[continued from previous message]   
      
   > crowd, for some reason.  What bothers me is those who do think they have   
   > the high ground and choose to deceive others into believing the ID   
   > proponents are things they are clearly not.  Protecting our kids from   
   > hearing anything that implies anything crazy like the supernatural is   
   > the usual motive, but people on the design side think similarly and   
   > would just like a fair shake.  To be able to honestly show the problems   
   > and limitations of evolutionary theory.  Thus we get to the Katzmiller   
   > v. Dover case Ron so often brings up as totally refuting the whole ID   
   > viewpoint.  He would have us believe all is lost in the ID circle   
   > because of the actions of a handful of people involved in it.  I don't   
   > find that to be the case.  If similar treatment was given to evolution   
   > scientists, people would be outraged.  Fortunately, judges usually don't   
   > rule on whether or not a researchers intentions are scientific or not.   
   > Of course the case was not appealed as all the pro board members were   
   > ousted and the new board president wanted nothing of it.  Though, I   
   > personally think the original intent seemed reasonable and that Judge   
   > Jones certainly stepped outside the normal lines of judicial behavior, I   
   > personally don't really care if ID is taught in the schools, though it   
   > would seem obvious the theory of evolution and it's shortcomings should   
   > be part of the course.  In the end, you find people, like some of those   
   > here, who just like to muck up any topic with this constant reference to   
   > this one case and claim a total victory of some kind.  I think it should   
   > be pretty much tuned out or you get nowhere.   
   >   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)