With about 70 billion stars and as many as 100 million life forms (at least here on Earth), the universe is a stunningly complex place. Did all of this matter evolve independently, or was it guided by a larger force – as proponents of intelligent design believe? With the debate raging in living rooms, classrooms and courtrooms, the stakes are high when it comes to determining intelligent design’s merit.
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
5
6
15
11
13
11
10
8
6
6
9
7
6
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Let's also be upfront about who may have erred ...
There we go again
--Bowman
More on the ACLU's rubber stamped ruling, by a practicing attorney
--
Nothing wrong with quoting from a well argued submission by the ACLU
--Bowman
That said, none of this relates to the ID ruling, since the board members were not ID advocates, except perhaps superficially.
--
On the contrary, and the DI realized this when arguing in their Amicus Curiae brief that ID does have 'valid secular purposes'. Since if ID did indeed have a valid secular purpose, as the board indeed believed (it was after all claimed to be 'scientific' by ID proponents) then the ruling would have had to take into consideration the valid secular purpose aspect. Peter Irons explains it quite well in his paper.
- PvM
September 12, 2008 2:43PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Yea, but 91% of the ruling?
"Nothing wrong with quoting from a well argued submission by the ACLU."
OK, referring to it is of course permissable, but come on, copying 91% of it. How do we know the Judge really thought much about the issue himself? We don't with that kind of antic. This seems like a misuse of the privilege to refer to a brief to me. If the Judge had done the same thing, copied 91% of a well written brief submitted by an ID group, and ruled for the other side, what do you think you would have complained about? It goes both ways my friend. The only reason you don't think this is a problem is because he supports your view, isn't that right?....
- tj10
September 12, 2008 8:56PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.