Intelligent Design

So far, I've had a lot of creationists tell me that ID is way too cozy with common descent for them. But there's probably as many kinds of creationism as there are creationists.

At any rate, this particular attempt to sneak creationism into public schools came to grief. It's why the Discovery Institute opposed forcing the issue in the first place; it's not science, they know it isn't, and they are trying to find a way to make it science.

But they aren't there yet. And this might have been the final blow to the effort to get people to see ID as something besides stealth creationism.

 

I wonder. I sceince a philosopy or religion with boundrys one can't cross, or is it a tool to be applyed to legitimate questions.

 

You are absolutely correct, creationism is not science. Any creationists will agree with you on this point.

The bug in the ointment is that neither is evolution science, but evolutionists WILL NOT admit it.

The whole difference is the EXPLANATION, note: not the existance of, or type of, or abundance of, evidence, but the different EVALUATION of, this evidence!!!!

Neither can be PROVED as valid via science; the only difference is YOUR BELIEF as to which explanation of the evidence is valid. So it boils down to whether you believe God, Who spoke very clearly and plainly on the subject of creation, or man who has (by inspiration of satan) always been subverting God's Word.

This then becomes a matter of faith, not facts! That comes awfully close( ) to religious belief, folks, not scientific proof.

So once again, why are the evos so adamant that Creationism or even just ID not be allowed? Their religion is being questioned, and sooner or later, if ID is allowed, will be proven false, or at least not the masive cornerstone of granite that some have insisted that it is.

 

That's exactly my point Bill, that evolution should not be taught as "science" but perhaps a faith based religion, just like ID.

 

To a Spirit controlled believer it is a great thing. What it has to do with science is approximately the same relationship that Darwinism has, which is little or none.

 

I am surprised that no one has yet provided a link to the court's website such that all can read the decision. Yeah, it is 139 pages long, but with the spacing it really does not take long to read. It is worth a read to get a feel for what was presented in the case and the judge's reaction to it. It should also be noted that rather than this being some liberal activists judge, this is one of Bush's apointees.

http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf

Now above Helen says "But because so many parts of the natural world DO show evidence of intelligent design, it terrifies the evolutionists who will use any lie possible to keep it from being considered." Emphasis added.

Now I think the obvious question here becomes if she can produce a strong case for science constantly using lies to promote the prevailing mainstream view. This has to be a deliberate, purposeful falsehood. It is not enough to disagree with their opinions or to present what you think is opposing evidence. It is necessary to show where we have a pattern of scientists promoting what they know to be untrue as the truth and it being accepted by the mainstream.

So what "lies" are currently being used to support evolution?

In contrast, this is a fairly easy thing to do for "creation science."

But to tie this back into the OP, let's go through the court's ruling and use it to examine the actions of the ID proponents in this case. Perhap's Helen pointed her finger in the wrong direction.

Added emphasis in bold. Original emphasis will be in italics.

 

Helen also claimed that "You can look at ID philosophically, but the field itself is pure science."

According to the court, Behe, the defense expert witness, disagrees.

The ruling and the transcripts contain a wealth of similar findings.

Helen also claims that "The Dembski filter is NOT philosophical, nor is an examination of irreducible complexity. Both are scientifically examinable and falsifiable. You can look at ID philosophically, but the field itself is pure science -- it's just that it's science that secular science doesn't like." But the trial judge says differently.

 

Since I am trying to use the court's ruling to tie back into the OP and other issues raised on the thread, let's look at one more

Just-want-peace posted "If the total truth were taught and the students allowed to form their OWN (very important point) beliefs based on evidence, I have no doubts that by far the majority would opt for some form of intelligent design over 'chance'!"

Once again, the judge heard expert witnesses from both sides. If you are really interested, go find the transcripts of the case, Google is your friend, and read the testimony of the Dr. Miller, who was one of the plantiff's expert witnesses and who is well known as a Christian willing to weigh in with his beliefs, and the testimony of Dr. Behe, who was one of the expert witnesses for the defense. If you read the Behe cross examination you might see why many of the defences other expert witnesses suddenly decided against testifying.

Let's see what the judge had to say. Again, remember by whom he was appointed.

Added emphasis in bold. Original emphasis will be in italics.

 

part two...

 

UTEOTW, the above transcripts sound a lot like the trials I have been involved with. Trials, especially civil, have very little to do with reality--and more to do with procedure and technicalities.

If you wish to discuss the trial, then we are certainly in an area in which I can debate you with ease.

 

I have various motivations here.

The first is simply to get the PDF of the ruling into the thread on the ruling. It seems to be an impotant part that was missing.

The summary of the trial contained in the ruling gives a nice overview of several topics and is worth a read. Even better would be if someone would take my suggestion and go read the transcripts of the experts from both sides. That should be enlightening.

Second was to counter the claim of those lying evolutionists by Helen. As I said, it is hard to show where any lies are being used in support of evolution but easy to show in the case of YE. To keep it on topic and to complete the point, I showed how the participants on the ID side in this trial were found to have been deceitful throughout the process.

Third was to get in some of the observations of the evidence for ID from a lifelong Republican and a Republican court appointee who heard expert witnesses from both sides. It seems like he is likely to be an unbiased observer who has heard directly from the experts. If he has personal leanings, one would have expected them to be towards the defendants.

If you want to debate the judge, go right ahead. If you want to start pulling out testimony from the experts, that could be fun, too.

But since we have reached three pages, I get the feeling this thread will not last much longer.

 

I agree with the ruling, but here is a little gem for you. This judge will no doubt be labeled a liberal activist jurist, but he was appointed to the federal bench by the darling of the religious right, George W. Bush.

 

By defining irreducible complexity in the way that he has, Professor Behe . . . has redefined "up" as "down."

Information theory defines (text, information) as irreducibly complex if the description of the text or information is as large as the origional text or information thus a random string is irreducibly complex.

 

Dembski has forgotten his undergraduate statistics.

If the odds of winning a lottery were a trillion to one and it paid off $2 trillion it is a good bet.

 

3-page warning This thread will be closed no sooner than 3:45 p.m. ET by one of the Moderators.

Lady Eagle,
Moderator

 

Closed.