Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, Transcripts

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
One last thing on Behe...

What do you think of his opinion that he accepts common descent including that of humans and the other apes? You introduced him as your expert. Do you accept this opinion of his? If not, how do you pick and choose which of his opinions that you accept?

It is a well established scientific fact that all human beings are naturally disposed to be picky and choosy.

 

[UTEOTW]

"Irreducible complexity (IC) equals Intelligent creation (IC), no?"

I have never seen that. Since Behe is the IC guy, maybe you can show us where he equivocated those two phrases.

"Nonsense. You dare argue with Professor Michael Behe? What 'peer-reviewed' articles and books have you published recently?"

Books are rarely peer reviewed to begin with.

Perhaps you can point us to Behe's peer reviewed articles on IC.

And if you go back and read the direct examination of Dr. Miller, you will see where he discusses several peer reviewed articles that show that what Behe claims is impossible actually is shown to have happened.

"It is a well established scientific fact that all human beings are naturally disposed to be picky and choosy."

And generally they are illogical and contradictory in their picking and choosing. So we need to know what your basis is for picking Behe as the expert you wish to use and whether or not that means that you feel his opinion is worth adding to the discussion. Since you seem to think so, it seems necessary to point out that your chosen source accepts that common descen is a fact and only doubts that mechanisms by which evolution is supposed to happen. You do not seem to have any basis for rejecting the larger view of Behe yet you still deny his opinion on the matter. The opinion of your chosen expert.

You're picking and choosing but you position is so far from reality that you have to do so illogically.

 

[Mercury]

Michael Behe's testimony is probably going to be quite an eye-opener to many people, especially proponents of intelligent design. He was quite candid about how little ID actually claims, and how agnostic ID is about the designer and its abilities.

His October 19 PM testimony, which was originally posted in a damaged PDF, is available in [a repaired file] from the Thomas Moore website (the firm defending the Dover school board).

On page 81, during redirect examination by the defense, he is presented with a quote from the National Academy of Sciences that he included in one of his papers. It states, "Many religious persons, including many scientists, hold that God created the universe and the various processes driving the physical and biological evolution, and that these processes then resulted in the creation of galaxies, our solar system, and life on Earth. This belief, which sometimes is termed 'theistic evolution,' is not in disagreement with scientific explanations of evolution."

Later, on page 82, he contrasts this with his own position and what he means by intelligent design. Dr. Behe states, "As a matter of fact I'm claiming quite less than what the National Academy says is consistent with scientific explanations of evolution, that is that God created, the universe, and the various processes driving physical and biological evolution. In this section I'm actually contrasting my view to those who argue for design saying that they think that the universe and its laws were designed. I'm saying that in fact a design that I'm proposing actually is a, is something that would require perhaps less of an ability of a designer."

I think all ID proponents should ponder those words. Intelligent design, as Dr. Behe sees it, requires quite a bit less of the unnamed designer than theistic evolution attributes to God. ID is about a designer tinkering with certain molecular machines, making tiny motors on flagellum or systems for blood clotting. Theistic evolution, by contrast, affirms that God made the entire universe, and endowed it with the properties necessary to bring forth what God desires. With this in mind, one can see why some ID advocates do not state that the designer must be God. After all, advanced aliens could quite conceivably tinker with molecular machines, and perhaps even humans will be able to build them in the near future.

It's common knowledge that ID is not widely accepted in the scientific community. That's old news. What is fascinating is that, from Behe's own testimony, ID points to a much smaller designer than the God affirmed by theistic evolution. Scientifically, it is "quite less than what the National Academy says is consistent with scientific explanations". So, one can go with theistic evolution which is scientifically consistent and attributes to God the power and wisdom to make all that is, or one can go with intelligent design which is scientifically problematic and points to far less ability and knowledge on the part of the unnamed designer.

I can't see why any Christian would find ID as Dr. Behe presents it to be a viable alternative.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Intelligent designers generally have a purpose behind their design. Easter islanders made giant statues, presumably for the purpose of commemorating ancestors or filling the spiritual void in their lives.

The icon of intelligent design is the bacterial flagellum, portrayed as a motor that is so complicated it must have been designed.

Has anybody ever figured out a reason for the designer to invent such a machine? The present existance of that flagellum seems to give some advantage to some bacteria. I don't think that it makes any kind of sense to say that bacteria wouldn't exist and would't fulfill their current role in our ecosystem without them . . .

so why did the "designer" bother to design them?

 

[Deacon]

I posted this in the NEWS forum but it works here too. I don't know if this really qualifies as a double post since the SCIENCE section isn't really a section on the board.

HARRISBURG, Pa.
December 20, 2005

In a blow to creationists today, the Pennsylvania State Supreme Court determined that the school district of Dover, PA was undermining biological science education by raising doubts about evolution and offering "intelligent design" as an alternative explanation for life's origins.

Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District was the first legal test for the intelligent design theory.

The lawsuit centered around these words that were added to the Dover school districts curriculum.

"Students will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin's Theory and of other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent design. Note: Origins of life will not be taught."

Intelligent design supporters maintain that Darwin's theory of natural selection can’t fully explain the complex origin of life and its diversity; a higher intelligence must have designed them.

Opponents of ID say the theory is only used as a wedge to introduce religion into the classroom and that it lacks scientific evidence.

Rob

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by Deacon:
[QB] I posted this in the NEWS forum but it works here too. I don't know if this really qualifies as a double post since the SCIENCE section isn't really a section on the board.

HARRISBURG, Pa.
December 20, 2005

In a blow to creationists today, the Pennsylvania State Supreme Court determined that the school district of Dover, PA was undermining biological science education by raising doubts about evolution and offering "intelligent design" as an alternative explanation for life's origins.

Looks like the Pennsylvania State Supreme Court prefers the teaching of neo-Darwinist racial theories about human evolution in and out of Africa to Semitic genealogies of human origins.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

With just a little editing, JC, you will have a true statement:

Here's what I reccomend to make your sentence true:

"Looks like the FEDERAL COURT prefers the teaching of Neo-Darwinst theories about human evolution in and out of Africa to Semitic geneologies of human origins IN SCIENCE CLASSES."

 

[Deacon]

That was my fault; I mixed up who was presiding in my post.

It would be interesting to see if there would be similar results in a high school philosophy class.
...but I've never heard of a H.S. having one.

Rob

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
With just a little editing, JC, you will have a true statement:

Here's what I reccomend to make your sentence true:

"Looks like the FEDERAL COURT prefers the teaching of Neo-Darwinst theories about human evolution in and out of Africa to Semitic geneologies of human origins IN SCIENCE CLASSES."

All neo-Darwinist ideas of human evolution ever since Darwin have been anti-Semitic in theory and application, and the genetic Out of Africa scenario which claims that 5 Billion Asians and Caucasians are descended from one African woman is also a racial joke perpetuated by the U.S. government on the American people.

 

[Eric Pement]

Originally posted by jcrawford:
All neo-Darwinist ideas of human evolution ever since Darwin have been anti-Semitic in theory and application,

Hi! I'm a new member here, as my profile will show. When you say "anti-Semitic", do you mean anti-Jewish in the sense of dislike or hatred of Jewish people? Or do you mean it differently, in the sense of ascribing the origin of modern humans to the descendants of Ham rather than Shem?

If you mean the latter, what about those Darwinists who don't consider the sons of Noah to be historical at all? Is it fair to call someone "anti-Semitic" (with the connotations this term entails) if they do not believe that all of earth's population descended from one of Noah's three sons and their wives?

and the genetic Out of Africa scenario which claims that 5 Billion Asians and Caucasians are descended from one African woman is also a racial joke perpetuated by the U.S. government on the American people.

The evolution I was taught in school asserted that evolution occurred in populations, not individuals. To the best of my knowledge, a mutation occurring in one person ("one African woman") is not sufficient to affect a whole population generations later. Doesn't the evolutionary proposal require genetic changes to occur in a group of people at roughly the same time?

Thanks for your insight. I hope this isn't too far off the message topic here.

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by Eric Pement:
When you say "anti-Semitic", do you mean anti-Jewish in the sense of dislike or hatred of Jewish people? Or do you mean it differently, in the sense of ascribing the origin of modern humans to the descendants of Ham rather than Shem?

Both.

If you mean the latter, what about those Darwinists who don't consider the sons of Noah to be historical at all?

If they deny the written genealogical accounts of Semitic history and descent from Noah, how would that be any different from denying the Holocaust?

Is it fair to call someone "anti-Semitic" (with the connotations this term entails) if they do not believe that all of earth's population descended from one of Noah's three sons and their wives?

As fair as it is to call Holocaust deniers anti-Semites.

The evolution I was taught in school asserted that evolution occurred in populations, not individuals.

That may have been the Multiregional Model of human evolution. Until recently, Out of Africa theorists were trying to push the African Eve Model of Asian and Caucasian descent from one anatomically modern woman in Africa.

To the best of my knowledge, a mutation occurring in one person ("one African woman") is not sufficient to affect a whole population generations later.

To the best of my knowledge, genetic mutations can only account for extinct species since they are accompanied by a loss of genetic information and it is as difficult to envisage harmful mutations contributing to the advantage of one species over another as it is to see them even contributing to the continued survival of a species in a dog-eat-dog neo-Darwinist world.

Doesn't the evolutionary proposal require genetic changes to occur in a group of people at roughly the same time?

Who knows? Neo-Darwinists continually modify their theories in order to survive in the marketplace of free associations and ideas.

Thanks for your insight. I hope this isn't too far off the message topic here.

Right on target if anyone asks me.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
One last thing on Behe...

What do you think of his opinion that he accepts common descent including that of humans and the other apes? You introduced him as your expert. Do you accept this opinion of his? If not, how do you pick and choose which of his opinions that you accept?

That is pretty easy. Select those areas where is is "Right". (Intelligent Design for example) and ignore the areas where he has made compromises with evolutionism.

He is a well respected scientist - not the "Pope" so no possibility of "putting your brain on hold and just following whatever he says".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:

Let's try to explain it. Behe says that certain systems must be fully assembled before they will work. He says that these systems will not work if all of the parts are not already there. He says that this means that any intermediate stages would not be useful and therefore would not be able to be acted upon by selective pressures to build said system. They must be made all at once to be useful and are therefore IC.

The response is too show that said IC system can actually function with fewer parts.

That is partially correct. The solution "needed" by evolutionism is to show that the ENTIRE SYSTEM can be built up step-by-step without massive assumptions about gratuitous saltations!

Have at it.

Misdirection and obfuscation would be simply show that "a sick specimen" can survive, or to find a one-step-simpler system as if to say "nah-nah-nay you picked the wrong irreducable spot".

UTEOTW
One way this has been done is to show that some flagellum use fewer parts than in Behe's example.

Wrong. Finding a more reliable point of irreducible complexity does not solve evolutionism's problem. It is just a "nit" pick against Behe's selected spot.

UTEOTW
The second and more important flaw is to show that various combination of the parts can havea useful function without the others.

Hey - are you allowing yourself to be objective?!!

Way to go! If you will kindkly "follow this more important step" in your response to Behe's argument then indeed you have object cogent answer. Take EACH PART and show that the various combinations leading up to the irreducible point ALL have useful function in thriving species as found in nature!

What a wonderfully objective - scientific approach UTEOTW!!

Have at it. Show how many steps are necessary to complete the bootstrap sequence and then show that each one is available in nature.

That will surely do it for evolutionism and will sink Behe's example in the case of flagellum.

Go for it!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Since this thread on the subject of the activist judge and bias against objective science exhibited in the judge's decisions --

Lets review the facts.

#1. The "fact" is that the school board was NOT teaching ID - they were teaching ONLY Evolutionism!! Their statement said that all students would be REQUIRED to study (the myths and bogus doctrines of) evolutionism and ONLY that would be tested.

#2. They simply ADMITTED a microsecond of light into the room in a 1 paragraph preface that said that THERE EXISTS IN THE LIBRARY a book called of "Pandas and People" that documented ANOTHER theory for life that did not agree with Darwinian evolutionism. That (free thinking intellecutally curious students not satisified with limiting themselves to the brainwashing they were required to recieve) were free to go look it up if they wish.

But that statement HAD to be censored - COULD not be tolerated by the liberal activitist judicial system nor the liberal activitist protectionist, defensive priests of evolutionism.

It was ruled that SCIENCE ITSELF must be censored so that NO science fact must be allowed that appears to fail to completely support and endorse the myths of evolutionism.

Here is the "offense core" of that simple 4 paragraph statement that caused the defensive lashing out of evolutionism's storm troopers.

The district school board was "trying" to get a 4 paragraph statement ADDED that simply said that "There is a book called Of Pandas and People"

Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life
that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, Of
Pandas and People, is available for students who might
be interested in gaining an understanding of what
Intelligent Design actually involves.

The need to censor this kind of open thinking is clear in the dogmatic halls of evolutionism - if we judge it based on the court's activist ruling.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

Let's look at just how honest the supporters of ID really are. Some quotes from the ruling.

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

In fact, one consistency among the Dover School Board members’ testimony, which was marked by selective memories and outright lies under oath, as will be discussed in more detail below, is that they did not think they needed to be knowledgeable about ID because it was not being taught to the students.

Plaintiffs’ science experts, Drs. Miller and Padian, clearly explained how ID proponents generally and Pandas specifically, distort and misrepresent scientific knowledge in making their anti-evolution argument.

Plaintiffs’ expert Professor Padian was the only testifying expert witness with any expertise in paleontology.15 His testimony therefore remains unrebutted. Dr. Padian’s demonstrative slides, prepared on the basis of peer-reviewing scientific literature, illustrate how Pandas systematically distorts and misrepresents established, important evolutionary principles.

We will provide several representative examples of this distortion. First, Pandas misrepresents the “dominant form of understanding relationships” between Case 4:04-cv-02688-JEJ Document 342 Filed 12/20/2005 Page 84 of 139
85 organisms, namely, the tree of life, represented by classification determined via the method of cladistics. (16:87-97 (Padian); P-855.6-855.19). Second, Pandas misrepresents “homology,” the “central concept of comparative biology,” that allowed scientists to evaluate comparable parts among organisms for classification purposes for hundreds of years. (17:27-40 (Padian); P-855.83-855.102). Third, Pandas fails to address the well-established biological concept of exaptation, which involves a structure changing function, such as fish fins evolving fingers and bones to become legs for weight-bearing land animals. (16:146-48 (Padian)). Dr. Padian testified that ID proponents fail to address exaptation because they deny that organisms change function, which is a view necessary to support abruptappearance. Id. Finally, Dr. Padian’s unrebutted testimony demonstrates that Pandas distorts and misrepresents evidence in the fossil record about pre-Cambrian-era fossils, the evolution of fish to amphibians, the evolution of small carnivorous dinosaurs into birds, the evolution of the mammalian middle ear, and the evolution of whales from land animals.

In addition to Dr. Padian, Dr. Miller also testified that Pandas presents discredited science. Dr. Miller testified that Pandas’ treatment of biochemical is “inaccurate and downright false” and explained how Pandas misrepresents basic molecular biology concepts to advance design theory through a series of demonstrative slides. (1:112 (Miller)). Consider, for example, that he testified as to how Pandas misinforms readers on the standard evolutionary relationships between different types of animals, a distortion which Professor Behe, a “critical reviewer” of Pandas who wrote a section within the book, affirmed.

In summary, Dr. Miller testified that Pandas misrepresents molecular biology and genetic principles, as well as the current state of scientific knowledge in those areas in order to teach readers that common descent and natural selection are not scientifically sound.

Superintendent Nilsen’s contemporaneous notes reveal that Bonsell identified “creationism” as his number one issue and “school prayer” as his number two issue. (P-21). Although Bonsell claims he cannot recall raising such subjects but does not dispute that he did, in fact, raise them, the overwhelming evidence indicates that he raised the issues of creationism and school prayer during the January 2002 Board retreat.

It is notable, and in fact incredible that Bonsell disclaimed any interest in creationism during his testimony, despite the admission by his counsel in Defendants’ opening statement that Bonsell had such an interest. (1:19). Simply put, Bonsell repeatedly failed to testify in a truthful manner about this and other subjects.

With surprising candor considering his otherwise largely inconsistent and non-credible testimony, Buckingham did admit that he made this statement.

Finally, although Buckingham, Bonsell, and other defense witnesses denied the reports in the news media and contradicted the great weight of the evidence about what transpired at the June 2004 Board meetings, the record reflects that these witnesses either testified inconsistently, or lied outright under oath on several occasions, and are accordingly not credible on these points.

The fact that Baksa contradicted this testimony on re-direct and stated that he had never read the webpage has an unfortunate and negative impact on his credibility in this case.

The testimony at trial stunningly revealed that Buckingham and Bonsell tried to hide the source of the donations because it showed, at the very least, the extraordinary measures taken to ensure that students received a creationist alternative to Darwin’s theory of evolution. To illustrate, we note that at January 3, 2005 depositions taken pursuant to an order of this Court so Plaintiffs could decide whether to seek a temporary restraining order, upon repeated questioning by Plaintiffs’ counsel on this point, neither Buckingham nor Bonsell provided any information about Buckingham’s involvement in the donation or about a collection he took at his church.

As we will discuss in more detail below, the inescapable truth is that both Bonsell and Buckingham lied at their January 3, 2005 depositions about their knowledge of the source of the donation for Pandas,

Their asserted purposes are a sham, and they are accordingly unavailing, for the reasons that follow.

Finally, although Defendants have unceasingly attempted in vain to distance themselves from their own actions and statements, which culminated in repetitious, untruthful testimony, such a strategy constitutes additional strong evidence of improper purpose under the first prong of the Lemon test.

Defendants’ previously referenced flagrant and insulting falsehoods to the Court provide sufficient and compelling evidence for us to deduce that any allegedly secular purposes that have been offered in support of the ID Policy are equally insincere.

It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.

As Dr. Alters explained this paragraph is both misleading and creates misconceptions in students about evolutionary theory by misrepresenting the scientific status of evolution and by telling students that they should regard it as singularly unreliable, or on shaky ground. (14:117 (Alters)). Additionally and as pointed out by Plaintiffs, it is indeed telling that even defense expert Professor Fuller agreed with this conclusion by stating that in his own expert opinion the disclaimer is misleading.

As Plaintiffs meticulously and effectively presented to the Court, Pandas went through many drafts, several of which were completed prior to and some after the Supreme Court’s decision in Edwards, which held that the Constitution forbids teaching creationism as science. By comparing the pre and post Edwards drafts of Pandas, three astonishing points emerge: (1) the definition for creation science in early drafts is identical to the definition of ID; (2) cognates of the word creation (creationism and creationist), which appeared approximately 150 times were deliberately and systematically replaced with the phrase ID; and (3) the changes occurred shortly after the Supreme Court held that creation science is religious and cannot be taught in public school science classes in Edwards. This word substitution is telling, significant, and reveals that a purposeful change of words was effected without any corresponding change in content, which directly refutes FTE’s argument that by merely disregarding the words “creation” and “creationism,” FTE expressly rejected creationism in Pandas.

 

[BobRyan]

The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students
to learn about Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and
eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution
is a part.

Because Darwin’s Theory is a theory, it continues to be
tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not
a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no
evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation
that unifies a broad range of observations.

Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life
that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, Of
Pandas and People, is available for students who might
be interested in gaining an understanding of what
Intelligent Design actually involves.

With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to
keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of
the Origins of Life to individual students and their
families. As a Standards-driven district, class instruction
focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency
on Standards-based assessments.

So although this statement STILL requires that ALL students swallow the propaganda of Darwinian evolutionism - it allows a tiny bit of light into the room for just a microsecond.

It merely "informs" the student that IF they have some intellectual curiosity beyond the brainwashing being offerred in the course - they are free to go to the library and look up an alternative view - namely - ID.

And of course - freedom of thought that might possibly expose the flaws in evolutionism or might allow the READING of scientific data IN FAVOR of Christianity - must be "censored" for everybody's good!!

 

[BobRyan]

The issue for the SCHOOL is not the obfuscation and misdirection presented in UTEOTWS slavish defense of censorship in an "all for evolutionism" kind of mentality.

The issue for the SCHOOL is NOT the fact that blind devotees to the myths and doctrines of evolutionism MIGHT NOT LIKE the arguments in "Of Pandas and People" -- ID.

The ISSUE is whether to engage in rank censorship and DENY the BASIC FACTS that the TRIAL STARTED out ADMITTING. Which is that ID vs Darwinian evolutionism IS openly debated in science contexts - science forums - science journals - AND that BOTH Sides have their views reviewed AND BOTH sides are avaible for students to OPEN MINDEDLY consider when looking at the THEORYs currently being discussed in the REAL WORLD!!

The decision for rank censorship - INCLUDES the exclusion of ANY science data that is viewed as "unfavorable" to the myths, speculations, dogmas and doctrines of evolutionism!! (As might be seen in the book on ID).

That 4 Paragraphs statementa showing that the BOOK EXISTS and that is NOT in agreement with Darwinian models MUST BE CENSORED to protect the dwindling base of evolutionism!!

How sad that ANY Citizen would go for it - much less a Christian.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

In the recent debate Over intelligent Design - some have "supposed" that this is a case where a School Board was denied the right to have their schools offer a class in ID to students in Pennsylvania. That is simply a lie. The school board was STUCK on teaching ONLY the fables of evolutionism!!

This activist judicial attempt to censor the schools is in fact a bold landmark decision to deny the right of local school disctricts to inform their students that "ID EXISTS" as a theory WHILE still towing-the-line and teaching Evolutionism as if it was science fact.

Instead of the school board "trying to teach ID" they were in fact "trying to teaching ONLY Evolutionism" - they simply wanted to open the students minds to the wider fact that the theory of ID exists!! (As in a 4 paragraph preface statement to the "Evolution indoctrination" that calls the students to be informed about the existence of other views)

Further it DENIES the school districts the right to allow science data into the classroom that might QUESTION evolutionism in any way - (even if it is just a 4 paragraph statement as the start of a class ON EVOLUTIONISM that tells the student that the theory still has some gaps in it.)

The decision claims that it is unconstitutional to QUESTION evolutionism AND ALSO to admit to the existence of ID.

The district school board was "trying" to get a 4 paragraph statement ADDED that simply said that "There is a book called Of Pandas and People"

Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life
that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, Of
Pandas and People, is available for students who might
be interested in gaining an understanding of what
Intelligent Design actually involves.

Admitting to the existence of the theory and existence of the book was viewed as "inane" by the activist judge in this case.

The summary is in essence - that it is "unconstitutional" for Christians to express their view of nature AS IF that was real science instead of just stupid blind dark-ages superstition!

#1. “makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause.”
#2. “our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.”

--Specific actions hidden behind the pretext of protecting first amendment rights of ALL (excluding objective thinking students, parents, scientists, etc - i.e. the majority of U.S citizens) --

“we will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants from maintaining the ID Policy in any school
within the Dover Area School District,
from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution,
and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID.”

When we recall that these draconian statements are being issued in response to that ONE paragraph that ADMITS to the EXISTENCE of "People and Pandas" and admits to the EXISTENCE of another theory called ID - it is easy to see that --

The constitution is being "bent" to oppose discoveries in science that SUPPORT the Creator's own statements on Nature, life, species or the Bible history of mankind's existence.

The constitution is being "bent" to oppose any discussion of scientific data that calls into question that humanist religion we know today as evolutionism.

Is Christianity really such a disgusting instiution that Science ITSELF must be 'censored' to abolish discussion of all data that might question evolutionism and favor Christianity??

Have we come so far from our own "Declaration of Independence"
http://www.cs.indiana.edu/statecraft/decl.html

that it is now "UNCONSTITIONAL" to speak of what we SEE IN nature - as having its origin in the Creator - who DID something that CAN BE SEEN as having been DONE by HIM - that SHOWS that He has an ounce of intelligence?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,

So at one time it was "SELF EVIDENT" for ALL - no matter what faith and was essential to the wellbeing of our nation -- but NOW it is "NO LONGER ALLOWED to be self-evident" unless you are in church or possibly studing mythology???

What is this sub-class this non-citizen that we call "Christian"? Such a low, despised creature that scientific data that may be seen as confirming the Creator's words must be CENSORED from the science class room!!

How did we fall BELOW the level of basic freedoms and protection provided by our nation's constitution?

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/3548.html#000000

[ December 28, 2005, 09:00 AM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

[BobRyan]

INSTEAD of the ruling arguing as UTEOTW tries to spin - that "SCHOOLS must be censored becuase the SOURCE OF FUNDING for the ID argument did not fit our preference" --

INSTEAD of ruling that "Schools must be censored because the defendants did not drag creationism into their arguments as fully as they really believe in it" --

The ruling simply appeals to the constitution has IF IT really did forbid the release of SCIENCE DATA that does not CONFIRM the myths of evolutionism!! AS IF to do so would be a violation of the establishment clause because SOME SPECIFIC religion would be holding church services in the LAB!!

The bogus - low-brow, closed-minded, dark-ages-stlye-inquisitor tactics used at the close of the trial in defense of censorhip of that 4 paragraph statement for enlightenment - is so rank, so egregious as to be exceedingly obvious to all thinking humans - not just American citizens and not just CHRISTIAN American citizens!

The fact that the the evolutionist mind is so darkened that even this extreme case does not rouse them from their deep comatose sleep - is a testament to the shadow lands in which we live.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

Wow, you are really worked up over this. Don't blow a gasket.

The short version of the story is that the school board in Dover lied through their teeth about why they were doing what they did and tried to introduce something into a science class that is not science. The judge, a lifelong Republican and a Bush appointee, called them on it. They may even face perjury charges.

The only closing ranks in defense that is being done here is to prevent nonscientific ideas from creeping into science class. And it is right to do so. Under cross examination, Behe admitted that a definition of science that would allow ID would also allow astrology.

Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?

A Yes, that's correct.