Originally posted by cre8id
If he was biased against ID, yes.

Again, yes, it is an issue if the judge is predjudiced in the case to start with. The main issue that DI makes is one of bias... the copying of such a vast majority of the ACLU paper does make one pause.

DI does NOT say it is 90.9% of the whole ruling. Even your link which disputes the 90.9% figure gives at least a 66% match FOR THE PORTION in question. Here is what DI said:

Originally posted by shoran
I never said they placed it on Google Video.

Originally posted by shoran
It sounded to me as if the ID proponents were given equal time and consideration in promoting their "theory". The fact that they couldn't separate it from religion is what led to the finding against them. It's not activism, it's a judge calling it out he sees it. That's what judges are supposed to do.

Originally posted by shoran
I'm cutting the quote for brevity. But, what I'd say is the following:

1) Is it unusual for a judge to include text in this manner? I don't know.

2) Is it unusual that, after all the proceedings have taken place, the plaintiff's proved their case to the point that the judge agrees with them enough to use large portions of their text?

3) If you agree with one side after the fact (which you obviously would if you found in their favor), how does that make you biased against the opposing side?

Originally posted by Heronumber0
He just needs to put some Laws in place and allow all the possible permutations to occur.

Originally posted by Heronumber0
As a teacher, I just want to know what the objection is against teaching secular 'Design' arguments, ID, and Darwinism side by side and then allowing the students to make up their own minds. They can be the best judges of what they want to believe. In my experience, students are very able at distinguishing the plausible from the implausible and the realistic from the unrealistic. Blocking any Design argument is, to my mind, as dangerous as blocking Darwinian/neo Darwinian/neo-Lamarckian ideas.

People are not fools.

Originally posted by cre8id
ID is not inherently religious, regardless of what you or the judge ruled (or previous judges for that matter). The fact that there are religious metaphysical implications to the arguments is really not the issue... there are metaphysical implications to naturalism as well.

Also, as I pointed out, the beliefs of the school board members should not have been an issue either for the resons I cited earlier.

The thought police are definitly getting stronger... just look at the way "hate crimes" are beginning to shape up.... Hitler would have been proud.

It would seem that 'freethought' members are really anything but.

Is it unusual for a judge to even include the same mistakes the ACLU made? Reread that part again... and you want to tell me he made his decision on the true arguments of the case? Have you bought any ocean front property in Arizona lately?

Originally posted by Heronumber0
If you don't mind me saying so, that is rather closed minded of you old chap. Why should we consign intelligent comment on the evolutionary process or on the scientific method to the realms of Religious Education or philosophy? Darwinism and Design-ism are both philosophies. One uses a methodology and makes hypotheses about Natural Selection; the other uses the same data and hypothesises a Designer. Why should you have a problem with this form of metacognition? The Designer need not use magic, He just needs to put some Laws in place and allow all the possible permutations to occur.

For example, with more oxygen in the atmosphere, organism growth would be faster etc... Why? For the same reason that you can recognise the genius of an artist from his discarded works as much as those that succeeded in aesthetic excellence and 'completeness'. You don't need perfection, just functionality and a creation that is conscious enough to appreciate it.