5 Responses to “More reactions to the Dover ruling”

1. MikeGene Says:
   December 27th, 2005 at 8:41 pm

   One of the blogs Krauze links to cites the NYT:

   Yet even that minimal statement amounted to an endorsement of religion, the judge concluded, because it caused students to doubt the theory of evolution without scientific justification and presented them with a religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory.

   Can someone point me to the peer-reviewed study where it was determined the minimal statement caused students to doubt the theory of evolution? Or do we now determine cause-effect relationships in the court room?

Comment by MikeGene — December 27, 2005 @ 8:41 pm

2. Jean Says:
   December 27th, 2005 at 8:45 pm

   Hmm, some of the thumbsmen are calling Alschuler a liar already, witness this comment:

   http://www.pandasthumb.org/arc...

   "Yet one more illustration of the seductively corrosive power of religious faith. Presumably Alschuler is a competent, intelligent, knowledgeable individual until his religious convictions are perceived as threatened. At which point his eyes glaze over, his mind engages the instinct engines, and he starts lying for Jesus without skipping a beat.

   What's impressive is that a legal expert, an acknowledged authority on what he's lying about, with a sterling reputation to uphold, can and will discard every bit of this. Like watching a famous mathematician unable to do basic arithmetic if he suspects Jesus disapproves."

Comment by Jean — December 27, 2005 @ 8:45 pm

3. MikeGene Says:
   December 27th, 2005 at 9:31 pm

   LOL. It was also only a matter of time before the self-righteous critics would begin to devour Judge Jones with their accusatory pointing fingers. Another Righteous Accuser is Daniel Dennett. He is pleased with the judge's decision, but then, he stumbles upon a point that begins to worry him. From his emotional state of unease, the award winning thinker pinpoints the problem:

   In the Conclusion, on page 136, Jones says "Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs' scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator [emphasis added]." I have not read the scientific experts' testimony, and I wonder if Judge Jones has slightly distorted what they said. If they said that the theory of evolution in no way conflicts with the existence of a divine creator, then I must say that I find that claim to be disingenuous.

   Oh, oh. It's not wrong or misguided. It's"¦.disingenuous! Call the morality police, someone. We have another lie to deal with. But is it the Judge who made the "disingenuous" claim? Or was it the scientific experts? Maybe I will read this decision after all, as we must find out who is lying.

   But then it gets even more strange. The award winning thinker is now willing to think for the scientific experts. After admitting he did not read their testimony, he proceeds to tell us what they really "meant " to say:

   I think that what the expert scientists may have meant was that the theory of evolution by natural selection in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine . . . prayer-hearer, or master of ceremonies, or figurehead. That is true. For people who need them, there are still plenty of job descriptions for God that are entirely outside the scope of evolutionary biology.

   Okay, let's see how this plays out. If the scientific experts made the "disingenuous" claim, then the thinker is telling us what they really meant to say. I guess it was a mistake. But wait, aren't mistakes supposed to equal lies? Now I'm confused. Does the "disingenuous" claim disappear into thin air because the man who didn't read the testimony has told us what they really meant to say?

   But if Judge Jones made the "disingenuous" claim, will that mean he is a closet supporter of the Religious Right?

Comment by MikeGene — December 27, 2005 @ 9:31 pm

4. Douglas Says:
   December 27th, 2005 at 10:01 pm

   Too many "psychic thinkers" running around, psychically analyzing, and thinking for, others. I know what you're thinking - "What's he talking about?". Well,if you have to ask, it's not likely you're part of the problem.

Comment by Douglas — December 27, 2005 @ 10:01 pm

5. Joe G Says:
   December 29th, 2005 at 12:57 pm

   I'm still trying to get over the fact that Judge Jones wouldn't allow FTE to defend "Of Pandas and People" in the courtroom- as they requested.

   The more I learn about this case the more it becomes obvious the deal was sealed before the seal was peeled. D'oh

Comment by Joe G — December 29, 2005 @ 12:57 pm

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.