Dubbed the battle of "creationists vs evolutionists", it was about whether God created the world -- and whether the schoolchildren of America would be taught that. In my opinion, the world was either one very cleverly planned set of coincidences, or a very gracefully designed creation. (And you thought that God sneezed, and the world came into being?)
"ID" or "intelligent design", was the buzzword of in the Kitzmiller v Dover case -- which eventually failed to prop up the bad arguments forwarded by the attorney handling the matter.
The judge seriously considered the ID claim that it is not religion but real science, but he found the arguments completely unconvincing.
source: http://www.stnews.org/Commentary-2688.htm
There was probably a real risk of res judicata:
The ID textbook Of Pandas and People was shown to be a minimally reworded creation science text. Following the 1987 Supreme Court ruling, a quick edit of the manuscript draft switched out the words “creationism” and “creation science” with “intelligent design theory,” and “creation scientists” with “intelligent design proponents” but left definitions unchanged. ID, the judge concluded “is creationism re-labeled.” Nor does simply omitting the words “intelligent design” disguise the concept.
Source: ibid
The 1987 Supreme Court case referred to was Edwards v Aguillard - also revolving around "creation science".
Of note, the lawyers for the Plaintiffs were: Eric J. Rothschild, Witold J. Walczak, Stephen G. Harvey, and Richard B. Katskee; and the lawyers for the Defendants were: Patrick T. Gillen, Richard Thompson, and Robert J. Muise.
One wonders who the best litigator in that list is. One can't help but wonder.
Happy reading:
And finally...
No comments:
Post a Comment