Tuesday, December 13, 2005

Your reward for continuing to read our blog....

This must have been how Bob Woodward felt... Okay, I'm exaggerating just a wee bit. But I am excited to bring you the scoop that we expect Judge Jones to release his decision on the intelligent design trial early next week. Did Christmas, oops, I mean, "the holidays" come early for us? Stay tuned....

Also, for your reading pleasure, here is our side's reply to the friend-of-the-court briefs filed by the Discovery Institute and the Foundation for Thought and Ethics.

5 Comments:

Anonymous Miraba said...

I am filled with so much love for your lawyers. "Impossibly silly argument" indeed.

5:49 PM  
Anonymous Kevin said...

This prompt decision matches my expectations of a narrow decision in favor of the plaintiffs based on the blatant dishonesty of some of the defense witnesses. I think "intelligent design" will survive to have another day in court.

6:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Kevin, please explain how this allegedly "prompt" decision implies that it's "narrow."

You seem to have forgotten how legal briefing works. It's not as if the Judge needs to do extensive legal or factual research to reach a broad decision that "intelligent design" is not science and that the Discovery Institute and the ID peddlers are dishonest religion-promoting science-smearing hacks.

2:45 PM  
Anonymous Buridan said...

"I think "intelligent design" will survive to have another day in court."

Indeed, that's the only place where it will have a hearing. Fortunately real science doesn't need the courts to validate its scholarship. Maybe some day religion will feel confident enough to compete in the marketplace of ideas without the need to have its ideas imposed on society by legal fiat.

9:56 AM  
Anonymous freethinker said...

"It's not as if the Judge needs to do extensive legal or factual research to reach a broad decision that "intelligent design" is not science..."

Teaching non-science or pseudo-science is constitutional; it's not a crime to teach science incompetently. The legal issue is whether or not ID is an inherently religious proposition.

The ruling on Creation Science was more obvious because that paradigm explicitly takes scripture as its starting point. However, the ID argument is specifically intended and structured to avoid this legal problem.

"... and the ID peddlers are dishonest religion-promoting science-smearing hacks."

The judge will have to decide whether the ID proposition is, in itself, religious, regardless of the reputation of its current advocates.

But, hey, I'm not a lawyer, so the above is just an amateur's opinion. On that subject, my hat's off to the plaintiff's lawyers. Their arguments were clear and right to the point. They greatly increased my respect for lawyers in general, which is quite an accomplisment.

9:51 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home