• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, Transcripts

UTEOTW

New Member
Let's look at the Republican judge's findings reagrding the scientific nature of ID/YE.

After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. As we will discuss in more detail below, it is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research.
First, defense expert Professor Fuller agreed that ID aspires to “change the ground rules” of science and lead defense expert Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science, which encompasses ID, would also embrace astrology.
Notably, every major scientific association that has taken a position on the issue of whether ID is science has concluded that ID is not, and cannot be considered as such.
Additionally, the [AAAS], has taken a similar position on ID, namely, that it “has not proposed a scientific means of testing its claims” and that “the lack of scientific warrant for so-called ‘intelligent design theory’ makes it improper to include as part of science education . . .” (P-198).
Not a single expert witness over the course of the six week trial identified one major scientific association, society or organization that endorsed ID as science. What is more, defense experts concede that ID is not a theory as that term is defined by the NAS and admit that ID is at best “fringe science” which has achieved no acceptance in the scientific community.
The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.
ID is at bottom premised upon a false dichotomy...
To that end, expert testimony from Drs. Miller and Padian provided multiple examples where Pandas asserted that no natural explanations exist, and in some cases that none could exist, and yet natural explanations have been identified in the intervening years.
Irreducible complexity is a negative argument against evolution, not proof of design, a point conceded by defense expert Professor Minnich.
 

UTEOTW

New Member
Irreducible complexity additionally fails to make a positive scientific case for ID...
Professor Behe admitted in “Reply to My Critics” that there was a defect in his view of irreducible complexity because, while it purports to be a challenge to natural selection, it does not actually address “the task facing natural selection.” (P-718 at 695). Professor Behe specifically explained that “[t]he current definition puts the focus on removing a part from an alreadyfunctioning system,” but “[t]he difficult task facing Darwinian evolution, however, would not be to remove parts from sophisticated pre-existing systems; it would be to bring together components to make a new system in the first place.” Id. In that article, Professor Behe wrote that he hoped to “repair this defect in future work;” Case 4:04-cv-02688-JEJ Document 342 Filed 12/20/2005 Page 73 of 139
74 however, he has failed to do so even four years after elucidating his defect. Id.; 22:61-65 (Behe).
However, Professor Behe excludes, by definition, the possibility that a precursor to the bacterial flagellum functioned not as a rotary motor, but in some other way, for example as a secretory system. As expert testimony revealed, the qualification on what is meant by “irreducible complexity” renders it meaningless as a criticism of evolution. (3:40 (Miller)). In fact, the theory of evolution proffers exaptation as a well-recognized, well-documented explanation for how systems with multiple parts could have evolved through natural means.
By defining irreducible complexity in the way that he has, Professor Behe attempts to exclude the phenomenon of exaptation by definitional fiat, ignoring as he does so abundant evidence which refutes his argument.
Professor Behe has applied the concept of irreducible complexity to only a few select systems: (1) the bacterial flagellum; (2) the blood-clotting cascade; and (3) the immune system. Contrary to Professor Behe’s assertions with respect to these few biochemical systems among the myriad existing in nature, however, Dr. Miller presented evidence, based upon peer-reviewed studies, that they are not in fact irreducibly complex.
Accordingly, scientists in peer-reviewed publications have refuted Professor Behe’s predication about the alleged irreducible complexity of the blood-clotting cascade. Moreover, cross-examination revealed that Professor Behe’s redefinition of the blood-clotting system was likely designed to avoid peerreviewed scientific evidence that falsifies his argument, as it was not a scientifically warranted redefinition.
In fact, on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fiftyeight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not “good enough.
We therefore find that Professor Behe’s claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large. (17:45-46 (Padian); 3:99 (Miller)). Additionally, even if irreducible complexity had not been rejected, it still does not support ID as it is merely a test for evolution, not design.
In addition, Dr. Miller refuted Pandas’ claim that evolution cannot account for new genetic information and pointed to more than three dozen peer-reviewed scientific publications showing the origin of new genetic information by evolutionary processes.
A final indicator of how ID has failed to demonstrate scientific warrant is the complete absence of peer-reviewed publications supporting the theory. Expert testimony revealed that the peer review process is “exquisitely important” in the scientific process. It is a way for scientists to write up their empirical research and to share the work with fellow experts in the field, opening up the hypotheses to study, testing, and criticism. (1:66-69 (Miller)). In fact, defense expert Professor Behe recognizes the importance of the peer review process and has written that science must “publish or perish.” (22:19-25 (Behe)). Peer review helps to ensure that research papers are scientifically accurately, meet the standards of the scientific method, and are relevant to other scientists in the field. (1:39-40 (Miller)). Moreover, peer review involves scientists submitting a manuscript to a scientific journal in the field, journal editors soliciting critical reviews from other experts in the field and deciding whether the scientist has followed proper research procedures, employed up-to-date methods, considered and cited relevant literature and generally, whether the researcher has employed sound science.
The evidence presented in this case demonstrates that ID is not supported by any peer-reviewed research, data or publications.
On cross-examination, Professor Behe admitted that: “There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred.” (22:22-23 (Behe)). Additionally, Professor Behe conceded that there are no peer-reviewed papers supporting his claims that complex molecular systems, like the bacterial flagellum, the blood-clotting cascade, and the immune system, were intelligently designed.
After this searching and careful review of ID as espoused by its proponents, as elaborated upon in submissions to the Court, and as scrutinized over a six week trial, we find that ID is not science and cannot be adjudged a valid, accepted scientific theory as it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals, engage in research and testing, and gain acceptance in the scientific community.
Moreover, ID’s backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard.
Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs’ scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
Originally posted by UTEOTW:
Wow, you are really worked up over this. Don't blow a gasket.
It is just that the lies being spun about the "4 paragraphs that ADMIT to the debate between the ID theory and the bogus theory of eovlutionism" seem to be "insufficient" to justify the gross censorship of students, science, parents, school authorities etc in this case.

I suppose I know "why" evolutionism needs to be so protectionist and defensive that it would boldly censor objective thinking - I just didn't think normal humans would go for it - much less Christians of any stripe.

In Christ,

Bob
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
Originally posted by 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.

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 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"

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
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.

Here is the summary condemnation of ID by the judge and the charge that “it is unconstitutional” to even admit that ID exists even to “refer to its existence” if it is done in the form of the 3rd paragraph of the 4 paragraph statement from the District School board – The summary is in essence - that it is "unconstitutional" for Christians to express their view of nature AS IF that view was “real science” instead of just stupid blind dark-ages superstition that dumb Christians still cling to even to this very day!

#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 mere 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 of animals or the Bible history of mankind's very 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 institution 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 "unconstitutional" 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 studying 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
</font>[/QUOTE]
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
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 offered 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!!

(Hard to believe that UTEOTW and Paul are going down that road - but "oh well")
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
In the opening arguments the expert for the oppressors of free thought (read - evolutionism's storm troopers) admitted that the ID vs Evol debate WAS taking place in science forums - they just "need" to censor it from students to conform to their mind control - brainwashing policy.

So even though the school was "towing the line" in promoting the same mindless evolutionist drivel in the actual classroom" yet that ONE PARAGRAPH statement at the intro to the class must be fought over in courts to get it censored. It does after all ADMIT to the EXISTENCE of the theory of ID!!

How pathetic the evolutionist storm troopers have become - friends. Surely they have some dignity left!! Where is the common sense that would remain as a basic part of humanity for the evols??

I just can't believe this level of censorship and brainwashing is being sponsored by the evol camp!! Arent there ANY liberals left over there??!!

In Christ,

Bob
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, ID’s backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


That is simply "Mind-numbing drivel" spewed by the evolutionist hardliners totally devoid of objective thought.

I used objective tactics when I used EVOLUTIONISM's priesthood for PROOF of the perfidity of evolutionism but the evolutionist hardliners could not bring themselves to use that level of objectivity - so what do they do "recast objective methods" as though objectivity is "a bad thing"!!

WE see the same thing "again" in the quote above. The ID group would love to TEACH ID in public schools JUST AS THEY DO IN PRIVATE SCHOOLS (obviously).

But the quote above "pretends" not to notice that - and PRETENDS that the mind-washing environment of the Public school system that CENSORS freedom of thought and the ability to openly consider alternate theories is an example of "ID BEING mean to the Public shools" or dishonest about its intent!!

We see it in bold print! This has GOT to be embarrassing for at least ONE evolutionist capable of independant objective thought!!

Come on -- is there not ONE?!!

In Christ,

Bob
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
UTEOTW
the burden of proof is upon Gibson to show that creating nonfuctioning sequences in different species is actually consistent with what the Bible has to say about God.
This is a perfect "Example" of the mind-numbing vaccuous noncompusmentus approach that is possible when confronted with rank censorship if one is truly committed to a slavish devotion to evolutionism over the Bible.

In this case the totally bogus argument is put forward that for everything we find in nature it is up to Bible believing Christians to show "what was God thinking" AND to show "That God would let things 'decay like this in exactly this way'"

That pathetic "game" is played all the while the evolutionist is claiming "if we have to talk about God then whatever you say is not science".

I can't believe the practioners of evolutionism have sunk to such a level when it comes to total and complete lack of objective, rational arguments and blind support of rank censorship!!

And yet - this is the "substance" of their response in their own words!!

They engage pseudoscience-tactics to prop up their religious devotion to evolutionism, and "THEN" they turn a blind eye to their own efforts to censor science, students, the public -- with this kind of drivel??

oh well.

In Christ,

Bob
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
Originally posted by 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.

...

I can't see why any Christian would find ID as Dr. Behe presents it to be a viable alternative.
"again" it appears that our brethren are so steeped in protecting evolutionism that they simply fail to "get it".

#1. The trial represent rank censorship of the most egregious kind. Humans of all stripes should be "able to see that" even if they are bound and gagged by their own devotion to evolutionism.

#2. Bible-accepting creationist believers DO NOT argue that ID is THEIR view of origins!! "Get it"??

The ID argument is THE LOWEST common denominator -- arguing only the MOST BASIC and OBVIOUS points as observed in nature - for the "painter that does the painting having an IQ over 12".

This is incredibly offensive and threatening to atheist evolutionist "believers" in evolutionism. They MUST deny that the Painting was DONE BY the painter or that there even IS a painter. And of course no one can blame THEM for being so afraid of these basic truths as to turn a blind eye to all scienctific data in support of "the obvious".

What IS amazing (to BOTH atheist/agnostic evolutionists AND to Bible-believing Christians) is that so-called "Christian evolutionists" would ALSO find it repulsive to SEE that the PAINTER has an IQ over 12 as revealed IN the painting!!

(This SAME point has to be continually reviewed until FINALLY at least ONE intellectually open, objective, honest evolutionist can "bring themselves" to respond).

In Christ,

Bob
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
What is even MORE amazing - as has been pointed out in THIS thread is that those SAME Christian evolutionists "must pretend to be blind" to the rank censorship that characterized the decision of this Pennsylvania case.

But one "can" appreciate their "need" for "dead silence" so far.

In Christ,

Bob
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
More mind-numbing quotes from those who would pander to evolutionism and turn a blind eye to the gross censorship being practiced by protectionists evolutionists.

Posted here by UTEOTW

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/115/3.html#000041

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.
Here we see the "bait and switch" tactic of "pretending" that the trial is about TEACHING "the Pandas" book in school instead of the "inconvenient fact" that the schools WERE ONLY teaching evolutionism and were CONTINUING under the schackles and iron rule of evolutionism's thought police in that regard.

INSTEAD OF TEACHING creationism - what was ACTUALLY done was to ALLOW a 4 paragraph STATEMENT OF FACT that the Pandas book EXISTS and that the ID theory EXISTS and is NOT in agreement with evolutionism.

The blinders-on methods of evolutionists here testify to that SAMe spirit of censorship exhibited in the trial - I suppose.

I had hoped for a somewhat higher standard in this evolutionist group when it came to rank censorship.

Clearly - I was not giving credit where credit is due.

In Christ,

Bob
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
Mercury said --

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."

...

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
Behe is simply pointing out the perfidity of the inquisition.

He shows that in their own statements they "allow" for a "kind of god" that exists while still holding to their own naturalistic atheistic view of science. He then argues that his own "claims in ID" (minimalist claims) do not insist on "identifying something as God" much less Christianity or a deity.

The "bad guys" in this case are happy to say some kind of "god exists" as long as we all agree to turn a blind eye to any disconfirming evidence in the Darwinian model for evolutionism and claim that "naturalism is all the god we need" when it comes to "LIFE".

Behe says "you are talking too much about a god and you are also claiming too much for Darwinian evolution". He then proposes "there is design" not just "water boiling" - but then does not want to talk about "a god who DID the design".

Behe's position is what you would "reasonably expect" from a minimalist Christian evolutionist. It is certainly NOT creationism!

As modest has his claims are - they are still above atheist evolutionism - and so by definition - they are far beyond what passes for Christian evolutionism on this board.

In Christ,

Bob
 

jcrawford

New Member
Originally posted by BobRyan:
[QB] 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"
Let's face it. The judiciary has become as racist and fascist as the ACLU which supports neo-Darwinist race theories of "primitive" African human origins from monkey and ape ancestors.
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
In this case the Judge WAS IN THE ACLU's pocket. He ruled right down the line according to ALL that the ACLU had to say about ID NOT just in the case of "motives" of the school board but ALSO on the idea that NO SCIENCE must be allowed to challenge the PSEUDOSCIENCE of darwinian evolutionism.

This was all ACLU front to back.

It was the ACLU that NEEDED to CENSOR the 4 paragraphs (TWO of which simply ADMIT to the EXISTENCE of the ID theory!!)

It was the ACLU that argued that STUDENTS should not know what the COURT was HEARING about the debate!!

And interestingly - it is so-called "Christian" evolutionist here - on this board - promoting rank dogmatic censorhip IN THIS CASE and aligning themselves publically AGAINST the "Christian evolutionist" positions of Behe.

So if these guys here can not bring themselves to even be "Christian evolutionists" what kind of evolutionist ARE THEY?? Answer - they side with the atheist darwinian model of evolutionism NOT with the Christian evolutionist views of Behe that HOLD to the truths of Romans 1!!

TRUTHS that GOD claims EVEN the PAGANs can see!

TRUTHS that our own declaration of independance claims are "SELF EVIDENT"!!

Are they simply "masking themselves" as "Christian evolutionists" while really promoting nothing but dogmatic censorship and rank atheist evolutionist views??

This trial has created a venue for unmasking the real depth of the inroads of atheism into the thinking of our brethren here on the board.

I find this whole thing to be pretty fascinating!

In Christ,

Bob
 

Paul of Eugene

New Member
Alas for BobRyan and the argument he espouses, the court decided that those who claim ID is not science managed to prove it.

Instead, they managed to prove it is a sneaky attempt to get actual promotion of religion into the public schools.

BobRyan, of course, not being a baptist but being 7th day adventist, is not part of the baptist tradition of seperation of church and state.

The religous zeal he so evidently brings to this cause is evidence his cause is religion and not science.
 

Bro. James

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Yes, indeed. The courts have also decided that abortion is not murder. We now call abortion: freedom of choice.

We have redefined what homosexuality might be as well. Once regarded as an abomination, we now call it: alternative lifestyle.

Now what?

Selah,

Bro. James
 

Paul of Eugene

New Member
Originally posted by Bro. James:
Yes, indeed. The courts have also decided that abortion is not murder. We now call abortion: freedom of choice.

We have redefined what homosexuality might be as well. Once regarded as an abomination, we now call it: alternative lifestyle.

Now what?

Selah,

Bro. James
Do you want to bring back the days of stoning people for committing adultary?

If you want to smuggle ID into the classroom, you're going to have to rename it to something a little less question-begging.

Stick with "irreducible complexity", and use ID as a philosophical/religous tool to explain "irreducible complexity".

But then to PROVE something is "irreducibly complex" will still be impossible.
 

Bro. James

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
There is a death penalty for breaking any commandment--in the OT. We are all under a death penalty--"All have sinned and come short of the glory of God. The wages of sin is death". Jesus is the only one who has not stayed in the grave.

While SIN may not be "provable" experimentally to our reprobate scientific minds, the empirical data is everywhere.

Selah,
Bro. James

[ January 09, 2006, 06:30 AM: Message edited by: Bro. James ]
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
Alas for BobRyan and the argument he espouses, the court decided that those who claim ID is not science managed to prove it.

Instead, they managed to prove it is a sneaky attempt to get actual promotion of religion into the public schools.
#1. They proved nothing of the kind!

#2. The fact that atheists and agnostics "Need" to ignore the ID prints "clearly seen IN NATURE" should not suprise Christians - not even Evolutionist-believing Christians. So why do you "pretend" not to "Get it"??

#3. The fact that one court went a bit goofy on this due to the proclivity of the judge in question to do that very thing - does not settle the question for America.

#4. The bigger issue is the totally bogus censorship proposal coming from the courts that would censor the science class room by saying that any data found in nature that challenges Darwinian ATHEIST views on evolutionism must be censored. And if that were not braindead "enough" the court further argues that to FAIL to censor in favor of atheist darwinian naturalism in that draconian fashion is to "Violate the constitution.

This censorship EVEN extends to the point of lying about the current debate IN science contexts between the bungled stories in Darwinian naturalism vs the glaringly obvious insights of the ID model. Censoring the class that the students may not "KNOW" about the facts of this debate as expressed IN the trial!!

#5. Worst of all - though we can see how the atheist would have to stand up in favor of such a rank dogmatic appeal to censorship in favor of atheist views of nature -- why would Christian evolutionists do it??

It is as if the Christian evolutionists (some at least) were totally brainwashed into parroting anyting the atheists told them to say!


(BTW - I still predict the day will come when noble descent atheist Americans will eventually stand up against this rank censorship and the draconian shackles placed on science in this ruling and will declare it to be the sham that it is. When that happens those Christian evolutionists that have been cowed by the atheists will also have to admit to their part in promoting that mistake)

In Christ,

Bob
 
Top