Judge Jones is NEITHER a scientist qualified to render the opinion he wrote, or a theologian. Judge Jones is an attorney. Law has NOTHING to do with science or religion either. Dover was a case about CONSTITUTIONAL law as to whether student rights protected by the First Amendment Establishment clause were violated. Judge Jones did not cite science research papers to formulate his decision, he cited earlier LEGAL CASES that set precedents and guidelines that he had no choice other than overturning or following.
No testimony or evidence was offered in the Dover trial that set a definition of “religion” or “creationism.” No discussion was provided in the Dover decision as to what elements are required to determine creationism. [http://www.aclupa.org/legal/legaldocket/intelligentdesigncase/dovertrialtranscripts.htm]. The only evidence offered was that terminology related to creation was edited out of earlier versions of the textbook “Of Pandas and People.”
The ID Community is appalled at the lack of obtaining a fair and impartial hearing on the Dover case. The fact remains that ID Theory is very much 100% solid science, https://dennisdjones.wordpress.com/2011/02/11/proof-as-to-why-id-is-science/, with plenty of peer-reviewed research papers to back it up, https://dennisdjones.wordpress.com/2011/02/24/id-peer-reviewed-research-published-in-science-journals/. Michael Behe wrote a rebuttal to Dover as to why ID is valid science, http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=697.
The Discovery Institute has been rebutting what happened at Kitzmiller v. Dover just about every day for about 7 years now.
The court Opinion you linked cites legal cases, not science research papers. The standard of associating anything with creationism is extremely high. All those precedents are based upon jurisprudence and Constitutional law. It has nothing to do with science. You’re the liar because the Discovery Institute has disputed the Opinion for years now.
Here’s some examples of their rebuttals,
Law Review Article Agrees That Judge Jones Went Too Far, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/01/law_review_article_agrees_that003056.html
Judge Jones Admits the Activist Nature of Kitzmiller Ruling on Lehrer News Hour, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/11/judge_jones_admits_the_activis004518.html
Judge Jones’s Misguided NCSE-Scripted Kitzmiller Ruling and the Origin of New Functional Genetic Information, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/02/judge_joness_misguided_ncsescr031891.html
Did Judge Jones Get Anything Right in his Activist Ruling Against Intelligent Design? http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/11/did_judge_jones_get_anything_r027721.html
Judge Jones and His Groupies, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/12/judge_jones_and_his_groupies014851.html
Two Years after Dover Intelligent Design Trial Darwinists, Like Judge Jones, Still Want to Have It Both Ways, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/12/the_logical_bankruptcy_of_the004668.html
Judge Jones’ Overreaching Diminishes Impact of Kitzmiller Ruling Upon Future Courts, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/03/judge_jones_overreaching_dimin003246.html
A good place to find out more information on this subject is to check out the Discovery Institute website here, http://www.discovery.org/csc/, go to “Search,” enter “Dover,” and click Enter. You will pull up tons of direct responses to issues related to the Kitzmiller v. Dover case.
The Dover trial is not much about science, but instead a legal dispute over First Amendment. To imply that Dover proves that ID is not science is absolutely a false assertion. The issue in Dover was whether Constitutional rights were being violated. It is IMPOSSIBLE for a court to determine whether ID is a valid science, and if it does the ruling is only be significant as a matter of law. Courts render LEGAL conclusions, not scientific ones. And, scientists can only generate scientific conclusions, not legal rulings.
Just like any other court, only LEGAL ISSUES were before the court to decide upon, not a scientific hypothesis. Yes, ID advocates presented their evidence of the validity of ID, but the evidence was only significant in offering the court guidance on ruling on Constitutional law. It would be very ignorant for someone to believe that the court system is set up for judges to decide the validity of a scientific hypothesis. There’s only one way to determine the validity of a hypothesis and that is OBSERVATION, HYPOTHESIS (research and prediction), Controlled EXPERIMENTATION, RESULTS/DATA, AND CONCLUSION. That’s science. Science is not law and it is not philosophy.
Just like my position that science should have nothing to do with philosophy, it is equally foolish to determine the validity of a scientific hypothesis by whether it violates a student’s 1st Amendment right. For one to hold this view would mean they also believe it is equally acceptable for a federal judge to determine whether quantum theory, string theory, or chaotic theory in a physics class could likewise violate a student’s rights because those theories also contemplate the supernatural.
Judge Jones is himself a Darwinist. Judge John E. Jones III of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania is one of the foremost defenders of evolution in public schools, ruling the teaching of intelligent design unconstitutional in public schools in the landmark Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case in 2005. On Saturday, June 7, 2008, Judge Jones was awarded the American Humanist Association’s Humanist Religious Liberty Award at the World Humanist Congress in Washington, DC. The following is adapted from his acceptance speech, http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/09_jan_feb/Jones.html. The Dover trial was not by any means heard by a fair an impartial trier of facts.
Science is defined as the methodical acquisition of knowledge based upon obtaining empirical data from testing a falsifiable hypothesis formulated from predictions that arise from observation. Those results are presented in research papers that are then published in SCIENCE JOURNALS, not legal opinions that cite court cases. It is the scientific method that determines a scientific research field to be genuine science. All the Dover decision accomplished was to render a legal determination for purposes of interpreting the First Amendment Establish Clause of the U.S. Constitution. None of the legal rulings have anything to do with science. Judges cite legal opinions, scientists cite research papers. It’s unfortunate that some people are not able to distinguish the difference between what constitutes science and what comprises law.