Yuku free message boards

Quote:

---

[Scopes was] not about man descending from apes as the news media of that day seemed to indicate.

---

Quote:

---

While the Act was not drafted with as much care as could have been drafted, nevertheless there seems to be no great difficulty in determining its meaning. It is entitled :

"An Act prohibiting the teaching of the evolution theory in all the Universities, normals and all other public schools in Tennessee, which are supported in whole or in part by the public school funds of the state, and to provide penalties for the violations thereof."

Evolution, like prohibition, is a broad term. In recent bickering, however, evolution has been understood to mean the theory which holds that man has developed from some pre-existing lower type. This is the popular significance of evolution, just as the popular significance of prohibition is prohibition of the traffic in intoxicating liquors. It was in that sense that evolution was used in this Act. It is that sense that the word will be used in this opinion, unless the context otherwise indicates. It is only to the theory of the evolution of man from a lower type that the Act before us was intended to apply, and much of the discussion we have heard is beside this case. The words of a Statute, if in common use, are to be taken in their natural and ordinary sense. [Citations omitted. -R]

Thus defining evolution, this Act's title clearly indicates the purpose of the Statute to be the prohibition of teaching in the Schools of the State that man has developed or descended from some lower type or order of animals. [Emphasis added.]

---

Quote:

---

This record disclosed that the jury found the defendant below guilty, but did not assess the fine. The trial judge himself undertook to impose the minimum fine of $ 100 authorized by the Statute. This was error. Under section 14 of article 6 of the Constitution of Tennessee, a fine in excess of $ 50 must be assessed by a jury. The Statute before us does not permit the imposition of a smaller fine than $ 100.

Since a jury alone can impose the penalty this Act requires, and as a matter of course no different penalty can be inflicted, the trial judge exceeded his jurisdiction in levying this fine, and we are without power to correct his error. The judgment must accordingly be reversed. [Citation omitted. -R]

---

Quote:

---

Darrow was addressing evolution specifically but you can substitute almost any theory by name and the same logic applies.

---

Quote:

---

Only Congress can make federal law. Even the 14th Amendment does not change that.

---

Quote:

---

In the Kitzmiller vs. Dover School Board, Judge Jones only declared the schools policy REQUIRING the teaching of any particular theory unconstitutional under PA law and used precedent of SCOUS.

---

Quote:

---

His ruling took about the last 2 pages. The rest of the 139 page document dealt with how he came to this ruling.

---

Quote:

---

The entire decision is his ruling, and his decision includes the explicit conclusion that ID is not science.

---

Quote:

---

Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas in writing for the majority stated in the Epperson case: There is and can be no doubt that the First Amendment does not permit the State to require that teaching and learning must be tailored to the principles or prohibitions of any religious sect or dogma,

---

Quote:

---

Again I reach the conclusion that a teacher may teach any theory the local school board does not prohibit.

---

Quote:

---

His ruling took about the last 2 pages. The rest of the 139 page document dealt with how he came to this ruling.

---

Quote:

---

The Inquirer: Some have said your ruling wasn't about church and state but about whether intelligent design is science.

Jones: I think that the ruling followed precedent,... The controversial part of the ruling was whether intelligent design is in fact science. Lost in the post-decision debate was that both sides, plaintiffs and defense, asked me to rule on that issue. Clearly, that was resolved based on the scientific evidence presented at the trial. That portion of the opinion seems to have been scrutinized, and praised or criticized, more than the part of the decision grounded in the two tests. [emphasis obviously added.]

---