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

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?

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."

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?