http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4547734.stm
the way he ruled, you'd think they tried to crash a hot-air balloon into the white house and call it art.
"breathtaking inanity"
i wonder how transparent these fuckers must have been for a bush-appointed judge to rule like this.
or maybe he's actually got a sense of, y'know, ethics.
You can read the ruling as a PDF:
http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmil...miller_342.pdf
More from
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/0512.../051219-8.html
Quote:
|
"The judge simply ignored the evidence that intelligent design does not rely on a supernatural creator," says Luskin. He predicts that the ruling will pique people's interest in intelligent design: "When you tell students that they can't think about something, they are going to want to think about it."
|
i like his connection between a religiously-motivated idea and drugs. an idea backed by "if i can't wrap my head around it then it's obviously not true" and argued IN COURT seems to have a fair bit of substances behind it as well.
i look forward to the day when children get accosted during recess and are asked "hey, you want a theory of how we came to be that "they" DON'T want you to know? i got what u need, man, it's all here."
who the fuck
are these people?
"come on you guys, i mean look at it, it's so huge! i dont think science could do this, y'all!"