I downloaded the PDF of the judge’s decision when it was available, but haven’t read it yet(!). I’ve been interested in the subject of evolution for most of my life, but, unfortunately most of my family were and still are very religious folks, not to the edge of fundamentalism, but enough to make the occasional remark that evolution is only a theory. As if that were some sort of put-down.

I love ‘em, but I don’t discuss such when in their presence. Lately the father of my brother-in-law has taken to reading books and watching videos on how astronomically ‘privileged we are, unfortunately from a ‘God did this for us’ perspective.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html

It is pretty sad that they think they have to censor their broadcasts just so they don’t offend some people who don’t want to hear the truth. Of course it will look one-sided, the trial itself was on-sided. The IDers screwed it up big-time. The Nova episode apparently just told it as it was. The only thing the DI could come up with in the way of criticism were a few meaningless nit-picks.

The average American voter is not educated enough…

I think you could just stop right there. Herein lies the crux of the matter, and the only viable long-term solution to it as well, as far as I can tell.

Kisses Sergeant Zim,

JanieBelle

I wrote the station as to why they did not broadcast it on their analog station and I received this as part of the answer – ‘While accurate in its depiction of the results of the trial featured in the NOVA episode, we felt that it might look particularly one-sided to most of our audience.’ Unfortunately, the area where I live has been called the buckle of the Bible Belt. I also live in the state on the ‘Dayton Trial’!

So to avoid ‘controversy’ they decided to put the NOVA program on only their access available to those with cable or satellite service for which I cannot justify the expense at the moment (I live on Social Security Disability only).

I replied that I was disappointed in their decision in depriving those who cannot afford the non-off-air services of an important event in legal history.

If we claim (correctly) that there is no real controversy, the creos pop up with their list of scientists, and say, “See? there are a BUNCH of scientists who say differently”. Even if we show the total disparity of numbers, the creos will trot out examples of scientists who were ridiculed, yet whose theories eventually became accepted (Einstein, Galileo, etc.).

If we actually agree to present both sides, even showing creationism (in all its illigitimate offspring forms) as fraudulent, flawed, and a disservice to both religion and science, they still win, by default, since they will have ‘converted’ enough of the students to make the next school board election a disaster.

The average American voter is not educated enough about the finer points of science to understand the red herrings the creos toss with abandon every chance they get. Some say that is the fault of Government Schools, but that begs the question, who destroyed Government Schools in the first place? Was it the teachers, or was it the politicians, who somehow just can’t keep from meddling?

Y’know, I think we should start a group experiment to scientifically test the efficacy of houdou…

*coworker points at houdou doll on my desk* “What’s that?”

“A houdou doll.”

“I could sort of tell from the pins. Um, who is it supposed to be?”

“A randomly selected ‘Creation Scientist.’”

“…Why? Or should I even ask…”

“You should. You see, I’m performing an experiment in the name of science.”

“In the name of science?”

“Yes. In more ways than one.”

OK I guess your point, that I missed twice, was that I failed to put “…” before and after the quotation. Certainly the ”…” at the end is incorrect since this phrase concludes the amendment.

Stark,

Enjoyed your pedantry. Someone has to pick nits or everything gets lousy.

Jedi Bear

A very cogent analysis of the meaning, context and modern interpretation of the 2nd amendment. As I said I have never owned a fire arm but “interpreting” the constitution in direct contradiction of the original meaning is something to which I vigorously object.

If the original meaning doesn’t suit the modern world then the framers laid out a clear way to change it. The rule of law is all that separates us from the rest of the apes. Oh, that and cable TV of course.

Thanks for the link to Expelled. I hadn’t heard about it.

Check out the extras section for the NOVA show. The judge is very thoughtful in his interview: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/extras.html

WGBH Boston should get some money together and have this program transfered to 35mm and get it out in theaters to counter “Expelled.”

A 100 theaters around the country would be acceptable.

Hey, I’m a science geek.

“Judgment Day” is excellent… one of the very best NOVA’s ever produced… and I’ve been watching NOVA since I was a little kid. I noticed that Joseph McMaster directed it, and I believe he directed the Emmy and Peabody award winning “The Elegant Universe” NOVA that was based on Brian Greene’s book of the same name.

Very insightful, very clearly presented to the audience… gripping and intelligent… unlike creationism.

To quote Darwin himself:

“There is grandeur in this view of life… from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.”

The quality may be better than Youtube.

I am recording the HD version of the Nova program on Thursday. It is available on our local (Oregon) digital public broadcast station. It is probably available in other places, too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

which I think is even better than the PBS show! Only problem is that the lecture is 117 minutes long!!!

“Uncommon Descent is again proving to be a major embarrassment. Or, more accurately, it has not yet ceased its never ending pursuit of making a fool of itself. The state of affairs is so bad that I really don’t know how other members of the ID community refrain from publicly distancing themselves from the site’s absurdity. It would be amusing if it were not for the fact that, by extension and association, Christianity is impugned in the process.

Let’s review the recent travesties.” …..

You can read the full entry here:

http://helives.blogspot.com/2007/06/shame-on-uncommon-descent.html

Not really. It was Chalker’s signature series. He was another SF author to die too young, like Roger Zelazny.

“A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

The key thing to realise here is that the two comma-seperated clauses are actually independent.

“A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state,”

This has no legislative import, as it mandates nothing. It only states the premise upon which the rule is based. This being, of course, that in order to preserve a free state, it is necessary for private citizens acting in concert to be able to mount effective armed resistence against their government.

It is the second clause that mandates a policy:
“the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

What right the people might have to keep and bear arms is not specifically mentioned, but given the enhancement of the previous reasoning, it may be presumed that the people must have the right to keep and bear military arms – swords, muskets, and cannons at the time that the amendment was written, or machine-guns, rocket-launchers, and tanks in this time.

Clearly, this is not how modern jurisprudence interprets the Second Amendment, but it seems clear that this was in fact its intent, taking into account only the actual language of the amendment and the historical conditions that lead to its drafting and enactment.

Which constitution were you referring to? Are you implying that the US us the only country with a constitution? Of course, if you were specifying a particular constitution, you should have used a modifier and capitalized the word itself.

I got yer pedantry right here…

As opposed to all the other windmill tilting around here?