, and to brotherly kindness love." (2Peter 1:5-7)

Notice faith come first, then virtue and then knowledge. In science you get a very different discipline, it is experiential knowledge that comes before everything else. Abraham was probably fairly young when he was first promised a son. At the first promise the scriptures make it clear that he didn't understand how God could do it but believed the one who made the promise was faithfull. Years later God makes the same promise and Abraham and Sarah both laugh, Isaac God says, shall be called she laughs. These are two very different ways of approaching knowledge and when I speak of the context of a fact this is what I had in mind.

Agreed. As for where we draw the line--we draw it wherever God draws it. Whenever we discover where that is.

The line is pretty clear in the New Teatament, the incarnation, the ressurection, the power of the Holy Spirit to wash renew and regenerate believers.

[BIBLE]titus 3:5[/BIBLE]

And also to you and yours.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Critias,

On the question of whether or not Jesus is the Son of God and how we know this with certainty. This was investigated using the rules of evidence by a very credible Law Professor, Simon Greenleaf. I thought you might find his discussion of the actual rule of evidence that were used in every court of his day.

I strongly recommend that you read it and consider the credentials of the man who wrote it.

"The docility which true philosophy requires of her disciples is not a spirit of servility, or the surrender of the reason and judgment to whatsoever the teacher may inculcate; but it is a mind free from all pride of opinion, not hostile to the truth sought for, willing to pursue the inquiry, and impartiality to weigh the arguments and evidence, and to acquiesce in the judgment of right reason. "

Now notice the conclusion he came to:

"Lastly, the great character they have portrayed is perfect. It is the character of a sinless Being; of one supremely wise and supremely good. It exhibits no error, no sinister intention, no imprudence, no ignorance, no evil passion, no impatience; in a word, no fault; but all is perfect uprightness, innocence, wisdom, goodness and truth. The mind of man has never conceived the idea of such a character, even for his gods; nor has history or poetry shadowed it forth. The doctrines and precepts of Jesus are in strict accordance with the attributes of God, agreeably to the most exalted idea which we can form of them, either from reason or from revelation. "

Testimony of the Evangelists, by Dr. Simon Greenleaf, (1783-1853)

Grace to you and peace through our Lord Jesus Christ,
Mark

 

[gluadys]

That was not the question before the court, the question was whether or not ID was religiously oriented.

Quite right. My error.

Ivory soap floats, that is a scientific fact but so what if it does.

That is the general nature of scientific fact. It does not deal with ultimate questions but with specific observations.

The fact is confined to the limited context of that fact.

Well, no. Your theology never produces a situation in which Ivory soap does not float. Only the manufacturers of Ivory can do that, and they would have to change the formula of the soap, so it would really be a different soap even if they kept the same brand name. So, under all circumstances, Ivory soap (current version) floats.

In other contexts, this fact may be irrelevant, but it remains a fact, not changed by the other contexts.

It's an awkward analogy I admit but the energetic costs of adaptation is an unavoidable problem for evolution in general and Darwinism in particular.

I understand the analogy, but I don't see your conclusion as anything but a non-sequitor. What makes energy cost a problem for evolution in general? Would it not be a problem only in particular instances? Instances where energy cost constrains possible evolutionary pathways?

In order to get to the conclusion of Intelligent Design you have to leave the context of empirical testing.

Exactly. And having left the context of empirical testing, one has left the context of science.

What ID does is challange the philososphical and intellectual moorings of Darwinism. Creationists and ID scientists and philosophers are being run in circles in the labyrinth of experiential data. ID goes to the heart of the problem, the apriori assumptions of mainstream scientific postivism.

And the heart of the theory of evolution is that labyrinth of experiential data. Only when that can be explained by ID/creationism can it hope to displace evolution as science.

As to the a priori assumptions of scientific positivism, are you sure you know what they are?

Theology works different then the inductive approach to scientific observation and demonstrations.

Ever read John Polkinghorne's Faith of a Physicist? It is a lecture series in which he explores the similarity of theological reasoning and scientific method.

For instance Peter admonishes to grow our faith in this way:

"But also for this very reason, giving all diligenece, add to you faith virtue, to virtue knowledge, to knowledge self control, to self control perseverance, the perseverance goliness, to godliness brotherly kindness, and to brotherly kindness love." (2Peter 1:5-7)

Notice faith come first, then virtue and then knowledge.

I don't doubt that Peter himself might vary the order in another letter or sermon. One could just as easily begin at the end of this list and work backward. It would make little theological difference.

These are two very different ways of approaching knowledge and when I speak of the context of a fact this is what I had in mind.

I still think you are referring to the relevance of a fact to the context. The fact itself does not change as you have asserted.

Now notice the conclusion he came to:

"Lastly, the great character they have portrayed is perfect. It is the character of a sinless Being; of one supremely wise and supremely good. It exhibits no error, no sinister intention, no imprudence, no ignorance, no evil passion, no impatience; in a word, no fault; but all is perfect uprightness, innocence, wisdom, goodness and truth. The mind of man has never conceived the idea of such a character, even for his gods; nor has history or poetry shadowed it forth. The doctrines and precepts of Jesus are in strict accordance with the attributes of God, agreeably to the most exalted idea which we can form of them, either from reason or from revelation. "

Testimony of the Evangelists, by Dr. Simon Greenleaf, (1783-1853)

Now he only needs to show that the character description given by the evangelists is also that of Jesus of Nazareth, and not merely an idealization of Jesus' character. Disciples of a teacher are prone to exaggerating their teacher's virtues after all. Among Muslims, you can find very similar descriptions of the character of Mohammad. The followers of Sun Myung Moon describe him in similar terms too.

 

[Bobber]

There is another type of science which goes about to ask the following quesiton....the physical evidence here before us....does it speak of mere chance or intelligent design?
What type of science and again I use the word science am I referring to?
Forensic Science. It does not have absolute evidence that something was done by design by it seeks to ask the question by looking at the physical facts! To suggest asking the ID question about creationism is not a form of science is a lie, spun out by the Mind Control Evolutionists or the MCE's. True education allows freedom of the mind to think...to reason....to weigh any and all evidence and not dissallowing any information....I would say the way to gain success in this arena is to boldly keep putting the finger on what the education system has become....the subject of Mind Control Paranoia....young people won't stand for it and will rise up demanding freedom!

 

[Donkeytron]

Mind Control Evolutionists or the MCE's.

Uhhhh huh.

 

[chaoschristian]

There is another type of science which goes about to ask the following quesiton....the physical evidence here before us....does it speak of mere chance or intelligent design?
What type of science and again I use the word science am I referring to?
Forensic Science. It does not have absolute evidence that something was done by design by it seeks to ask the question by looking at the physical facts! To suggest asking the ID question about creationism is not a form of science is a lie, spun out by the Mind Control Evolutionists or the MCE's. True education allows freedom of the mind to think...to reason....to weigh any and all evidence and not dissallowing any information....I would say the way to gain success in this arena is to boldly keep putting the finger on what the education system has become....the subject of Mind Control Paranoia....young people won't stand for it and will rise up demanding freedom!

I now have an image of Gil Grissom and Gene Simmons. Doing what I don't know, but it would make an interesting video.

That said, it is interesting to note that both sides of the evolution vs creationism debate both claim the mantle of persecution. If you go to non-Christan forums where the majority bias is towards evolution, you here cries of "OHNO!!3VIL_Xtians!!" whereas if you go to Christians forums, more likely than not you here cries of "OHNO!!3VIL_Secular_Humanist_Atheist_d3vils!!"

What I like about this forum in particular is that by function of it shear size and volume you get a much better representation of the middleground, and alot more level-headed discussion.

 

[mark kennedy]

Quite right. My error.

He applies the Lemon test of Judge O'Connor which I believe has five parts. It's an interesting peice of legal precedance and one I happen to affirm wholeheartedly.

That is the general nature of scientific fact. It does not deal with ultimate questions but with specific observations.

Exactly, the reasoning of a theologian has just as much trouble getting to the particulars as a scientist has getting to the generalities.

Well, no. Your theology never produces a situation in which Ivory soap does not float. Only the manufacturers of Ivory can do that, and they would have to change the formula of the soap, so it would really be a different soap even if they kept the same brand name. So, under all circumstances, Ivory soap (current version) floats.

My theology does produce a situation where an iron axe head floats and Jesus walks on water. The context being different the reasoning takes on different qualifications where acceptance is warranted.

In other contexts, this fact may be irrelevant, but it remains a fact, not changed by the other contexts.

Even facts from related fields will have different context that they look at facts in. What is true for a chemist might not be as cut and dried for a biologist. The step wise logic make the methodology a highly specific context.

I understand the analogy, but I don't see your conclusion as anything but a non-sequitor. What makes energy cost a problem for evolution in general? Would it not be a problem only in particular instances? Instances where energy cost constrains possible evolutionary pathways?

The physiological costs of adaptation are at every point of evolution. The ASPM gene undergoes a lot of transformations that result in a defective spindle and a reduced brain size. When vital and highly conserved regions of the funtional part of the DNA undergo changes the benefits must outweigh the costs. It's hard to imagine a selective advantage from a reduced brain size.

Exactly. And having left the context of empirical testing, one has left the context of science.

Astronomers have been doing this since the dawn of time through meticulas observations. They did this thousands of years before there was any such thing as empricalism. The tools of the Scientific Revolution are what made empirical testing possible. In short, empircal testing is the result of preexisting science that did not rely on experimental testing.

And the heart of the theory of evolution is that labyrinth of experiential data. Only when that can be explained by ID/creationism can it hope to displace evolution as science.

At the heart of evolution are the mechanism of adaptation being readily discernable. It is not the factoids of science that leads us to the laws of science but the substantive reasoning that makes them usable and applicable. ID doesn't seek to displace TOE as science just offer substantive question about the limits of natural selection as an explanation and basis for futher research.

As to the a priori assumptions of scientific positivism, are you sure you know what they are?

Quite sure, philosophy was my primary interest when I happened upon the creation/evolution debate. Comte defined it as a natural progression from the religious or mythical, to the metaphysical, to the scientific. Scientific positivism makes scientific methodology the locus crucis for discerning reality in it's purest form and religious reasoning primitive and false.

Ever read John Polkinghorne's Faith of a Physicist? It is a lecture series in which he explores the similarity of theological reasoning and scientific method.

No, sorry but I never heard of it. It's not a unique view, Francis Bacon started a dual kingdom analogy that was the first of it's kind to discern between the deductive and inductive reasoning. The inductive approach would be the foundation of what we consider modern scientific method. The deductive would be the deductive reasoning of Aristotlean science.

I don't doubt that Peter himself might vary the order in another letter or sermon. One could just as easily begin at the end of this list and work backward. It would make little theological difference.

Faith then virtue then knowledge was the process I found interesting. Science literally means 'experiencial knowledge'. Peter would have looked at this as something coming after the primacy of faith.

I still think you are referring to the relevance of a fact to the context. The fact itself does not change as you have asserted.

The signifigance can and does change and factoids of science are not an exclusive source of reliable knowledge. Faith for Peter proceded experiential knowledge and by the way, both are products of reason. Reason in the ancient mindset could be summed up in the word Logos, synomomous with the revelation made in the person and work of Christ.

Now he only needs to show that the character description given by the evangelists is also that of Jesus of Nazareth, and not merely an idealization of Jesus' character. Disciples of a teacher are prone to exaggerating their teacher's virtues after all. Among Muslims, you can find very similar descriptions of the character of Mohammad. The followers of Sun Myung Moon describe him in similar terms too.

Simon Greenleaf was instrumental in founding the Harvard School of Law. He was the author of a multi volume treatise on the rules of evidence that was used in every American court of law for half a century. He directly applied the rules of evidence to the claims of the evangelists and concluded that Christ was the incarnate Son of the Living God. I would suggest you read it, you seem to like to spar with amature apologists like myself. You might enjoy seeing an intellectual heavy weight go toe to toe with the claims of the Gospels.

You might also consider Sir William Ramsey and Henry Morris some time. I'm getting back to my apologetic studies and intend to start a thread in the General apologetics thread. I'm finally coming full circle, two years of creationism has be feeling a little cramped. I'll PM you with a link when it's done and would be interested in your thoughts on the OP when it's posted.

Always a pleasure glaudys.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[The Lady Kate]

He applies the Lemon test of Judge O'Connor which I believe has five parts. It's an interesting peice of legal precedance and one I happen to affirm wholeheartedly.

Only 3 parts, actually:

1: The government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose.

2: The government's action must not have the primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion.

3: The government's action must not result in an "excessive entanglement" of government and religion.

(...thank you Wikipedia!)

 

[shernren]

I'm confused ... based on my skimming of the judge's statement, his arguments tended more towards disproving the scientificity of ID. Am I right or wrong?

 

[Bobber]

"That said, it is interesting to note that both sides of the evolution vs creationism debate both claim the mantle of persecution. If you go to non-Christan forums where the majority bias is towards evolution, you here cries of "OHNO!!3VIL_Xtians!!" whereas if you go to Christians forums, more likely than not you here cries of "OHNO!!"
[Chaoschristian]

Yes but you would have to agree wouldn't you Chaos that the evolutionists claim would be absolute nonsense! You for sure would point out to them that they are indeed controlling the school systems and it is they who won't even allow the ID question to be asked making it sound somehow unscientific.

 

[gluadys]

Yes but you would have to agree wouldn't you Chaos that the evolutionists claim would be absolute nonsense! You for sure would point out to them that they are indeed controlling the school systems and it is they who won't even allow the ID question to be asked making it sound somehow unscientific.

Except one does not have to make the ID question sound unscientific. It is unscientific.

Nor does keeping what is not science out of a science classroom constitute persecution of creationists. They have plenty of other venues in which they are free to present their point of view. Even within the school system.

 

[chaoschristian]

"That said, it is interesting to note that both sides of the evolution vs creationism debate both claim the mantle of persecution. If you go to non-Christan forums where the majority bias is towards evolution, you here cries of "OHNO!!3VIL_Xtians!!" whereas if you go to Christians forums, more likely than not you here cries of "OHNO!!"
[Chaoschristian]

Yes but you would have to agree wouldn't you Chaos that the evolutionists claim would be absolute nonsense! You for sure would point out to them that they are indeed controlling the school systems and it is they who won't even allow the ID question to be asked making it sound somehow unscientific.

No, I do not agree.

'Evolutionists' do not control the school systems. Think about it. The vast majority of Americans believe in some form of Creationism. The vast majority of Americans are Christians. Local schoolsboards, at least in Pennsylvania where I live, are controlled on the local level (with a few exceptions for the larger cities I believe.) I believe that the majority of school districts, regardless of state, are controlled on the micro-local level. Run the numbers, and I think that its a safe assumption that the majority of school districts are entrusted into the hands of creation believing Christians. Now, that is a generalization, I admit that. But I think it is a valid one. I think it would be difficult to maintain that 'evolutionists' control the school boards, especially if 'evolutionist' is a code word for atheist secular humanists.

This is what is keeping ID/creationism out of the public school class room:

1. The 1st Amendment - praise God!
2. Science - as ID/Creationism are not science they do not belong in the science class
3. Thoughtful, discerning people who see beyond the rhetoric of the extremes and who are in one manner or another entrusted with the public welfare

There are other appropriate avenues in a public school in which ID/Creationism can be examined and discussed. I would welcome a discussion of ID/Creationism in a History of Science classroom. Imagine that discussion framed around the reading of Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" That would be a great class! Sign me up!

BTW: [NITPICK] the screen name is chaoschristian. Not chaos. See my blog [shameful self-promotion acknowledged].

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Same with drawing a picture of a naked child. As horrible as that is, I view that as the price to pay for free speech, and it should not be illegal. The courts agreed and struck down virtual child porn (computer generated images of naked children).

However, actual images of naked children are illegal and still are illegal, and should remain illegal

Certain* sexual photos of children are and, IMO, should be illegal.

*I say certain because it is possible to end up with a photo of a child that many would consider sexual where the child is both clothed and not exploited. There is a rather significant border area of fuzzyness.

Pictures of children without clothes on are not ipso facto illegal, nor, IMO, should they be. There is nothing innately pornographic about childbirth or naked children running an African village or even a clothing optional beach.

 

[chaoschristian]

I'm confused ... based on my skimming of the judge's statement, his arguments tended more towards disproving the scientificity of ID. Am I right or wrong?

Yes, with a qualification.

The central question in the case was whether or not the school board had instituted a practice which abridged the 1st Amendment rights of the plaintiffs. In order to resolve that question the nature of ID first had to be discerned. If ID was found to be valid science without religious backing, then the defendents win the day. If ID was found to be invalid science with religious backing then the plaintiffs would win the day.

Much of the press coverage centered on the evidence that went into either supporting or refuting the notion that ID was valid science without religious backing. Very little press attention was focused on the 1st Amendment aspect of the case (in fact it was usually just a footnote to describe the grounds upon which the plaintiffs filed suit). I guess evolution vs creationism sells better than the 1st Amendment.

Anyhoo - So, in order to rule on the primary question (were 1st Amendment rights abridged) the judge first had to rule on secondary questions (is ID scientifically valid, is it a tool for evangelism)

That is why much of the ruling is devoted to examing the nature and intent of ID in this case.

 

[Sabazi]

Evolutionist must be breathing a sign of relief now that their theory will be free from criticism once again. So much for free speech and open minds.

Little problem with the seperation of Church and State.

 

[mark kennedy]

I'm confused ... based on my skimming of the judge's statement, his arguments tended more towards disproving the scientificity of ID. Am I right or wrong?

I didn't get anything like that from the decision. The only question before the court was whether or not teaching ID endorsed religion, Judge Jones decided it did. Scientificity (is that really a word BTW) is not determined in court rooms, textbooks or even in these forums (which I think is unfair). It gets decided among scientists and only legal questions are decided in courts of law. It is beyond the scope of legal authority to decide whether or not we were intelligently designed, they are barred from even asking the question because of the First Amendment.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[TwinCrier]

Little problem with the seperation of Church and State.

As a matter of fact yes. There is no such thing.