Posted on 11/16/2005 2:38:35 PM PST by PatrickHenry
While not commenting on this particular person, one should not confuse the level of formal education with real learning and understanding. After all, Bill Gates is a college drop out. He didn't make it past his first year of college.
Sure, he is an extreme example; but it does make a valid point. Lincoln was not a formally trained lawyer, but was nevertheless and very successful one.
It can look that way, but the lawyer with the better case will usally appear to be the better lawyer. It certainly helps when he really is better.
To some extent I think the Thomas Moore lawyers were "too close" to the case. The cause of the school board was also the law firm's cause. They actually believe in ID. They may have a genuine blind spot that prevents them from realizing how weak their case really looks.
Of course, it all depends on this judge now. He's human, and he has blind spots too. We'll see how it works out. The newly-elected school board has said, I think, that if they lose they won't appeal. So that may be the end of it. But if they win ...
The trend in science to date has certainly been away from any sort of "The gods are angry" explanation and toward mechanistic ("A will inevitably and repeatably cause B") ones.
No appeal, no precedent. Local applicability only.
You're overlooking the contribution to Western Civilization made by the invention of the chastity belt.
Yes, but the result will be resounding, nevertheless. The Scopes trial was appealed, but no one remembers the outcome. The appeal didn't "make any law" that mattered. It was the publicity of the trial itself that people remember.
Christmas present? Not sure of the timing, but that could be about right.
[I am having withdrawal symptoms from several active threads each day. Work is not nearly as exciting! Going to do the other side's closing tomorrow?]
If you've followed these threads, by now you should know that by suggesting ID isn't science, you are also an atheist, a Nazi, a Communist, a Marxist, a Darwin Worshiper, and a monkey lover.
We discussed it already, in one of last week's threads. I can't remember which one. It came up in the middle of one of the Dover threads. Anyway, I deliberately chose to post the defense argument because I thought it would be more interesting. It's the pro-ID side, after all, and presumably it's the best they could do. I'm a bit surprised at the lack of response to the thread. But as I've observed so often before, not every thread is a winner.
And that is why the main support for the plaintiffs' claim is a mountain of press clippings built on a molehill of statements allegedly made by one board member who, troubled and wrestling with the addiction of Oxycontin, occasionally allowed people to put words in his mouth.So all the perjury issues are dismissed in a simple, one-sentence paragraph. Except I seem to recall that both Buckingham and Bonsell had "P-word" problems.
You need to read pages 21-23 of transcript. if it is "all about Lemon", the plaintiffs may have a huge problem. The plaintiffs even seem to recognize it. Given recent USSC jurisprudence, which almost invites a case which the justices can use to modify it, or even toss it completely; this case is a good candidate for a decision by the USSC if they disagree with the 3rd Circuit.
I am not going to predict how the judge will rule, but the Lemon test is in big trouble.
I do want to thank you for posting all the threads about this trial. It has been interesting.
Exactly. It's a problem, unless the defense is arguing they are BOTH scarfing down narcotics......
;-)
Think about this for a minute folks; the Dover School Board consisted of a ding-bat with an eigth-grade education, a guy popping Oxycontin to the point where he couldn't control what he was saying, and another one who lied thru his teeth under oath. And we are asked to trust these same people to decide what the definition of science is supposed to be instead of relying on the leading scientific experts in the world?
Give me a break.....
Yes, and even that shabby sample of humanity can see through the gigantic hoax of Darwinism! I pity you, monkey boy!
</internet idiot mode>
I don't think the Lemon test is necessary to rule the teaching of ID unconstitutional. All the plaintiff's have to do is established that ID is a sectarian religious belief with no scientific basis, and it would fail even under the most narrow reading of the establishment clause. Any unbiased reading of the trial evidence shows that they've succeeded in doing that.
Oddly enough, I'm with the creationists in hoping the Lemon test gets scrapped.
WTF? Admitting supernatural causation into science is like admitting forged documents into the historical record.
If you mean by "too close" that the lawyers recruited the clients, you would be right. (Perhaps they should have just advertised on TV like the asbestos guys do.)
Yep! You can demonstrate "microgravity" all you want by experiments with apples and such, but that doesn't prove the existence of "macrogravity" as the controlling force behind planetary motion.
Integrated circuits run on magic smoke. This is proven by the fact that if you see the smoke escaping, the chip stops working.
By arguing that ID requires no physical evidence to support it. Scripture is sufficient.
Behe said so under oath.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.