Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District
Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District was a case in Pennsylvania challenging the inclusion of a one-minute presentation on Intelligent design to precede the evolution curriculum, and the inclusion of "Of Pandas and People" in public school libraries. The court ruled that the statement was unconstitutional and that Intelligent Design was not science.
The Discovery Institute has argued that the decision was incorrect and that the judge had no right or ability to rule on what was science. Furthermore, the Discovery Institute has recently found that the judge who ruled in it, federal judge John E. Jones, quoted verbatim the main section of the overwhelmingly biased court decision from a document written by ACLU lawyers. This was John E. Jones time to act like a judge and rule based on his enforcement of the Constitution. What he did was cow-tow to liberal organizations such as the ACLU, and effectively submit to the evolutionary scientific establishment.
43 comments
They could not have found a more right wing judge and they still goddamn lost.
Says something about how convincing ID is and how real scientists can actually stand up in court and back their assertions. Unlike the dumbasses who went to bat for ID.
You mean that liberal organization, American Civil Liberties Union, which supports your right to spout bullshit and harass people with your religious tripe? You should be grateful for them, but you still do everything you can to demonize those who protect your right to be batshit insane.
And according to the definitions of science, no sane person would rule that ID qualifies. It's not falsifiable, it's not supported by evidence, but rather by attempting to point flaws in evolution, and it's clearly descended from the Christian creation myth. It is religion in the worst possible way and it has no business being taught or mentioned, let alone given validity, in publicly funded schools.
I think that site is just one big Poe.
At least, that's what I'm hoping, because nobody can be that fucking knuckle-draggingly stupid, right?
Creationism doesn't follow the scientific method and gets fucked in the butt by occam's razor.
It's a bad hypothesis, and it's not even a theory.
Having read all 139 pages of the judges decision carefully I must say...YOU STUPID BASTARDS GOT PWNED!!!
Errhmm...as I was saying it was a concise and well reasoned argument against ID that cited numerous precedent cases in ruling...THAT ID IS JUST FRAUDULENT PRETEND SCIENCE YOU PULLED OUT OF YOUR ASS!
Urrr...uhh, anyway the judge ruled that ID was not science and also found that many of the witnesses for the school board had been less than thruthful. In fact he said that...YOU CREATIONISTS/ID SUPPORTERS WERE LIEING SACKS OF SHIT. NO SURPRISE THERE, BUT THIS TIME YOU TRIED IT IN FRONT OF A JUDGE, IDIOTS!
Sooo...he said they were purposefully trying to mislead the court.
Uh ohh, my fundie tourettes is back again. :(
Stop trying to spin what happened you lying fundtard.
After years of trying to get your creationist bullshit shoved into schools via the legal system making a decision in your favor, you get your asses handed to you and now you claim the court has no right to decide because they decided against you.
Never mind that the plaintiffs lied under oath about where the stupid Pandas books came from. Never mind the fact that the Discover Institute chickened out and didn't show up for the battle. And never mind the fact that Mikey Behe the closest thing you idiots have to a real scientist on your side got beaten like a rented mule on the stand.
You fucking lost, a Bush appointed conservative judge called you on your lying and your bullshit creationism.
Now sit down and shut up the rest of us are trying to have a civilization here.
The Discovery Institute has argued that the decision was incorrect and that the judge had no right or ability to rule on what was science.
Then why did you bring your case to court?
This was John E. Jones time to act like a judge and rule based on his enforcement of the Constitution.
Is there some possible way--any way--that you could see losing this trial and not trying to come up with some half-baked excuse, blame the judge, blame the procedure, etc.? Could you ever just admit that you were wrong? No? Then why should I believe you about this one?
What he did was cow-tow to liberal organizations such as the ACLU, and effectively submit to the evolutionary scientific establishment.
First of all, you misspelled "kowtow." Second, wouldn't winning this case be "kowtowing" to YOUR side? Would you be complaining then?
Kitzmiller vs. Dover is the precedent that was set. That case ensures (Un)Intelligent Design will NEVER be part of the curriculum in US schools. It's now LAW. Live with it.
See it as revenge for the Scopes Monkey Trial in 1926, made famous by the film "Inherit The Wind". Although, I'd like to see a reverse-Monkey Trial, in which religion itself (especially Fundamentalist Christianity) is put on trial, and those who preach & promote such are forced to prove it's claims (that a God, and a 'Heaven & Hell' exists), and thus justify it's existence.
I never thought that there was something worse than Conservapoodia. Creation Wee-ki proves that there's always something more fucked-up than you think exists on the internet.
Judges base their arguments on the actual testimony presented, so they always quote arguments made by one side or the other during the trial. The defense had the opportunity to rebut the plaintiffs' arguments. It's not the judge's fault that they failed to do so even after one of the board members lied his ass off and narrowly escaped a perjury charge.
Jones justified his ruling based on the US Constitution, again based on precedent under the Aguilard and Lemon rulings, and yet again based on the Pennsylvania state constitution. He showed how the board's actions failed on all three.
"that the judge had no right or ability to rule on what was science"
A. Judges rule on pretty much everything put infront of them. Its their fucking job.
B.the over 99% of relevant scientists who think your 'theory' is a load of horseshit and a pathetic attempt to teach christianity as a fact helped decide what science is.
'This was John E. Jones time to act like a judge and rule based on his enforcement of the Constitution.'
The Constitution says ZERO about ID. What you really mean is it was his time to rule based on enforcing the FUNDY 'constitution' - the Bible.
Firstly its Kowtow. Learn to spell.
Secondly, ID is not science. There is no scientific research done. You literally have no peer reviewed science. The thing is if you take "our science" and follow our experiments you get the same result. Its called repeatability.
You guys literally have no experiments.
[The Discovery Institute has argued that the decision was incorrect and that the judge had no right or ability to rule on what was science.]
Yeah...after the judge ruled against them.
Before the trial, they were counting on a judge's right to redefine science. It was their primary strategy . Read the DI's "Wedge" document. It's right there, in black and white.
[Furthermore, the Discovery Institute has recently found that the judge who ruled in it, federal judge John E. Jones, quoted verbatim the main section of the overwhelmingly biased court decision from a document written by ACLU lawyers.]
Which document?
Regardless, Jones was about as right-wing as you can get. Both sides made their cases. The ID guys' arguments were comical.
[What he did was cow-tow to liberal organizations such as the ACLU, and effectively submit to the evolutionary scientific establishment.]
ID is Creationism in all but name. Creationism is RELIGION, and therefore falls under the establishment clause of the Constitution. Jones enforced the Constution, just like you said you wanted him to.
It's the judge's job to rule on what is science, based on all information he gets from the two contrahents. If one side lies its ass off and fails to provide witnesses for their case, then the judge has no other alternative than to rule in favor of the side who actually has witnesses and tangible evidence for their case. It's how the law works, dear. If you want to play with the grown-ups, you have to play by the grown-up rules.
You know what I like about CreationWiki? It gets all the creationist arguments and lies on one place. Place from which scepticts at ScepticWiki take volunteering ideas to make cannon fodder out of them. They die as the shells of reason hit them, and are usually never used in the same form afterwards. Their ideas change and adapt, other creationists recycle them, but you know from where to look their arguments and counter-arguments first.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.