Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Off-topic' started by Malum Prohibitum, Jan 9, 2007.
http://www.christiancourier.com/article ... eanderings
I think the accusation without foundation, and I will say why after some of you have had a chance to read the article and comment.
If they have side-by-side comparisons of his work to the ACLU document how can the accusation be without foundation?
Depends on exactly what was quoted. I cannot put it past any partisan group to include cited cases that both the judge and ACLU quoted would mean that the judge took them from the ACLU.
I would only be interested in knowing if the exact same arguments found between the cases and documents cited, showed up in both.
If 90% of the ACLU's document is based on citing other cases or documents, then it would be fairly obvious that most of those same cases and documents to be cited by the judge as well.
This one statement at the end jumped out at me.
THEORY of evolution. If it was unalterable fact it would be the LAW of evolution... and this is from a school district.
It is a victory for ID believers that a school district agreed to adopt a philosophy of science that was already the philosophy of science? Set the bar low enough and you can claim almost anything as a victory.
Hey Gunstar1: Don't forget, gravity is also "just a theory". I wonder if the Lancaster school district has a philosophy of science policy concerning that as well.
And these are the people we entrust with our children...
BTW, I thought judges frequently quoted briefs filed in cases they decide. Did I miss something in that article?
Macktee, you hit upon my opinion with the last paragraph of your post. Plagiarism is a form of "stealing." You can't really steal from somebody who is giving you the item you are accused by a third party of stealing. Frankly, attorneys love to have judges lift whole portions from their briefs. It is flattering to the attorney and also means that the client is getting from the judge exactly what the attorney argued.
That does not mean I agree with the outcome of the case (or the comparison to the Theory of Gravity, which can be tested by replication), but that I dispute the unjustified charge of plagiarism. I just wanted to see if anybody else would pick up on that.
Actually, we know that large bodies exert a force on others, but not exactly how this happens (Einstein says it is curved spacetime, that has not been proven). The theory of relativity is currently our best guess. If it was a proven fact it would not be a theory of physics, it would be a law. As this is on a planatary scale it is hard to test in a lab. (that gravity exists is not the question, it is how and why)
Could it be 99% correct? sure. However that still means theory. If it is 100% correct then it becomes a law.
Literally, a theory does not represent unalterable fact.
Scientifically, a theory does not represent unalterable fact.
So saying ANY theory is unalterable fact is wrong. A law IS unalterable fact.
The school saying they will no longer teach a theory as unalterable fact is nothing major, as that is how they should have been teaching it all along.
Yeah! What he said!
Man-Oh-Man I do LOVE this forum!!!!!!!!!!