Re: History of Intelligent Design

Ray Martinez wrote:
On Jun 8, 2:44 pm, coaster <coaster...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 8, 4:03 pm, "jgris...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <jgris...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:





On Jun 8, 9:05 am, Slimebot McGoo <oldert...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 08:01:31 -0700, "jgris...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx"
<jgris...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 8, 4:43 am, Ron O <rokim...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Barbara Forrest has a summary of what Intelligent design has been that
was put up over at the NCSE
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/Forrest_Paper.pdf
I wish she would have said something about the Ohio fiasco, but it
never went to court and the Ohio creationist rubes eventually lost
out.
Ron Okimoto
Barbara Forest is a conspiracy theorist.
The ID conspiracy to wedge religion into our schools is well
documented.
With degrees in English and
Philosophy, she has no practical knowledge of science.
By that logic you're unqualified to judge her knowledge. Or do you
have some science degrees you haven't told us about?
More importantly, it doesn't take a degree in science to recognize
that ID is religion posing as science. Are you really so stupid you
can't see it?
Yet, in her
book, "Creationism's Trojan Horse", she unilaterally dismisses
Intelligent Design and envokes a conspiracy theory concerning
Creationists, which assigns them more intelligence, cleverness and
organizational skills than they could possibly have. Her conspiracy
theory was allowed to be entered as fact in the Dover case, which
makes a mockery of the U.S. court system and the science community.
She presented facts which the court interpreted correctly to show that
ID is religion posing as science - a transparent scam to wedge
religion into our schools. The fact that you don't see it is evidence
of your simpleminded contrariness, not of any reality.
If, it is your opinion that science should be narrowminded, paranoid
and bitterly contemptuous of every idea that challenges the status
quo, then Barbara Forest is the kind of person you deserve to admire.
What a simpleminded doofus.
McGoo
Except for a few months in a few remote school districts in the
sticks,
Wrong..

Epperson v. Arkansas (1968)
The Supreme Court found that Arkanas' law prohibiting the teaching
of evolution was unconstitutional because the motivation was based on
a literal reading of Genesis, not science.

McClean v. Arkansas (1981)
A federal judge found that Arkanas' "blanced treatment" law
mandating equal treatment of creation science with evolution was
unconstitutional.

Segraves v. California (1981)
A California judge ruled that teaching evolution in public school
science classes does not infringe upon the rights of any students or
parents to the free exercise of their religion, even if they sincerely
believe that evolution is contrary to their religious beliefs.

Edwards v. Aguillard (1987)
In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court invalidated Louisiana's
"Creationism Act" because it violated the Establishment Clause.

Webster v. New Lenox (1990)
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that school boards have the
right to prohibit teaching creationism because such lessons would
constitute religious advocacy and, hence, such restrictions do not
constitute an infringement on a teacher's free speech rights.

Peloza v. Capistrano (1994)
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision that a teacher does not
have a right to teach creationism in a biology class, that
"evolutionism" is not a religion or world view, and that the
government can restrict the speech of employees while they are on the
job.

Freiler v. Tangipahoa (1999)
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals found that a disclaimer to be read
before teaching about evolution ultimately had the effect of
furthering religious interests and was therefore unconstitutional.

LeVake v. Independent School District (2001)
A federal district court finds that a school may remove a teacher
from teaching a biology class when that teacher, a creationist, cannot
adequately teach evolution.

http://atheism.about.com/library/decisions/indexes/bldec_CreationismI...

And most recently of course there was Kitzmiller v. Dover case. We
all know how that turned out.

there was never a successful attempt to change the science
curriculum of a school district in the United States. The most that
ever happened was a label in a science book that said, "The Theory of
Evolution is a theory".
True but not for lack of trying.

This is the great success of this super
conspiracy that Barbara Forest warned us was threatening the
scientific world... and the labels were pulled, anyway! Could you
possibly exaggerate the threat any more? We talk about how Bush pushes
the fear factor over 9/11, but this is like pushing the fear factor
over, I don't know, "Disneyland"... "LOOK OUT! It's the happiest place
on Earth. Somebody might smile!".
If your opinion of ID is so low why support it?

Was there ever a legitimate threat in ID?
JTG 6/8/07
Nine significant court cases since 1968 suggests so, yes.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Look at all the cases cited proving that Judges who are Darwinists
have utterly corrupted the Constitution.

How do you know what any of these judges believe, Ray? Please do enlighten us here.


Evolution cannot even be criticized! The very Document which
supposedly guarantees free speech has been shitted on by Atheists and
Darwinists.

How odd. The atheist forces of evil aren't hauling you away to one of our Re-education Centers. It seems, perhaps, that free speech hasn't been curtailed. What has happened is that the Establishment Clause has been upheld even in the face of some pretty motivated liars for Christ.


These Judges will go down in history as the the most vile outlaws with
robes ever witnessed. The Constitution was never intended for Atheist-
Darwinism to be protected, Darwinists have corrupted the Constitution
to make it say what they want.

Blah blah blah blah.

The Constitution, or more specifically, the Bill of Rights were put into place in part to protect citizens from people like you who actually manage to get some measure of power (even at the lowly school board level) and who want to use their *secular* positions to push their religious beliefs.


Look what Atheists have wrought and "Christians" implemented. Both are
so deluded by evolution they actually think words written in the 18th
century mean the worldview of its writers is illegal in the 20th
century.

You are aware, I hope, that at least some of the Founding Fathers weren't Christians, and were in fact rather critical of Christianity.

--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@xxxxxxxxx

.