“The court orders the Dover school board to comply with DI’s policy and make the statement optional?”

The statement is already optional. Students don’t have to listen to it and their science teachers don’t have to read it.

Pretty amazing that Darwinian chance worshippers can’t even tolerate an optional two minute statement made by an admin, huh?

I thought the lefties were supposed to be tolerant and diversity-loving and all that happy crap? Yeah right.

Actually Supreme Court Justice Scalia in a dissenting opinion (Aguillar I think) said much the same thing about creation science. He said (paraphrasing from memory) “It would be a shame if a community decided to teach that the earth is flat in public schools. But it wouldn’t be unconstitutional.”

This is a very important and I couldn’t agree more with Scalia. Teaching religion may be unconstitutional but teaching nonsense isn’t. It doesn’t matter one iota whether ID is valid science or not. All that matters is whether or not it’s an establishment of religion.

http://www.stcynic.com/blog/ar.....e_di_o.php

I’d comment there but, as is usual for neoDarwinian apologist blogs, I’m banned at Brayton’s blog.

Ed, in an unsurprising manner, misses the point of the trial completely. The trial is about whether what is being taught at the Dover HS that is religion or not. If it’s religion it’s a violation of the 1st amendment establishment clause.

Whether or not it is science is totally irrelevant. The constition doesn’t prohibit the establishment of non-science. Buy a clue, Ed.

I believe Buckingham was talking about creation science, not ID. Buckingham wanted honest-to-God biblical creation taught along with standard evolution theory.

This is a free country. Buckingham and those like him have to be able to say his true thoughts and we have to deal with it even if it makes things more difficult. It’s true that most people who support ID are theists. Big deal. 80% of the population are theists. It’s to be *expected* on ANY issue that the vast majority of supporters are theists. What’s unusual is when you find an issue where most of the supporters are atheists. For instance, the national academy’s membership is over 70% positive atheists and they are amongst the most vociferous opponents of ID. THEY are the anomaly. The people that are really bringing religion into the ID/evolution debate are atheists. Atheists are a small minority in the general population but just about every single atheist and every atheist group opposes ID. The same is not true for theists.

I fully agree with you. My point is that he should have been more discreet in front of the media because you know how they like to spin things.

David

Nope. Buckingham could have brought a stack of bibles into the board meetings but until he brings them into the classroom it’s immaterial. What counts is what’s in the statement read to students and the ID book mentioned in the statement.

Suppose someone at the board meeting declared that Darwin’s theory of evolution was in accord with their religion. Does that then mean that person’s connection of evolution and religion renders evolution a subject that violates the establishment clause? I think it’s safe to say that’s a resounding no unless one can establish that what’s actually taught in the classroom corresponds to religion.

This is pretty simple stuff to explain away. I don’t think it’s going to be much of a challenge for Judge Jones to justify a decision in favor of the defendants. Certainly a much easier job than it was for Judge Cooper to justify a decision in plaintiff’s favor in Cobb county. Coopers decision was the most tortured judicial logic I’ve ever had the displeasure of decyphering. It made Bill Clinton’s “that depends on what the definition ‘is’ is” downright straightforward in comparison.

I was unaware of this. Had to see it for myself (simultaneously rolling eyes and shaking head).

David

But will it fit on a t-shirt?