# Aaacckkkk! Couple sues over evolution website **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 27, 2005, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aaacckkkk-couple-sues-over-evolution-website/332866 "2005-11-27T02:17:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Ponder\_Stibbons](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ponder_stibbons/32/343_2.png) [@Ponder\_Stibbons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ponder_Stibbons)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2005, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aaacckkkk-couple-sues-over-evolution-website/332866/61 "2005-11-29T15:50:03Z")
Two lawyers arguing in a pit thread. Whooooeeee, it doesn’t get any better than this! No, wait. That’s not the phrase I’m looking for. Actually, it’s: Whoooooeee, I would rather have someone pound on my head with a ball peen hammer! 😃 ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2005, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aaacckkkk-couple-sues-over-evolution-website/332866/62 "2005-11-29T16:06:17Z")
> [@Ponder Stibbons](#): > > Two lawyers arguing in a pit thread. Whooooeeee, it doesn’t get any better than this! > > No, wait. That’s not the phrase I’m looking for. Actually, it’s: > > Whoooooeee, I would rather have someone pound on my head with a ball peen hammer! 😃 Eyes glazing over, what was this thread about? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2005, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aaacckkkk-couple-sues-over-evolution-website/332866/63 "2005-11-29T16:14:12Z")
> [@Campion](#): > > Caldwell is complaining that certain statements made (either directly or through links) violate the First Amendment. If the judge can consider what those statements are (as opposed to a vague allegation that certain statements about religion were made), then I think that on a Rule 12 motion the claim can be dismissed. I don’t know whether the judge _can_ consider what those statements are; if she can’t, then you’re right, we’re at Rule 56. If she can (either because they’re specifically alleged or because of the doctrine of incorporation by reference), then I think she could say, the plaintiff has failed to state a claim because these statements as a matter of law do not violate the First Amendment. Yup. I think you’ve carved out the key issue: can the judge consider what those statements are? And of some interest, specifically: does the doctrine of incorporation by reference extend to web pages? ---
**Author:** ![Campion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@Campion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Campion)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2005, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aaacckkkk-couple-sues-over-evolution-website/332866/64 "2005-11-29T16:41:25Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yup. I think you’ve carved out the key issue: can the judge consider what those statements are? And of some interest, specifically: does the doctrine of incorporation by reference extend to web pages? If I’m representing Cal, hell yeah. I’m most familiar with the doctrine of incorporation by reference as applied to things like contracts. This isn’t a contract, but the statements made in the webpage are at issue and I’d at least make a pitch that the judge could look at them. Depending on who my judge is, I think I could get it done. But you’re right: the safer route is to convert to a Rule 56 motion, then grant judgment for Cal. > [@Ponder Stibbens](#): > > Two lawyers arguing in a pit thread. Whooooeeee, it doesn’t get any better than this! Like I said, who says lawyers are no fun at parties? 😉 > [@jrfranchi](#): > > Eyes glazing over, what was this thread about? Well, to answer that, I’d need to give you some background. Before 1933, there were two different kinds of courts, law and – oh, wait. I think I’d best go back before the Revolution to England’s court system. Where to start, though? Okay – the Magna Carta! Hey! Are you _asleep_?!?!? How could anyone fall asleep when we’re talking about the drafting of the . . . 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Nature\_s\_Call](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nature_s_call/32/19006_2.png) [@Nature\_s\_Call](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nature_s_Call)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2005, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aaacckkkk-couple-sues-over-evolution-website/332866/65 "2005-11-29T16:42:49Z")
> [@Revenant Threshold](#): > > We’ll swop you for British Columbia. It’s named after us, anyway. Not to mention, uh, Columbia… No coffee though. ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2005, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aaacckkkk-couple-sues-over-evolution-website/332866/66 "2005-11-29T16:57:00Z")
> [@Campion](#): > > If I’m representing Cal, hell yeah. I’m most familiar with the doctrine of incorporation by reference as applied to things like contracts. This isn’t a contract, but the statements made in the webpage are at issue and I’d at least make a pitch that the judge could look at them. Depending on who my judge is, I think I could get it done. But you’re right: the safer route is to convert to a Rule 56 motion, then grant judgment for Cal. > Like I said, who says lawyers are no fun at parties? ;)Well, to answer that, I’d need to give you some background. Before 1933, there were two different kinds of courts, law and – oh, wait. I think I’d best go back before the Revolution to England’s court system. Where to start, though? Okay – the Magna Carta! > > Hey! Are you _asleep_?!?!? How could anyone fall asleep when we’re talking about the drafting of the . . . 😃 Well wait, I am interested in the Magna Carta. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aaacckkkk-couple-sues-over-evolution-website/332866/67 "2005-11-30T04:40:28Z")
Aha! - your federal Rule 12 is Saskatchewan’s Rule 188!! It all makes sense now! Carry on. I just had an ephiphany I needed to share. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aaacckkkk-couple-sues-over-evolution-website/332866/68 "2005-11-30T13:27:04Z")
> [@Nature's Call](#): > > It displays a misunderstanding to say things like “the truth of evolution is uncertain because, after all, it’s just a theory.” Of course it’s a misunderstanding, but the mass of people don’t get the distinction between the use of the word in its strict sense and in its general sense. It’s not reserved for scientific use. I can say, “Everyone on Interstate 70 yesterday was driving like a dick because they’d been stuck in Kansas for two days. At least, that’s my theory.” That doesn’t mean I took a poll of every truck driver that almost took me out, or every car driver going 30 in the fast lane. It just means that’s my wild-ass guess. That’s how many, if not most people use the word. The only thing that can alleviate this is to educate them on what “theory” means in its scientific sense. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aaacckkkk-couple-sues-over-evolution-website/332866/69 "2005-11-30T13:58:49Z")
Right. And that’s the whole point of teaching _science_ in a _science_ class. Introducing that malarkey (creationism/ID) into the class defeats the purpose, unless, of course, it’s merely to show what science is not. ---
**Author:** ![Ca3799](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9f8e36/32.png) [@Ca3799](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ca3799)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aaacckkkk-couple-sues-over-evolution-website/332866/70 "2005-11-30T17:32:25Z")
Sometimes I just want to say "I don’t know which word you understand less, “theorey” or “evolution”. But you seem to have “of” right! 🆒 ---
**Author:** ![Ca3799](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9f8e36/32.png) [@Ca3799](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ca3799)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aaacckkkk-couple-sues-over-evolution-website/332866/71 "2005-11-30T17:32:46Z")
Sometimes I just want to say "I don’t know which word you understand less, “theory” or “evolution”. But you seem to have “of” right! 🆒 ---
**Author:** ![Nature\_s\_Call](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nature_s_call/32/19006_2.png) [@Nature\_s\_Call](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nature_s_Call)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aaacckkkk-couple-sues-over-evolution-website/332866/72 "2005-11-30T19:32:18Z")
> [@This Year's Model](#): > > Of course it’s a misunderstanding, but the mass of people don’t get the distinction between the use of the word in its strict sense and in its general sense. > > \ > The only thing that can alleviate this is to educate them on what “theory” means in its scientific sense. We agree. My comment that you quoted was directed at **Mr. Blue Sky**. My subsequent explanation of the word “theory,” for what it was worth, was my attempt at such education, for the benefit **Mr. Blue Sky** \* and for any like-minded eavesdroppers. * * * \*I almost typed “Mr. Kite” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aaacckkkk-couple-sues-over-evolution-website/332866.md?page=3)