[_ Old Earth _] Questions about ID

[BobRyan]

By the way, it was my impression that the Dover case ended with the conclusion of the court that the subtext beneath the muddy waters of ID propaganda was that indeed God was the designer concealed in a maze of rhetoric.

Dover is a good example of Darwinist dark-ages mentality as they argue that Students should not be told that THERE EXISTS A BOOK IN THE LIBRARY called ...

As Darwinists "supposed it was a good thing" for OSBORN to HIDE the uncertainty and doubt about his dubious pigs-tooth claim so as not to INFORM the public about the truth that casts doubt on atheist darwinist doctrine -- So ALSO a judge in Dover unwittingly argues that students NOT be ALLOWED to know that OTHER solutions are available beyond the junk-science religious arguments of darwinism.

It is a good example of a non-science judge being unwittingly manipulated into supposing that he was in a position to know something -- anything -- about science at all!!

It is a good example of propaganda and dark-ages pogrom and rank censorship. It is not an example of "Science anything" just more "Nebraska man antics" to influence a contrived "monkey trial".

The enlightened people of America still reject that dark-ages censorship according to a 2005 survey and Patterson himself admits that the only thing we can be SURE of about darwinISM is that "it should NOT be taught in highschool".

Evaluating the pure-propaganda tactic of spinning a non-science judge around a few times and using him as rebuttal to Colin Patterson -- is left for as an exercise for the reader.

The fact that you imagine this to be a "good thing" in the light of the fact we have all LEFT the dark ages except for Darwinists -- speaks for itself!

Clearly - given a choice between SCIENCE and the fumblings of a non-SCIENCe judge -- the Darwinists chooses NON-SCIENCE every time!!


Bob

 

[BobRyan]

From Page 9 on this thread

Jim9683
Oh please, listening to Kent Hovind and VenomFangX doesn't count as evidence. Get back to me when creationism becomes and established scientific theory.

The only reason its not established, is because people hate it so dearly because it invokes a God who will one day judge them.

From page 16

Do you think it at all possible that you may be the one who is 'unwitting' in your refusal to understand and recognise the evidence of God's work in the natural world? Nature is a silent, unbiased witness to God's work;
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=33070&p=395996#p395917

While this is not the same as an appeal to CREATIONISM -- it certainly goes to John's appeal "to GOD" and his handiwork SEEN IN the NATURAL WORLD!

Interesting that L.K was silent on that point -- on page 9

Bob asks L.K

So the question for L.K on ID and his statement above is... "How So?"

How do you see that there is in fact "evidence of God's work IN the natural world"?

How do you find nature to be the "silent WITNESS to God's work"??

And WHY have you never stated that on an ID thread?

Bob

Bob, you may read what you wish to into my words

I am more than happy to have the unbiased objective reader -- simply READ the points raised.

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

By the way, it was my impression that the Dover case ended with the conclusion of the court that the subtext beneath the muddy waters of ID propaganda was that indeed God was the designer concealed in a maze of rhetoric.

Dover is a good example of Darwinist dark-ages mentality as they argue that Students should not be told that THERE EXISTS A BOOK IN THE LIBRARY called ...

As Darwinists "supposed it was a good thing" for OSBORN to HIDE the uncertainty and doubt about his dubious pigs-tooth claim so as not to INFORM the public about the truth that casts doubt on atheist darwinist doctrine -- So ALSO a judge in Dover unwittingly argues that students NOT be ALLOWED to know that OTHER solutions are available beyond the junk-science religious arguments of darwinism....

Missed the point, Bob. My comment was in response to this misleading statement by yourself:

ID science is NOT the argument "SEE science is showing us what GOD DID" it is simply the more modest statement "this appears to be the work of someone or something -- a work designed not an undirected random result".

From the Dover decision:

"For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID [intelligent design] would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child" (page 24)

"A significant aspect of the IDM [intelligent design movement] is that despite Defendants’ protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity." (page 26)

"The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism" (page 31)

"The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory." (page 43)

"Throughout the trial and in various submissions to the Court, Defendants vigorously argue that the reading of the statement is not “teaching†ID but instead is merely “making students aware of it.†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. We disagree." (footnote 7 on page 46)

"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." (page 64)

"[T]he one textbook [Pandas] to which the Dover ID Policy directs students contains outdated concepts and flawed science, as recognized by even the defense experts in this case." (pages 86–87)

"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. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID." (page 89)

"Accordingly, we find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board’s real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom, in violation of the Establishment Clause." (page 132)

All quotations from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

 

[BobRyan]

By the way, it was my impression that the Dover case ended with the conclusion of the court that the subtext beneath the muddy waters of ID propaganda was that indeed God was the designer concealed in a maze of rhetoric.

Dover is a good example of Darwinist dark-ages mentality as they argue that Students should not be told that THERE EXISTS A BOOK IN THE LIBRARY called ...

As Darwinists "supposed it was a good thing" for OSBORN to HIDE the uncertainty and doubt about his dubious pigs-tooth claim so as not to INFORM the public about the truth that casts doubt on atheist darwinist doctrine -- So ALSO a judge in Dover unwittingly argues that students NOT be ALLOWED to know that OTHER solutions are available beyond the junk-science religious arguments of darwinism.

It is a good example of a non-science judge being unwittingly manipulated into supposing that he was in a position to know something -- anything -- about science at all!!

It is a good example of propaganda and dark-ages pogrom and rank censorship. It is not an example of "Science anything" just more "Nebraska man antics" to influence a contrived "monkey trial".

The enlightened people of America still reject that dark-ages censorship according to a 2005 survey and Patterson himself admits that the only thing we can be SURE of about darwinISM is that "it should NOT be taught in highschool".

Evaluating the pure-propaganda tactic of spinning a non-science judge around a few times and using him as rebuttal to Colin Patterson -- is left for as an exercise for the reader.

The fact that you imagine this to be a "good thing" in the light of the fact we have all LEFT the dark ages except for Darwinists -- speaks for itself!

The junk-science dark-ages propaganda methods you are appealing to in your previous post are

1. Appeal to non-SCIENCE sources to see if they can be duped into deciding what IS Science.
2. Appeal to courts to STOP students from being told "THERE EXISTS A BOOK in the Library..."
3. DEFEND the manipulation done in the courts AS IF such arguments are some kind of SCIENCE.
4. Blindly PRETEND that all ID SCIENTISTS are in fact Bible believing Christian creationists.

What objective unbiased reader could possibly be duped into following along with such reasoning L.K?

You would have to already BE "in the tank" for atheist darwinism to go along with your argument.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Since we are on the topic of how atheist darwinists have stated the case for darwinism in highschool....

Colin Patterson: NY American Museum of Natural History – talk - 1981.

"...I'm speaking on two subjects, evolutionism and creationism, and I believe it's true to say that I know nothing whatever about either...One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, well, let's call it non-evolutionary, was last year I had a sudden realization.

"For over twenty years I had thought that I was working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up, and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years, and there was not one thing I knew about it.

"That was quite a shock that one could be misled for so long...
"...I've tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people: 'Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, any one thing you think is true?'

"I tried that question on the geology staff in the Field Museum of Natural History, and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time, and then eventually one person said: 'Yes, I do know one thing. It ought not to be taught in high school.'

"...It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not to be taught in high school, and perhaps that's all we know about it...about eighteen months ago...I woke up and I realized that all my life I had been duped into taking evolutionism as revealed truth in some way."

Patterson was a devout atheist religionist clinging to Darwinism with all of its gaffs blunders and flaws to his dying day. AFter all - what other choice does an atheist have?

Still he could be honest to at least some point in his review of it!

But then he is not a judge who devotes most of his life to non-science debates.

By contrast we have the dark ages style propaganda methods of some who would urge that students CAN NOT BE TOLD that "THERE EXISTS A BOOK in the LIBRARY..."

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

^ Bob, I am appealing to nothing; I am only pointing out how the decision at the Dover trial is in direct opposition to your statement that

ID science is NOT the argument "SEE science is showing us what GOD DID" it is simply the more modest statement "this appears to be the work of someone or something -- a work designed not an undirected random result".

Reposting your argument and ignoring the reasoning of the Judge in the Dover case does not make this statement any less misleading.

 

[BobRyan]

Repeating your blind-faith enjoyment over dark-ages methods is working for you L.K. But I am just not buying it.

The infamous Dover pogrom and propaganda trial documents efforts to censor and silence academic freedom such that INFORMING students that “a book is available…†is banded among the thought police of Dover if such a statement of open minded inquiry is deemed a threat to Darwinism by the atheist religionists that promote Darwinist dogma.

On November 19, 2004, the Dover Area School District issued a press release stating that, commencing in January 2005, teachers would be required to read the following statement to students in the ninth-grade biology class at Dover High School:
[quote:207xtv9t]
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 is still being 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 to see if they would like to explore this view in an effort to gain an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves.

As is true with any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind.[/u] 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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller ... l_District
[/quote:207xtv9t]

Fortunately for the thought police in Dover – that statement is banned and students may NOT be informed as stated there NOR are they to be encouraged to “KEEP AN OPEN MIND†in the closed-minded thought-police atmosphere of some district in America !

Fortunately the rest of us are free to live outside of the dark ages. Others like to "imagine" that all of us are "stuck in Dover's dark ages" domain and appear to lament the fact that in real life we are not.


Bob

 

[BobRyan]

"Intelligent DESIGN" is not Creationism -- nor would any creationist be happy with ID as a replacement for the Bible teaching on creationism.

In Fact ID would not even go to the far lengths that L.K has gone to on these very boards!!

From page 16

Do you think it at all possible that you may be the one who is 'unwitting' in your refusal to understand and recognise the evidence of God's work in the natural world? Nature is a silent, unbiased witness to God's work;
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=33070&p=395996#p395917

But atheist darwinist religionists like to PRETEND that ID is a good substitute for creationism since for THEM (and those unwittingly duped into following after them) -- to admit to the design SEEN IN NATURE is to threaten their own religious beliefs!

Obviously.

So there we have the views of BOTH religious groups on ID -- neither one wants to replace their own religious convictions with ID -- and yet we have some here who do not wish to be bothered with "critical thinking".

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

^ Translation: anyone who agrees with Bob is on the side of truth, righteousness and the angels; anyone who dares to disagree with anything Bob opines is an unwitting dupe of atheist darwinism or, even worse, an atheist darwinist themselves. Perhaps you should take up this argument with Judge John E. Jones III himself.

 

[BobRyan]

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=32904&start=240#p396756

Translation - anyone who can "bring themselves" to the point of arguing AGAINST students "keeping an open mind" ( and also arguing AGAINST students being TOLD that in the Library a "a book is AVAILABLE" for them to research the topic of WHAT IS ID science -) becomes a perfect example of someone so unwittingly duped into being "in the tank for atheist Darwinism" that they have far exceeded the more enlightened views of devoted atheist Darwinists listening Colin Patterson in 1981 where THEY would not even argue FOR teaching Darwinism in high school much less the Dover-dark-ages CENSORSHIP AGAINST "keeping an open mind" and AGAINST telling students that "a book is AVAILABLE" in the Library!!!

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=32904&p=396765#p396754

It is left as an exercise for the reader to see the EXTREME GAP between what the atheist darwinists listening to Colin Patterson in 1981 would freely admit to -- vs rank example of dark-ages censorship and propaganda that L.K recommends for us today.

A bigger question is how is it that devotees to darwinism today can be so easily duped into taking such extreme irrational positions???!!

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

Bob, I recommend nothing; all I did was point you to several parts of the Dover judgement that contest your statement that

ID science is NOT the argument "SEE science is showing us what GOD DID" it is simply the more modest statement "this appears to be the work of someone or something -- a work designed not an undirected random result".

Judge Jones clearly saw through this mendacious argument when an attempt was made to use it during the Dover case, the mendacious argument itself being the point at issue here, not the Dover decision per se much as you would like to divert attention towards it. What is the phrase you like so much, Bob, 'smoke and mirrors'?

By the way, I am distressed to see you so misleadingly and emotively use the term pogrom in what seems like an effort to do nothing more than besmirch a legal judgement that you happen to dislike, unless you are wishing to provide evidence that Judge Edwards' decision literally unleashed

....a form of riot directed against a particular group, whether ethnic, religious, or other, and characterized by destruction of their homes, businesses, and religious centres...... Pogroms are usually accompanied by physical violence against the targeted people and sometimes even murder or massacre.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogrom

As far as I am aware, the only person threatened with violence after the Dover case was Judge Jones himself, to the extent that he and his family received 24-hour federal protection, while Pat Robertson went so far as to threaten the entire city with divine displeasure, guilty and innocent (as determined by Roberston, no doubt) alike, even before the Judge's decision was handed down:

I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover, if there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God. You just rejected him from your city.

Source: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3416_id_12.html

 

[BobRyan]

1. When we check ID history and proponants -- those who CREATE and promote ID movement among scientists -- we find not ONE JUDGE!

2. When we LOOK at the ID definition by those organization that ENGAGE in ID science we find this --

From “Discovery Instituteâ€Â
http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php

What is intelligent design?
Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.


Is intelligent design the same as creationism?
No. The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations.

When we LOOK at ID science itself we find this to be a good working definition of the academic freedom central to ID science

Academic Freedom in Intelligent Design:

Academic Freedom to “follow the data where it leads†EVEN if it leads to a conclusion (such as Intelligent Design) that does not pander to the central doctrines and dogmas of atheists"

When we LOOK for a glaring example of what ID science reports as showing DESIGN we see this!

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=33266#p395365

When we LOOK for extreme left-wing examples of dark-ages Dover thought-police censorship - we find that statements telling students that a "book is available" in the Library and telling them to "keep and open mind" is strictly verboten by the thought-censors of Dover if such statements (so central to academic freedom and SCIENCE) are viewed as inconvenient by Darwinist religionists.

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=32904&start=240#p396756

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Since we are on the subject of ID -

Real World Validation of ID as Science Fact.

ID theorists are just scientists that happen to be willing to admit to evidence for Intelligent Design when they find it in Nature. However this method of analysis is not limited to scientists open to “inconvenient facts†and willing to free science from today’s political bindings that demand conformance to the religious distinctives of atheism.

For example there are four fundamental forces in nature – the weak nuclear force, the strong nuclear force, gravity and electromagnetism. Some electromagnetic wave forms show that they have been purposely manipulated – their pattern shows “Intelligent Design†– (hence TV, Cell Phones, Radio) and others do not (background noise, static). We have entire industries (security, National Security Agency etc) based on the obvious and reliable fact that it is possible to evaluate electromagnetic wave forms and determine if they convey coded information – content from intelligent designers.

ID theorists are doing the same thing as they accept the fact that physics and biochemistry are the baseline medium in which Biology is expressed.

The empty claim that nothing in nature can be studied and evaluated to determine if it has an intelligent cause is disproven every day in commercial and private sector analysis of the electromagnetic wave forms alone. Admittedly the study of the instances of design found in Biology is just beginning by comparison but it is based on the same fundamental principles of analysis. While allowing this form of scientific investigation in the domain of Biology is clearly taboo to atheist religionists it is nonetheless consistent with the existing science principle of analysis already in use in many other domains of scientific investigation and discovery.

Read that statement carefully then click on this link

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=33266#p395365

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

Bob, you just seem to be repeating exactly the sorts of arguments that Judge Jones took issue with and saw through.

ETA: Oh, and still perpetuating the canard of your argument by analogy to EM, I see.

 

[BobRyan]

Judge Jones is a scientist???!!!

Where did you get that wild idea???

Oh no wait!! you meant that we should be comparing the detail and content of Judge Jones' argument to the detail and content of recognized experts in the legal profession like Philip Johnson on that SAME TOPIC!!

Oh I see.

Well funny you should bring that up.

Q: What is intelligent design?

Phillip Johnson: I would like to put a basic explanation of the intelligent-design concept as I understand it this way. There are two hypotheses to consider scientifically. One is you need a creative intelligence to do all the creating that has been done in the history of life; the other is you don't, because we can show that unintelligent, purposeless, natural processes are capable of doing and actually did do the whole job. Now, that is what is taught as fact in our textbooks. And to me it's a hypothesis, which needs to be tested by evidence and experiment. If it can't be confirmed by experiment, then you're left with the same two possibilities, and neither one should be said to be something like a scientific fact.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/defense-id.html

While this is expressed from one whom PBS calls the "Father of Intelligent Design" are you suggesting that Judge Jones is then "the father of Darwinism"?? The "Father of science as Darwinists know it"??

Just exactly what "science" what "body of knowledge" are you claiming that Jones has authored, fathered, contributed to?? Where is Jones ever referenced as the "authority for science" or the authority of some school of thought or the father of it?

Oh no wait!! now you are going to tell us this was yet another "Nebraska man" argument!

From “Discovery Instituteâ€Â
http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php

What is intelligent design?
Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.

When we LOOK for a glaring example of what ID science reports as showing DESIGN we see this!

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=33266#p395365

When we LOOK for extreme left-wing examples of dark-ages Dover thought-police censorship - we find that statements telling students that a "book is available" in the Library and telling them to "keep and open mind" is strictly verboten by the thought-censors of Dover if such statements (so central to academic freedom and SCIENCE) are viewed as inconvenient by Darwinist religionists.

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=32904&start=240#p396756

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

Where did you get the 'wild idea' that Judge Jones needs to be a scientist to see through the sham claim that ID is anything other than creationist religion masquerading as science. Which is exactly the point of the quotations from the Dover decision that I provided you with.

 

[BobRyan]

Oh "goody" an appeal to Non-Scientists is needed if you want to defend Darwinism.

Very well.

Let's go to someone who actually IS a recognized expert in law who HAS contributed to the body of knowledge in our analysis of Intelligent Design.

NOVA asking the questions of Philip Johnson "father" of modern Intelligent Design

Q: Isn't intelligent design just a newer version of creationism?

Johnson: When people ask me whether this is creationism relabeled, one thing that always occurs to me is that the real creationist organizations are highly critical of intelligent design, because they say it doesn't do the job that is the very essence of creationism. It doesn't defend the Bible from the very first verse. It doesn't defend the Bible at all, and it doesn't even defend Christianity.

It's saying that there's an intelligence, but the intelligence could be natural as well as supernatural. And that if you assume it's supernatural, what the God isâ€â€well, we have nothing to say about what kind of God it is. It isn't limited to one particular kind of religion, to Christianity or to a particular kind of Christianity. If you want, it can be the Muslim god.

Q: But if it's a supernatural cause, isn't that outside the realm of science?

Johnson: It's true that supernatural causes are a subject outside of science. But intelligent versus unintelligent causes is a subject very much within science. For example, forensic scientists and pathologists regularly determine whether a death was due to natural causes or intelligent causes. If somebody dies of a purported heart failure, and then they do an autopsy on the body and find signs of arsenic poisoning, they say this was not a death by natural causes; it was a poisoning. That is perfectly legitimate as a scientific inquiry.

Now, if the intelligent cause turns out to be supernatural, that's a determination that is outside of science. But that you need intelligence is not a determination that's outside of science. It's the regular business of science, like deciding whether a drawing on a cave wall is a painting by prehistoric cavemen or a product of natural erosion and chemistry in the wall.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/defense-id.html

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Judge Jones is a scientist???!!!

Where did you get that wild idea???

Oh no wait!! you meant that we should be comparing the detail and content of Judge Jones' argument to the detail and content of recognized experts in the legal profession like Philip Johnson on that SAME TOPIC!!

Oh I see.

Well funny you should bring that up.

Q: What is intelligent design?

Phillip Johnson: I would like to put a basic explanation of the intelligent-design concept as I understand it this way. There are two hypotheses to consider scientifically. One is you need a creative intelligence to do all the creating that has been done in the history of life; the other is you don't, because we can show that unintelligent, purposeless, natural processes are capable of doing and actually did do the whole job. Now, that is what is taught as fact in our textbooks. And to me it's a hypothesis, which needs to be tested by evidence and experiment. If it can't be confirmed by experiment, then you're left with the same two possibilities, and neither one should be said to be something like a scientific fact.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/defense-id.html

While this is expressed from one whom PBS calls the "Father of Intelligent Design" are you suggesting that Judge Jones is then "the father of Darwinism"?? The "Father of science as Darwinists know it"??

Just exactly what "science" what "body of knowledge" are you claiming that Jones has authored, fathered, contributed to?? Where is Jones ever referenced as the "authority for science" or the authority of some school of thought or the father of it?

Oh no wait!! now you are going to tell us this was yet another "Nebraska man" argument!

This is where you need need to respond L.K - with a point in favor of Darwinism using a recognized authority in the area of law and science someone who actually contributes to that body of knowledge.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Microbiology is a case of "Applied chemistry". Something rocks have not been SHOWN to produce given enough mass time and energy.

Now let's take a look and SEE why Atheist darwinists fear this subject so much!

When we LOOK for a glaring example of what ID science reports as showing DESIGN we see this!

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=33266#p395365

When we LOOK for extreme left-wing examples of dark-ages Dover thought-police censorship - we find that statements telling students that a "book is available" in the Library and telling them to "keep and open mind" is strictly verboten by the thought-censors of Dover if such statements (so central to academic freedom and SCIENCE) are viewed as inconvenient by Darwinist religionists.

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=32904&start=240#p396756

Bob


Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

Bob, all your huffing and puffing and throwing of mud fails to counter the point that the Dover trial clearly and incontrovertibly demonstrated that ID is a Trojan horse for creationism in the science classroom. Trying to pretend it is anything otherwise is mendacious.