Joined: July 2006
|Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 24 2007,15:10)|
|Let us all bask in the warm glow of IDers' ability to shoot themselves in the foot time and time again:|
|According to a news item in Nature, Gonzalez is appealing on grounds that his support of ID is part of his religious beliefs, and the university is guilty of religious discrimination against him.|
That must be a mistake as the man in question is a fellow of the DI ,I understand, and if anybody would know if ID is religion it would be one of them.
And anyway, that would contradict what DaveSCot, King of the Tards has to say about it
|I understand that Guillermo doesnít believe ID is religion but his personal opinion has no bearing and he neednít make any statement that he personally believes ID is not religion. He only needs to argue that ID is religion in the opinion of federal courts. If the justice system considers ID religion then Guillermo had his civil rights violated by Iowa State University. There can be only two outcomes - the court hearing Guillermo holds that ID is not religion and thus his civil rights were not violated (a win for ID) or the court holds that his civil rights were violated and rules that universities cannot use ID to discriminate against faculty on that basis (also a win for ID). I donít see any downside. Either way ID comes out better for it.|
I started to go through and add highlights, but simpler to bold it all. Link
And then there is this
Which was easier to copy then quote :)
And then there is this classic, easier with teh google highlighting
I mean, if a fellow of the Discovery institution says ID is RELIGION, then, well, who am I to argue? Appeal on religious discrimination grounds indeed.
Here's a nice one
|The people that are really bringing religion into the ID/evolution debate are atheists.|
And on Dover
|The trial is about whether what is being taught at the Dover HS that is religion or not. If itís religion itís a violation of the 1st amendment establishment clause.|
|Teaching religion may be unconstitutional but teaching nonsense isnít. It doesnít matter one iota whether ID is valid science or not. All that matters is whether or not itís an establishment of religion.|
|But the trial isnít about science. ID doesnít need to be science. It needs to be NOT religion and thatís all it needs to be. It could be zen basket weaving as long as it isnít religion. The constitution doesnít prohibit the government from making laws regarding the establishment of basket weaving. What we should really do is pan the science experts altogether and just use doctors of theology to testify that the ID in question is not religion.|
Hmm, better get those Zen basket weavers up to speed then DS!
And so on and so forth.
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
if there are even critical flaws in Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand