[Malum Prohibitum]

http://www.christiancourier.com/article ... eanderings

:shock:

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

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.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

This one statement at the end jumped out at me.

In March, the Lancaster School District in California agreed on a philosophy of science policy stating “Darwin’s theory should not be taught as ‘unalterable fact.’â€

THEORY of evolution. If it was unalterable fact it would be the LAW of evolution... and this is from a school district. :shakehead:

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.