Legal Hypocrisy from the Darwinists

Do you ever watch "The People's Court" or similar television programs? (They are popular on American television, airing during business hours on weekdays. People have the small claims court cases settled before television judges who tend to be quirky or even abusive.) Afterward, the parties of the case talk to the interviewer. The winner says, "Yes, I am happy with the decision. The judge is intelligent and justice was served". Well, of course! "Justice was served" because things went your way. Naturally, the loser of the case tends to disagree with the decision.

There is a problem when court cases are settled and then misquoted. One fellow kept badgering me, insisting, "How many more times must the courts rule that ID isn't science before it sinks in?" (His claim was based on a ruling about a school district in Dover.) And yet, when I point out how the high courts have ruled that atheism and secular humanism are religions, I'm either called a liar or told that what the courts say do not matter. Several times I have tried to point out this double standard, of wanting it both ways, to no avail.

Although I may sound like the people that lose their cases, I must say that some truths cannot be settled by a court ruling. Even if a high court did rule that "ID is not science", that would not make it true. Such a ruling would be out of their jurisdiction, so to speak. I would be asking questions if such a ruling were handed down, such as:
  • How were "science" and "religion" defined?
  • What exactly did they rule?
  • What is the context, what are the circumstances?
  • Does anyone else think this is ridiculous?
  • What is the court's reputation for objectivity?

The US Ninth Circus Circuit Court is famous for being astonishingly leftist and for having the most cases overturned by the US Supreme Court. Conservative values, Judeo-Christian values, traditional family values, creationism, Intelligent Design — all suffer when brought before this court. Here is an example of their fair and balanced treatment of Intelligent Design:
The Ninth Circuit's recent refusal to rule on the merits of a case where a student alleged his teacher was disparaging creationist religious beliefs isn't the first time it has denied Darwin-skeptics their day in court. In the past here on ENV, we've written about how the Ninth Circuit dismissed the Caldwell v. Caldwell lawsuit for lack of standing.

In the Caldwell case, Jeanne Caldwell, a parent of public school students in Roseville, California, filed suit against the director of UC Berkeley's Museum of Paleontology, who oversaw the production of a website for teachers called "Understanding Evolution." Caldwell's complaint alleged that the website "advocat[es] that teachers use public school science classrooms to proselytize minor students to adopt the government's preferred religious beliefs and doctrines regarding evolutionary theory."
The Understanding Evolution website was funded with a $500,000+ government-sponsored National Science Foundation grant awarded to UC Berkeley staff, with various National Center for Science Education staff members helping to develop the site. The website states that it is a "misconception" to believe "[e]volution and religion are incompatible" or that "one always has to choose between [evolution] and religion." Clearly preferring religious sects that accept evolution, the site asserts that "[m]ost Christian and Jewish religious groups have no conflict with the theory of evolution." The Caldwell complaint also lists the example that "the 'Misconceptions' web page includes a cartoon depicting a scientist shaking hands with a religious pastor holding a Bible with a cross on it, intended to convey the message that there is no conflict between religious beliefs and the theory of evolution."