[_ Old Earth _] Questions about ID

[BobRyan]

The Dover trial contributed nothing to the discussion.

Your appeal to a non-recognized expert to prop up the junk-science religion of atheis darwinism is noted.

I am simply CONTRASTING your methods by showing that when we play your game - using Philip Johnson as a RECOGNIZED contributor to the body of knowledge for both law and science your only response is to "gloss over the inconvenient detail".

Yet this APPEAL to NON-Science source is YOUR OWN ARGUMENt that now you are so willing to trash as once again your solution fails under close review.

At some point this has got to cause you to stop and think rather than reactively reaching for quick-fix after quick-fix only to find that they do not hold up.

bob

 

[lordkalvan]

Bob, you seem incapable of arguing rationally or reasonably. That after exhaustive legal argument ID is exposed as a creationist Trojan Horse of 'breathtaking inanity' (Judge Jones' words) does not make anyone who recognizes it for what it is a tool of 'atheist darwinism.' That the 'Father of Intelligent Design' argues that it is not a creationist Trojan Horse is supposed to prove what, exactly? That he is being deliberately disingenuous? Johnson clearly has an agenda; I would be rather surprised if you could point to such an agenda for the judge in the Dover case.

 

[Barbarian]

The Dover trial contributed nothing to the discussion.

Phillip Johnson accurately described it as a "train wreck" for ID. Not only is ID now legally a religion, during cross-examination, IDer and Discovery Institute Fellow Michael Behe admitted that ID is a science in the same sense that astrology is a science.

Can't crash any harder than that.

 

[BobRyan]

The Dover trial contributed nothing to the discussion.

Your appeal to a non-recognized expert to prop up the junk-science religion of atheis darwinism is noted.

I am simply CONTRASTING your methods by showing that when we play your game - using Philip Johnson as a RECOGNIZED contributor to the body of knowledge for both law and science your only response is to "gloss over the inconvenient detail".

Yet this APPEAL to NON-Science source is YOUR OWN ARGUMENt that now you are so willing to trash as once again your solution fails under close review.

At some point this has got to cause you to stop and think rather than reactively reaching for quick-fix after quick-fix only to find that they do not hold up.

the point being -- that once you try the antic of appealing to non-science sources in a desperate effort to make the case for darwinism or to redefine evolutionism -- you open the door to KNOWN legal experts who HAVE contributed to both science and law!

Of course in ceaseless efforts to gloss over inconvenient details -- I would expect that point to be ignored.

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

Had you "clicked the link" to notice the connection between that statement and the "TEST" for ID science you would see that significance of this statement from a nationally know legal expert. And remember you have recently adopted the tactic of pretending to be interested in a legal opinion of this subject -- for some odd reason.

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

Bob, the desperation exists in your own distorted view of reality. The desperation exists in your refusal to face up to the fact that the Dover case exposed the Trojan Horse of creationism masquerading as ID for any reasonable person to see and recognize. Philip Johnson's evidence-free assertions are irrelevant, no matter how much you may like them.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob, the desperation exists in your own distorted view of reality.

The wild notion that your appeal to an unknown legal source to make your case against ID should NOT be contrasted to the more WELL known example of Philip Johnson fails under the weight of its own apparent absurdity. Why are you going there?

Did you follow the points in the post?
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=32904&p=397935#p397682

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

Bob, the desperation exists in your own distorted view of reality.

The wild notion that your appeal to an unknown legal source to make your case against ID should NOT be contrasted to the more WELL known example of Philip Johnson fails under the weight of its own apparent absurdity. Why are you going there?

Did you follow the points in the post?
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=32904&p=397935#p397682

The case against ID as anything other than a Trojan Horse for creationism was not made by me, but by the testimony at Dover. Other than your belief that Judge Jones was incapable of reaching a considered opinion after listening to all the appropriate witnesses and reviewing all the available and relevant evidence in a properly constituted and ordered court of law, there do not appear to be any relevant points in the linked post. Perhaps Philip Johnson should have testified at Dover himself, but then perhaps he may not have been as devastatingly persuasive as you seem to think if he had said the same as he said in this interview quoted in the Berkeley Science Review:

I considered [Dover] a loser from the start. Where you have a board writing a statement and telling the teachers to repeat it to the class, I thought that was a very bad idea.

I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove…No product is ready for competition in the educational world.

And these guys are warping their presentation of science in both the evidence and the methods and the philosophy of science...

Source for quotes: http://sciencereview.berkeley.edu/articles.php?issue=10&article=evolution

So some months after the PBS interview you reference, in Spring 2008 Philip Johnson was apparently of the opinion that 'There is no intelligent design theory that’s comparable [to the theory of evolution].' I guess Judge Jones' opinion looks pretty robust after all.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob, the desperation exists in your own distorted view of reality.

The wild notion that your appeal to an unknown legal source to make your case against ID should NOT be contrasted to the more WELL known example of Philip Johnson fails under the weight of its own apparent absurdity. Why are you going there?

Did you follow the points in the post?
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=32904&p=397935#p397682

[/quote]

The case against ID as anything other than a Trojan Horse for creationism was not made by me,

Well yes it was -- but as you point out there are little-known sources that would join you in making that accusation.

However MY point is that ONCE you open the door to an appeal to some legal source to get a decision on SCIENCE -- then we are all free to go to an actual KNOWN legal authority and scholar like Philip Johnson who HAS made KNOWN contributions to that body of knowledge regarding the law and science.

The fact that your argument is then blown out of the water in that comparison is not "my fault" it is simply another example of your reaching for a solution only to find that you have dug the hole deeper for your own argument.

Why blame me for what you are doing to your own argument?

I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory,

Wrong.

The junk-science proposition of the error-prone religion we know today as Darwinism has this premise "There is no God" and that is combined with "therefore all of life HAD to have come about through undirected random events --- on it's own" NO MATTER WHAT we see to the contrary in the lab!!

Contrast that gross faith-based dogma of the darwinist to the much more "science" centered solution for the ID scientist.

WHEN the lab SHOWS me that a result can not be achieved through random undirected processes I am free to AVOID the atheist dogma "no matter what I see by faith I believe it happened undirected and by itself" -- and I can conclude for the much more scientific and obvious "this was designed"

As Johnson points out with cave paintings and the process of erosion combined with chemical properties of the cave wall not being able to "account for them".

The blind-faith of the Darwinist argues "OH no --no matter how nonsensical the argument needed to solve the problem -- the answer must always be that it was just natural causes" when that cave painting is seen as in the case of the link given here.

See an example of ID -- eye witness
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSasTS-n ... re=related


Scientists admit seeing ID here - eye witness
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxZ3bhQpz5s

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory,

Wrong.

So Philip Johnson is 'wrong' here but 'right' when he appears to be supporting your tortuous arguments? Can you see how ridiculous you are beginning to make your case appear?

The point stands that ID is a Trojan Horse for creationism and even a judge who was expected to be at least a little sympathetic to the ID case could see through the hopeless arguments advanced during the Dover case by the supporters of the school board. If you are suggesting that only scientists are competent to judge whether or not ID is science, then your argument is even more feeble than it has already been shown to be, for the overwhelming majority of scientists appear to consider ID to be nothing very much like science at all.

 

[BobRyan]

the point being -- that once you try the antic of appealing to non-science sources in a desperate effort to make the case for darwinism or to redefine evolutionism -- you open the door to KNOWN legal experts who HAVE contributed to both science and law!

Of course in ceaseless efforts to gloss over inconvenient details -- I would expect that point to be ignored.

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

And that then leads us to those who are actively engaged in the work at the Discovery Institute.

They are up next!

But before I go there... check it out.

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=32904&p=398101#p397409



Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

So, Bob, your 'expert' in science and law is right when he agrees with you and wrong when he disagrees with you? Please try responding to my posts rather than simply posting the same assertion again and again. Should I keep posting Philip Johnson's and Judge Jones's comments again and again to make my point? May I remind you again of Philip Johnson's comments from the BSR, which you have, as is your frequent practice, ignored:

There were specific things in the record...that convinced me that it was a loser and that made it quite easy for him to give judgment for the plaintiffs. I’m not at all complaining that he did that. When you have members of the school board saying things like we ought to stand up for Jesus because he died for us, that’s really asking for it.

Source: http://sciencereview.berkeley.edu/articles.php?issue=10&article=evolution

Would you also like me to quote the opinions of the many scientists who have looked at ID and concluded that it is neither science nor ever likely to be?

 

[BobRyan]

the point being -- that once you try the antic of appealing to non-science sources in a desperate effort to make the case for darwinism or to redefine evolutionism -- you open the door to KNOWN legal experts who HAVE contributed to both science and law!

Of course in ceaseless efforts to gloss over inconvenient details -- I would expect that point to be ignored.

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

And that then leads us to those who are actively engaged in the work at the Discovery Institute.

They are up next!

But before I go there... check it out.

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=32904&p=398101#p397409

So, Bob, your 'expert' in science and law is right when he agrees with you and wrong when he disagrees with you?

That is your antic not mine. Notice how you faithfully ignore the comments of Johnson as repeatedly posted here -- and now in this post -- posted "again"??

Please try responding to my posts rather than simply posting the same assertion again and again.

Recall that when you ignore the inconvenient facts listed in my post (as we see above) you simply point out that this is where you have a hole in your argument and are asking that it not be brought up until you find a fix so you can continue to pretend you have responded to the points raised.

Why would I comply with that kind of thinking?

Should I keep posting Philip Johnson's and Judge Jones's comments again and again to make my point? May I remind you again of Philip Johnson's comments from the BSR, which you have, as is your frequent practice, ignored:

[quote:3qjb7o04]There were specific things in the record...that convinced me that it was a loser and that made it quite easy for him to give judgment for the plaintiffs. I’m not at all complaining that he did that. When you have members of the school board saying things like we ought to stand up for Jesus because he died for us, that’s really asking for it.

Source: http://sciencereview.berkeley.edu/articles.php?issue=10&article=evolution
[/quote:3qjb7o04]

HOW IN THE WORLD can you condemn people for being Chrsitian!!!???

The argument is NOT "no Christian would ever support ID" as you seem to imagine!!

I understand why Dr. Johnson does not want them to remind the judge of the fact that they ARE Christians -- but that has nothing to do with the point of SCIENCE being discussed because EVEN a "Christian" can affirm what Johnson said in my quote above. They just can't argue that Johnson's statement IS YEC creationism since it falls far short of it!

Obviously.

Hint the Christians COULD have argued that Romans 1 states clearly that EVEN BARBARIANS see the point of "the THINGs that have been MADE" showing the intelligence attribute of God... and while that is true -- and would not change science in any way (hint - salt is still salt) - it is not the best tactic when dealing with an in-the-tank darwinist audience.

BTW - How in the world do you think this is helping your argument???

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

the point being -- that once you try the antic of appealing to non-science sources in a desperate effort to make the case for darwinism or to redefine evolutionism -- you open the door to KNOWN legal experts who HAVE contributed to both science and law!

You have a warped understanding of why I referred you to the Dover trial opinion, which was not by any stretch of the imagination 'a desperate effort to make the case for darwinism or to redefine evolutionism', but to point out to you that, when the case for ID as science was made in an open court, subject to cross-examination and testimony from expert witnesses, the case failed lamentably and Judge Jones was capable of understanding that, as ID was there consituted and presented, it was nothing more than a Trojan Horse for creationism.

Philip Johnson's opinion is irrelevant as to the value of ID as an alternative creative hypothesis as he did not testify at Dover; if you believe that his argument is so decisive, it is a wonder it was not deployed effectively at Dover. I do not see how you believe that repeatedly quoting the same words from Philip Johnson in some way renders Judge Jones' opinion null and void.

If you believe that the legal system is incapable of reaching a balanced judgement on whether ID as it was presented at Dover is science or creationism inder another name because the presiding judge was not, in your important opinion, sufficiently knowledgable about science (though what grounds you have for deciding this, I do not know), then presumably you would apply the same criticism to any case where a judge reached a decision regarding a subject to which s/he had not contributed? Does this sound as silly to you as it sounds to me?

Your point is also wholly at odds with your citing Johnson as your authority because, from the evidence of the quotation you provide, he does not appear to be offering a legal opinion, whereas in the reference I provided you with he is. The fact that you present Philip Johnson as a 'known legal expert who ha{s} contributed to both science and law' does not immediately imbue his opinion with absolute authority over any questions pertaining to either. Indeed, one might be entitled to ask what his qualifications are for passing expert opinion on questions of science at all.

 

[BobRyan]

the point being -- that once you try the antic of appealing to non-science sources in a desperate effort to make the case for darwinism or to redefine evolutionism -- you open the door to KNOWN legal experts who HAVE contributed to both science and law!

You have a warped understanding of why I referred you to the Dover trial opinion, which was not by any stretch of the imagination 'a desperate effort to make the case for darwinism or to redefine evolutionism', but to point out to you that, when the case for ID as science was made in an open court, subject to cross-examination and testimony from expert witnesses, the case failed

Your appeal to an unknown legal source - was then compared to a WELL known legal source that HAS contributed to both Law and Science on the subject at hand -- Philip Johnson.

We have ID science groups THEMSELVES identifying the tenants of their OWN arguments -- tenants to be refuted IF YOU CAN -- but imagining that unknown legal sources that are led into thinking they are in a position to define science -- is the last desperate foxhole of a losing argument.

Philip Johnson's opinion is irrelevant

Only if you are blindly reaching for fiction instead of looking at the ID sources themselves to SEE what their argument is -- and to then either accept or refute it.

I do not see how you believe that repeatedly quoting the same words from Philip Johnson in some way renders Judge Jones' opinion null and void.

More misdirection, fiction and story telling on your part L.K.

My argument is not that the victims of that trial are any less bound by it's authority -- my argument is about science itself. I leave the pogroms, political rangling and non-science appeals to non-science unknown legal sources to the Darwinist and I never deny the scope of victims they catch in their sweep.

If you believe that the legal system is incapable of reaching a balanced judgement on whether ID as it was presented at Dover is science or creationism

I believe that Philip Johnson is a known legal scholar IN that very legal system who HAS contributed to the knowledge of both law and science.

I believe that you need to "ignore" that when you reach for unknown legal source to make your case.

What I do not do - is deny the damage done by incorrect decisions made by those who let themselves be drawn into areas where they have no expertise at all.

Your point is also wholly at odds with your citing Johnson as your authority because, from the evidence of the quotation you provide, he does not appear to be offering a legal opinion,

The question of what is ID Science is best answered by those scientists making the case for it -- then you can refute or accept it.

The question of the legal view of ID science is best left to actual legal scholars who have recognized contributions to BOTH Law AND science on that very point.

Obviously.

L.K
whereas in the reference I provided you with he is. The fact that you present Philip Johnson as a 'known legal expert who ha{s} contributed to both science and law' does not immediately imbue his opinion with absolute authority over any questions pertaining to either. Indeed, one might be entitled to ask what his qualifications are for passing expert opinion on questions of science at all.

You have unwittingly exposed the very gimmickry you are engaged in -- which is the dark-ages censorship of children. The idea is that it does not matter what science is -- or what facts there are at hand -- what is MORE important is who has the keys for the thought-police in which school district and who can effectivel censor books and access to knowledge for those children.

That is the kind of argument that is consistent with the Darwinist methods -- but I am surprised you are so willing to come out with it.

As you point out -- there are no school children who wil suffer thought-police restriction by what Dr Johnson says -- so why listen to him.

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

You have unwittingly exposed the very gimmickry you are engaged in -- which is the dark-ages censorship of children. The idea is that it does not matter what science is -- or what facts there are at hand -- what is MORE important is who has the keys for the thought-police in which school district and who can effectivel censor books and access to knowledge for those children.

That is the kind of argument that is consistent with the Darwinist methods -- but I am surprised you are so willing to come out with it.

As you point out -- there are no school children who wil suffer thought-police restriction by what Dr Johnson says -- so why listen to him.

Your reasoning is specious. The Dover decision was that ID 'science' is not science at all, but rather creationism masquerading as science and as such was deemed inappropriate for the science classroom. The ruling was that intelligent design could not be taught in Pennsylvania's Middle District public school science classrooms because, in the words of Judge Jones' decision

....we conclude that the religious nature of ID [intelligent design] would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child.

and

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

and

The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District#Decision

To leap from this specific decision in respect of the science classroom to crying censorship and thought-police only illustrates the hysterically emotive nature of your argument. Unless I am mistaken, these 1995 Federal guidelines are still in force in US public schools:

Responding to a directive from the President, the federal Department of Education issued a memo to public school superintendents which discussed religious freedoms in schools. Some principles stated are:
• students can read religious books, say a prayer before meals and pray before tests, etc. to the same extent that they may engage in comparable secular non-disruptive activities.
• In informal settings (cafeterias, hallways, etc.) students may pray and may discuss religious topics with other students, just as they may talk about other subjects.
• Students can proselytize with other students; however they cannot engage in religiously motivated harassment
• No student can be coerced into participating in any religious activity.
• Teachers and administrators cannot discourage or promote religious activity because of its religious content; this applies to anti-religious activity as well.
• Schools can teach about religion and its role in society; they can teach about the Bible as literature. But they cannot provide religious instruction.
• Students can distribute religious literature in the same way that they are permitted to distribute non-religious literature.
• Students may be released to attend religious classes at other location; teachers and administrators cannot encourage or discourage students from taking advantage of such classes.
• Schools can teach about common civic values, but they must be neutral with respect to religion.

Source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/ps_pra3.htm

I see nothing that prevents students from reading whatever books they wish and even listening to Phillip Johnson's views and opinions if they want, the only restriction being that this cannot take place as part of their science education in public schools. But, of course, it better suits your propaganda to present creationism - whoops, sorry, ID - as the martyred victim of (no doubt) liberal left-leaning state repression.

 

[BobRyan]

I see nothing that prevents students from reading whatever books they wish

Your specious arguments rely on a lot of "I hear nothing... I see nothing" glossing over of "details" (aka Sgt Shultz) in the Dover trial as exemplified in your not ONCE identifying the act heresy of which the school board is accused.

Recall that the bit of "heresy" that the school is accused of engaging in (by the darwinist religionists) is this bit of academic freedom in paragraph 3 --

(Paragraphs numbered to prevent your usual glossing over of details.)

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

Notice that the charge of high crimes of heresy results from "A book is available" and the optional nature of interest is also identified "for students who might be interested". Notice that in the extreme dark-ages censorship tactic of pogrom and dissinformation this central fact is omitted though it IS the "high crime of heresy" for which the school board is to be charged and sentenced!.

How "instructive" that you completely ignore this "detail" in your post above.

Clearly the fact that "a book is AVAILABLE" for "students who MIGHT be interested" in some other bit of storytelling OTHER than Darwinist doctrine and mythology ("Stories easy enough to make up but they are NOT science" Colin Patterson), but this level of honesty is strictly "verboten" when the extreme religionist darwinist thought police of Dover are put in charge.

But what is "instructive" is that so many otherwise well reasoned people could be so easily duped into thinking of this pogrom and rank censorship as "a good thing" though most of the rest of us have left the dark ages behind long ago!

Notice the extreme perfidity of the wildly out of control pogrom in Dover as exemplified by this fact. In the most extreme radical darwinist mind the ID argument is at worst construed into the rediculous argument of a "religious book" and so the paragraph 3 statement is AT WORST the following "students can read religious books IF they so choose on their own".

And that is the VERY statement L.K wanted to defend as being ALLOWED -- yet even in this worst construction fictionally imaginable for paragraph 3 -- it does not go beyond such language!!

To leap from this specific decision in respect of the science classroom to crying censorship and thought-police only illustrates the hysterically emotive nature of your argument. Unless I am mistaken, these 1995 Federal guidelines are still in force in US public schools:

Responding to a directive from the President, the federal Department of Education issued a memo to public school superintendents which discussed religious freedoms in schools. Some principles stated are:
• students can read religious books, say a prayer before meals and pray before tests, etc. to the same extent that they may engage in comparable secular non-disruptive activities.

Source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/ps_pra3.htm

I see nothing that prevents students from reading whatever books they wish
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=32904&p=398739#p398623

There is that "I see nothing" argument again!

Instructive for the unbiased objective reader.


Bob

 

[BobRyan]

By contrast to that mideval dark-ages example of gross mind-control and censorship of academic freedom for school children -- consider the much more "reasoned" position of Dr. Johnson

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

Ahhh -- like a refereshing breath of fresh air to the well reasoned mind OPEN to academic freedom rather than doggedly persuing dark-ages thought censorship of school children!

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Given the atheist religionist theory for origins -- DArwinism, what do atheists consider to be a "religious, alternative theory"? Answer "ID". In this they are again misleading the public -- for the religious truth alterntave to the false religious-darwinist mythology of origins we call Darwinism is in fact YEC.

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

The point, Bob, that you persistently deny is that Dover determined, after expert testimony and cross-examination of all witnesses by attorneys for both sides, that ID is YEC clad in new clothes and, as such, its introduction into the science classroom 'violates the Establishment Clause'. Any other points you make are irrelevant to this determination and your references to dark-ages censorship, thought police, disinformation and pogroms (you do know what a pogrom is, don't you?) is an emotive appeal intended to evoke the image of martyrdom. ID had the chance to demonstrate in a properly constituted court of law that it was science rather than creationism under another name and failed dismally to do so. That you so dislike the decision of Judge Jones is insufficient grounds for dismissing it as wrong.

Again, I ask why you regard Phillip Johnson's non-expert opinion on what constitutes science more important that his expert opinion on what constitutes law in this partcular instance, a question I note that you choose to ignore in your diatribes?

 

[lordkalvan]

By contrast to that mideval dark-ages example of gross mind-control and censorship of academic freedom for school children -- consider the much more "reasoned" position of Dr. Johnson

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

Ahhh -- like a refereshing breath of fresh air to the well reasoned mind OPEN to academic freedom rather than doggedly persuing dark-ages thought censorship of school children!

More like a fetid whiff of confusion and muddled thinking, studiously avoiding mentioning the 'G' word in exactly the sort of dissembling fashion to be expected of ID proponents doing their level best to mask the fact that their argument is just scientific creationism in a borrowed suit.

What does Johnson mean by vague terms like 'all the creating that has been done in the history of life'?

• Does he mean that each separate form of life was individually created?

• Does he mean that there was a single act of creative force from which all else flowed?

• Does he mean to identify this 'creative intelligence' with a supernatural being?

• Does he mean to identify it with aliens from a distant star in our own galaxy?

• Does he mean to identify it with aliens from a galaxy remote from our own?

By referring to 'unintelligent, purposeless, natural processes' does Johnson intend to exclude the possibility that natural selection could have been designed by the 'creative intelligence' as a means of producing life through chance modified by natural laws that the 'creative intelligence' itself set up in the first place?

Does Johnson mean to exclude the possibility that superintelligent aliens could have been created as whole beings by the 'creative intelligence' and that they then proceeded to experiment with the evolution of life through descent by modification on Earth?

Does Johnson mean to exclude the possibility that superintelligent aliens could have been created through natural selection (as described above) by the 'creative intelligence' and that these superintelligent aliens then created each individual life-form on Earth using their highly advanced alien technology?

Johnson has used the neat, rhetorical trick of the lawyer by presenting two opposing hypotheses as if they are the only two that need to be considered in the debate he proposes should be carried on under the terms and conditions that he wishes to set up. Fortunately or otherwise, Johnson has neither the authority nor the position to dictate the terms under which such a debate should be pursued.