Kitzmas is Coming!

Getwittered: https://twitter.com/NickJMatzke/status/675925684733132801

First up, we have Wes Elsberry's almost simultaneous post!
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2015/12/the-war-before.html#more

According to their earlier timelines, weren't they supposed to be established the academies by now as a well-supported counter? Wasn't Dembski supposed to be driving the rapidly advancing revolution in this decade after having placed the research on solid theoretical and philosophical footings?

I wanted to throw a shoe (or actually perform an action more strident than that) at the director of the Miller lecture recording.

Naturally, if the speaker has a slide deck, we will always be more interested in seeing him pointing the clicker at the screen and saying "what we see here is important because..." than we will be in ever seeing the slide itself.

Hopeless incompetence. I charitably assume it was a student who had no idea how this stuff is done.

Ten Myths About Dover: #8, Michael Behe Admitted that ID Is No More Scientific than Astrology Evolution News & Views by Sarah Chaffee / 12h // keep unread // hide // preview

Ten Myths About Dover: #8, "Michael Behe Admitted that ID Is No More Scientific than Astrology" 3 Evolution News & Views by Casey Luskin / 8h // keep unread // hide // preview

Creationists and evolutionists ASK yourself. Do you feel better off ten years later/ 9old Reagan line)
ID/YEC says YES!. All publicity is good publicity and ID/YEC always needs it mORE then a few obscure towns students getting a few lessons that go in one ear and out the other.
anyways censorship being a highllight of a claimed confident scientific theory is evidence someone is not confident to have criticism of it and equal time for alternatives.

It isn't if ID won. It wasn't about ID but the claim ID is a religious conclusion . By saying its not scientific that meant it could only be religious. NOT just bad science .
It is not a religious conclusion but conclusions based on investigating and reasoning about nature.
These courts cases are a hilarious embarrassment.

The purpose of education is to teach the truth about some subject.
Censorship of a opinion means EITHER its officiaklly not the truth or the truth is not the objective.
If the former then the state saying, in this case, iD/YEC is not true is breaking the separation concept it invokes for the censorship. If the latter its an absurdity.
Creationism desires and will get more cases until freedom is restored to mans search for truth in origins or anything.

Robert Byers said: Creationists and evolutionists ASK yourself. Do you feel better off ten years later/ 9old Reagan line) ID/YEC says YES!. All publicity is good publicity and ID/YEC always needs it mORE then a few obscure towns students getting a few lessons that go in one ear and out the other. anyways censorship being a highllight of a claimed confident scientific theory is evidence someone is not confident to have criticism of it and equal time for alternatives. It isn't if ID won. It wasn't about ID but the claim ID is a religious conclusion . By saying its not scientific that meant it could only be religious. NOT just bad science . It is not a religious conclusion but conclusions based on investigating and reasoning about nature. These courts cases are a hilarious embarrassment. The purpose of education is to teach the truth about some subject. Censorship of a opinion means EITHER its officiaklly not the truth or the truth is not the objective. If the former then the state saying, in this case, iD/YEC is not true is breaking the separation concept it invokes for the censorship. If the latter its an absurdity. Creationism desires and will get more cases until freedom is restored to mans search for truth in origins or anything.

I remember the night you added the comment to the Dover transcripts, "You will really like today's testimony."

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12pm2.html#day12pm475

f the DI ever has aspirations for moving forward, it will have to stop doing rearguard actions and forthrightly admit some things. Top of my list would be (a) admitting common ancestry and phylogenetics are well-supported, (b) admitting that, yes, evolution can produce new genes with new functions, through gene duplication and modification, and and thus at least some new information, (c) copping to the creationist origins of ID, starting with who knew about the word switcheroo in the Of Pandas and People drafts, and when did they know it?

Well that would be a good start, but most of these guys are still not ready to admit that the earth is more than 6000 years old. And, if they ever did admit to the scientifically obvious, they would just get kicked out of the big tent anyway. There never was a way to appear scientific while simultaneously denying all of the major conclusions of science. I guess they are learning that the hard way. And as more scientific evidence becomes available, they are becoming more and more marginalized and more and more ridiculed. Oh well, what can you expect when you have booby on your side?

These courts cases are a hilarious embarrassment.

Indeed they are, but you don't seem embarrassed -- though you are hilarious.

DS said: f the DI ever has aspirations for moving forward, it will have to stop doing rearguard actions and forthrightly admit some things. Top of my list would be (a) admitting common ancestry and phylogenetics are well-supported, (b) admitting that, yes, evolution can produce new genes with new functions, through gene duplication and modification, and and thus at least some new information, (c) copping to the creationist origins of ID, starting with who knew about the word switcheroo in the Of Pandas and People drafts, and when did they know it? Well that would be a good start, but most of these guys are still not ready to admit that the earth is more than 6000 years old. And, if they ever did admit to the scientifically obvious, they would just get kicked out of the big tent anyway. There never was a way to appear scientific while simultaneously denying all of the major conclusions of science. I guess they are learning that the hard way. And as more scientific evidence becomes available, they are becoming more and more marginalized and more and more ridiculed. Oh well, what can you expect when you have booby on your side?

Argon said: According to their earlier timelines, weren't they supposed to be established the academies by now as a well-supported counter?

TomS said:

DS said: f the DI ever has aspirations for moving forward, it will have to stop doing rearguard actions and forthrightly admit some things. Top of my list would be (a) admitting common ancestry and phylogenetics are well-supported, (b) admitting that, yes, evolution can produce new genes with new functions, through gene duplication and modification, and and thus at least some new information, (c) copping to the creationist origins of ID, starting with who knew about the word switcheroo in the Of Pandas and People drafts, and when did they know it? Well that would be a good start, but most of these guys are still not ready to admit that the earth is more than 6000 years old. And, if they ever did admit to the scientifically obvious, they would just get kicked out of the big tent anyway. There never was a way to appear scientific while simultaneously denying all of the major conclusions of science. I guess they are learning that the hard way. And as more scientific evidence becomes available, they are becoming more and more marginalized and more and more ridiculed. Oh well, what can you expect when you have booby on your side?

What surprised me when I first started reading about creationism is how much they have conceded. I thought that they would deny that the fossils represented extinct life forms. Maybe the fossils were planted by devils. They seem to be willing to accept a lot of science without question, and try to fit their creationism to it. But then, there is the "how do you know - were you there" which seems inconsistent with dinosaurs, which they accept. There are very few who have adopted geocentrism, which would give them an easy way out of the "distant starlight" problem. What it looks to me is that they have decided to abandon any kind of consistency.

Robert Byers said: creationists like fossils. However we disagree with what fossil teach. I disagree fossils teach anything about biological processes. I think they are only biological data points. not evidence at all of process and relationship based on process. I also think the geology, the deposition of the dead things, is not only wrong but unrelated to biology. Evolutionism is , partly, based on geology while thinking its biology. A failure of insight about methodology. Maybe its just me.

Robert Byers said:

TomS said:

DS said: f the DI ever has aspirations for moving forward, it will have to stop doing rearguard actions and forthrightly admit some things. Top of my list would be (a) admitting common ancestry and phylogenetics are well-supported, (b) admitting that, yes, evolution can produce new genes with new functions, through gene duplication and modification, and and thus at least some new information, (c) copping to the creationist origins of ID, starting with who knew about the word switcheroo in the Of Pandas and People drafts, and when did they know it? Well that would be a good start, but most of these guys are still not ready to admit that the earth is more than 6000 years old. And, if they ever did admit to the scientifically obvious, they would just get kicked out of the big tent anyway. There never was a way to appear scientific while simultaneously denying all of the major conclusions of science. I guess they are learning that the hard way. And as more scientific evidence becomes available, they are becoming more and more marginalized and more and more ridiculed. Oh well, what can you expect when you have booby on your side?

What surprised me when I first started reading about creationism is how much they have conceded. I thought that they would deny that the fossils represented extinct life forms. Maybe the fossils were planted by devils. They seem to be willing to accept a lot of science without question, and try to fit their creationism to it. But then, there is the "how do you know - were you there" which seems inconsistent with dinosaurs, which they accept. There are very few who have adopted geocentrism, which would give them an easy way out of the "distant starlight" problem. What it looks to me is that they have decided to abandon any kind of consistency.

creationists like fossils. However we disagree with what fossil teach. I disagree fossils teach anything about biological processes. I think they are only biological data points. not evidence at all of process and relationship based on process. I also think the geology, the deposition of the dead things, is not only wrong but unrelated to biology. Evolutionism is , partly, based on geology while thinking its biology. A failure of insight about methodology. Maybe its just me.

Robert Byers said:

TomS said:

DS said: f the DI ever has aspirations for moving forward, it will have to stop doing rearguard actions and forthrightly admit some things. Top of my list would be (a) admitting common ancestry and phylogenetics are well-supported, (b) admitting that, yes, evolution can produce new genes with new functions, through gene duplication and modification, and and thus at least some new information, (c) copping to the creationist origins of ID, starting with who knew about the word switcheroo in the Of Pandas and People drafts, and when did they know it? Well that would be a good start, but most of these guys are still not ready to admit that the earth is more than 6000 years old. And, if they ever did admit to the scientifically obvious, they would just get kicked out of the big tent anyway. There never was a way to appear scientific while simultaneously denying all of the major conclusions of science. I guess they are learning that the hard way. And as more scientific evidence becomes available, they are becoming more and more marginalized and more and more ridiculed. Oh well, what can you expect when you have booby on your side?

What surprised me when I first started reading about creationism is how much they have conceded. I thought that they would deny that the fossils represented extinct life forms. Maybe the fossils were planted by devils. They seem to be willing to accept a lot of science without question, and try to fit their creationism to it. But then, there is the "how do you know - were you there" which seems inconsistent with dinosaurs, which they accept. There are very few who have adopted geocentrism, which would give them an easy way out of the "distant starlight" problem. What it looks to me is that they have decided to abandon any kind of consistency.

creationists like fossils. However we disagree with what fossil teach. I disagree fossils teach anything about biological processes. I think they are only biological data points. not evidence at all of process and relationship based on process. I also think the geology, the deposition of the dead things, is not only wrong but unrelated to biology. Evolutionism is , partly, based on geology while thinking its biology. A failure of insight about methodology. Maybe its just me.

Dr GS Hurd said: I remember the night you added the comment to the Dover transcripts, "You will really like today's testimony." http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12pm2.html#day12pm475

Weird, it appears that I can send comments from my laptop, but not my desktop. The desktop attempts get shunted to a nospam.html that says Enable JavaScript even though I have JavaScript enabled. I get the same result on Safari and Firefox, so it's not a browser issue.

If anyone else is having this problem, please email a description to nick.matzke@anu.edu.au -- because you can't post the problem here because of the aforementioned posting problem!

Ten Myths About Dover: #7, "The Dover Case Showed ID Is 'Religious' and a Form of 'Creationism'" Casey Luskin December 14, 2015 11:28 AM

Again, up to this point, "creationism" was the only game in town. Sometimes in the earliest days, in fact, ID advocates used that very term. But they clearly meant something different by it than did actual "creationists." Obviously, they could not have anticipated the way Darwin defenders would later seize on the strategy of using ambiguous or multivalent language ("creationism," "evolution") to sow confusion among the public and in the media.

If this works then new Chrome can post to this site via: http://app.cloudinternetexplorer.com/EricomXML/AccessNow/start.html

This is the modus operandi for creationists and other reality deniers:

Step 1: They decide what they want to believe

Step 2: They make up some words to describe that belief

Step 3: If anyone questions the belief, play word games and reaffirm that those are actually the words they use and they actually believe them

Step 4: If the doesn't work, accuse the other side of playing word games and ignore all evidence and all legitimate questions

Step 5: Whatever you do, don't ever question test your beliefs or test them against reality. If challenged, claim that this is a virtue.

One can also return to Matt's review of Bradley Monton's book and compare that to Casey's claims. Matt points out that Monton (naively) defends ID on the basis that like other outmoded theories it still has some explanatory power, but that is insufficient reason for it being taught or discussed today. It is naive; IDC proponents are looking for any foothold to proselytize.

Nick Matzke said: This is a handy compilation of all of the DI attempts to deny the creationist origins of ID in one long post (way longer than all the previous "10 days of Kitzmas" posts put together:

Testing -- I think actually the problem was some issue that ANU is having with ajax.googleapis.com ...

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/12/ten_myths_about_2101594101681.html

...wow...trying to paste over the 1999 DI "Legal Guidebook" via tendentious reading

...ignoring the simple fact that the first ID book, Of Pandas and People, was a *textbook* aimed at *high school biology*, which the DI promoted throughout the 1990s and early 2000s, and over which there were dozens of political fights which the DI never protested

...ignoring the fact that the DI's statement critiquing the school board only came out when the lawsuit was filed in December 2004, and not back in spring 2004 when the school board began looking at ID -- and Buckingham, for example, was REQUIRING teachers to watch Icons of Evolution. He was clearly "egged on" to a great degree by the DI's Icons of Evolution materials that the DI sent to the Dover School Board, etc. - those materials convinced him that the textbooks were "lying" to the students about evolution.

Also unaddressed is the fact that the Dover school board asserted lawyer-client privilege for the 2004 communications with Seth Cooper, but Cooper claims those communications are not privileged. But because the Defense asserted it, no one knows what actually was said between the DI and the Dover School Board, except for Cooper's post-catastrophe butt-covering...

Jason Rosenhouse covered most of this back in 2006:
http://evolutionblog.blogspot.com.au/2005/12/cooper-protests-too-much.html

"...those materials convinced him that the textbooks were “lying” to the students about evolution."

This is one of the things that always gets me about creationists. Why are they so eager to believe that someone is lying to them? WHat possible motivation could a textbook publisher have for lying? They know it isn't what most people want to hear, so it can't be to increase sales. They know that the scientists are going to get paid to do their research no matter what the results. They know that the scientists and publishers belong to many different religions, so there is absolutely nothing to be gained by lying. And they know that even if somebody was motivated to lie, that real scientists would love to prove them wrong about even the slightest detail.

So it;s all a matter of projection. That's what they would do. They would lie through their teeth in order to advance their religious agenda, so that's what other people must be doing as well. After all, they can't be wrong, they just can't be, so the other guy must automatically be lying. Problem is, they were the ones caught lying under oath at Dover. I guess that didn't bother them in the least.

DS said: WHat possible motivation could a textbook publisher have for lying?

After all, they can't be wrong, they just can't be, so the other guy must automatically be lying.

DS said: WHat possible motivation could a textbook publisher have for lying?

Mike Elzinga said:

Dr GS Hurd said: I remember the night you added the comment to the Dover transcripts, "You will really like today's testimony." http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12pm2.html#day12pm475

ID/creationists continue to repeat the blunder that artifacts and inert objects blown about by tornados are stand-ins for the properties and behaviors of atoms and molecules. There is nothing about human artifacts - or artifacts made by other animals - that involve constituents that have enormous mutual interactions among themselves as do atoms and molecules. I have mentioned this a number of times here on Panda's Thumb; if you scale up the charge-to-mass ratios of electrons and protons to masses on the order of a kilogram and separated by distances on the order of a meter, the energies of interaction among such masses would be on the order of 10^10 megatons of TNT. Humans are never trying to jocky around objects that have such enormous interaction energies. We recognize human action on various artifacts because we recognize that the forces that wrought these artifacts into their configurations were external to the artificats themselves; we know they didn't self-assemble into the shapes they have. I am not sure why ID/creationist are so blind to this basic fact; but I think it is one of the major indicators that ID/creationists never think about basic chemistry and physics because, as is the case with their knowledge of biology, they don't know anything about these subjects either. It is jarring to see their ignorance of the most basic levels of science portrayed repeatedly in their assertions that atomic and molecular assemblies are designed and that no self-assembly is involved. Complex Specified Information is based on inert objects being assembled according to a uniform probability distribution into complex assemblies that find their way into arrangements that are specified ahead of time; and that is not how the universe works. As near as I can tell, not one ID/creationist can fathom what any of this means; there is nothing beyond slack-jawed incomprehension on their part.

eric said:

DS said: WHat possible motivation could a textbook publisher have for lying?

FL has answered this. Every non-Christian knows in his/her heart that Christianity is right, Jesus is lord, but they don't want to give up their sinful ways. They fight against Christianity and seek to destroy it so that they can continue to live in sin without Christians making them feel guilty about it. In this case, we all want to screw people out of wedlock, sleep in on Sundays, and covet our neighbor's ass. If evolution is true and the bible is wrong, none of these things are 'sins' because 'sin' becomes a meaningless term. And so we promote the notion that evolution is true.

After all, they can't be wrong, they just can't be, so the other guy must automatically be lying.

That's basically it. To be fair, lots of people make this sort of error, not just Christian fundamentalists. I'm sure in your internet wanderings that you've met conservatives who believe that conservativism is so obviously the rational choice that anyone opposing it must have selfish motives for doing so. And the reverse - liberals who believe their political ideology is so obviously the rational choice that anyone opposing it must have selfish motives for doing so. That's basically what's going on here; fundies believing that young earth creationism is so obviously right that any opposition to it must be motivated by selfishness or thought of personal gain.

Every day scientists found out something new that chips away at the Discovery Institute's core myths and especially the one that humans are specially created and separate from the rest of nature. Here's one for today from Ed Yong's blog - another species using tools - could the designer be a bird?

DS said: It certainly doesn't explain a textbook publisher making editing decisions.

eric said:

DS said: It certainly doesn't explain a textbook publisher making editing decisions.

Well we're talking about a Mike Elzinga analysis of Buckingham's thoughts after reading DI's materials, which is pretty far afield from 'what FL thinks'. But I don't think it would be too much of a stretch to say that in Buckingham's mind, antipathy toward the Christian message does explain a textbook publisher deciding to include evolution in textbooks. Godless heathen textbook publishers promote godless heathen ideologies so they can live their godless heathen lifestyle without the public approbation or guilt they rightly deserve (in the eyes of Buckingham).

Our policy has been clear: Intelligent design is constitutional to teach, but it should not be required curriculum in public schools. Instead, schools should teach the scientific controversy over evolution. That position has been consistently and publicly documented for the past 13 years.

"Attempts to mandate teaching about intelligent design only politicize the theory and will hinder fair and open discussion of the merits of the theory among scholars and within the scientific community...."

He objects to evolution mostly because it means he’s not special.

Henry J said:

He objects to evolution mostly because it means he’s not special.

I've never really understood that "not special" thing. If we were manufactured like they seem to think, that would make us what? Toys? Possessions? Lab rats? Entrees? They're the ones making claims that directly imply that we're not special.

Henry J said:

He objects to evolution mostly because it means he’s not special.

I've never really understood that "not special" thing. If we were manufactured like they seem to think, that would make us what? Toys? Possessions? Lab rats? Entrees? They're the ones making claims that directly imply that we're not special.

Just Bob said:

Henry J said:

He objects to evolution mostly because it means he’s not special.

I've never really understood that "not special" thing. If we were manufactured like they seem to think, that would make us what? Toys? Possessions? Lab rats? Entrees? They're the ones making claims that directly imply that we're not special.

Oh, but being made from DIRT is far more special than being made from an APE!

Just Bob said:

Henry J said:

He objects to evolution mostly because it means he’s not special.

I've never really understood that "not special" thing. If we were manufactured like they seem to think, that would make us what? Toys? Possessions? Lab rats? Entrees? They're the ones making claims that directly imply that we're not special.

Oh, but being made from DIRT is far more special than being made from an APE!

Henry J said:

He objects to evolution mostly because it means he’s not special.

I've never really understood that "not special" thing. If we were manufactured like they seem to think, that would make us what? Toys? Possessions? Lab rats? Entrees? They're the ones making claims that directly imply that we're not special.

Good post by Wes on #10:
http://austringer.net/wp/index.php/2015/12/16/the-discovery-institute-does-more-myth-making-looking-at-10/

A number of posts from the Senuous Curmudgeon, e.g.: https://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2015/12/15/discoveroids-kitzmas-series-6-activist-judge/

Mike Elzinga said:

Just Bob said:

Henry J said:

He objects to evolution mostly because it means he’s not special.

I've never really understood that "not special" thing. If we were manufactured like they seem to think, that would make us what? Toys? Possessions? Lab rats? Entrees? They're the ones making claims that directly imply that we're not special.

Oh, but being made from DIRT is far more special than being made from an APE!

And let us be thankful that we are not monotremes.

I posted at SC:

The idea that ID was science was raised BY THE DEFENSE, in order to provide a secular purpose and secular effect. Thus, the judge had 2 options (1) ignore their argument, attracting complaints that he didn't address the Defense's argument, and increasing the chance he would be overturned on appeal (which judges hate) -- at the time, an appeal seemed likely, based on School Board/Thomas More Law Center rhetoric; or (2) address the science argument straight on, in as thorough a way as possible.

He chose #2. If he'd chosen #1, the DI would be "complaining" about that, and arguing that the decision was meaningless because it didn't address the crucial science question, which is the reason teaching ID has a secular purpose and secular effect despite religious implications. The ID movement has put forth that argument-from-science numerous times, often explicitly in discussion of legal matters, and fairly often in explicit "day in court" fantasies. I have a collection of them somewhere...

Henry J said:

Mike Elzinga said:

Just Bob said:

Henry J said:

He objects to evolution mostly because it means he’s not special.

I've never really understood that "not special" thing. If we were manufactured like they seem to think, that would make us what? Toys? Possessions? Lab rats? Entrees? They're the ones making claims that directly imply that we're not special.

Oh, but being made from DIRT is far more special than being made from an APE!

And let us be thankful that we are not monotremes.

Yeah, cause then we'd have egg on our faces?

Nick Matzke said: The idea that ID was science was raised BY THE DEFENSE, in order to provide a secular purpose and secular effect.

Objective and honest persons know that there was zero chance of a Darwinian judge ruling in favor of his enemy.

Ray Martinez said: Objective and honest persons know that there was zero chance of a Darwinian judge ruling in favor of his enemy.

Doc Bill said:

Ray Martinez said: Objective and honest persons know that there was zero chance of a Darwinian judge ruling in favor of his enemy.

Ah, that would be Dembski who crowed that a George Bush, Republican, appointee was the PERFECT judge to rule against the Evil Darwinian Empire. How many blog postings were there CROWING about Judge Jones being a SLAM DUNK to put Darwin on Trial, just as Johnson wrote years before. Oh, oh, oh, can't wait. Then the Scoobie Doo moment, "Ruh Roh" and the creationists went nuts. "Oh, God, how could you have forsaken me?" Not the first time, eh? Not the last, either.

Nick Matzke said: I posted at SC: The idea that ID was science was raised BY THE DEFENSE, in order to provide a secular purpose and secular effect. Thus, the judge had 2 options (1) ignore their argument, attracting complaints that he didn't address the Defense's argument, and increasing the chance he would be overturned on appeal (which judges hate) -- at the time, an appeal seemed likely, based on School Board/Thomas More Law Center rhetoric; or (2) address the science argument straight on, in as thorough a way as possible. He chose #2. If he'd chosen #1, the DI would be "complaining" about that, and arguing that the decision was meaningless because it didn't address the crucial science question, which is the reason teaching ID has a secular purpose and secular effect despite religious implications. The ID movement has put forth that argument-from-science numerous times, often explicitly in discussion of legal matters, and fairly often in explicit "day in court" fantasies. I have a collection of them somewhere...

Crap. Stereo clucks.

"Another trial and all the way to the top," says Byers.

And the Black Knight re-enters the lists. "Come on, you pansy, I'll bite your kneecaps off".

And Martinez, who thinks that all he has to do is not get a "Darwinist" judge.

If there's ever another trial - unlikely, because the major creationist organisations know that rational examination of their position is fatal to them - it'll have exactly the same result, except that the damages will be more punitive, due to the recklessness of the attack on the plaintiff's Constitutional rights, in the light of Kitzmiller.

But by all means, Byers, Martinez. Bring it on. Have the courage of your convictions, though, not like the DI. It bailed, as soon as it became clear that this was going to court. It knew that the jig was up. Don't do that. Surely you can get activists of your kidney elected to some school board somewhere, if you pick the right district. Come on, do it. Support them to the hilt. Assault the hated Darwinism. Put your lives, your sacred honor, but especially your fortunes on the line. Put down your money and call. Demand to see the cards again. We'll all be delighted, over here.

Just Bob said: Oh, but being made from DIRT is far more special than being made from an APE!

Robert Byers said:

Nick Matzke said: I posted at SC: The idea that ID was science was raised BY THE DEFENSE, in order to provide a secular purpose and secular effect. Thus, the judge had 2 options (1) ignore their argument, attracting complaints that he didn't address the Defense's argument, and increasing the chance he would be overturned on appeal (which judges hate) -- at the time, an appeal seemed likely, based on School Board/Thomas More Law Center rhetoric; or (2) address the science argument straight on, in as thorough a way as possible. He chose #2. If he'd chosen #1, the DI would be "complaining" about that, and arguing that the decision was meaningless because it didn't address the crucial science question, which is the reason teaching ID has a secular purpose and secular effect despite religious implications. The ID movement has put forth that argument-from-science numerous times, often explicitly in discussion of legal matters, and fairly often in explicit "day in court" fantasies. I have a collection of them somewhere...

this is all wrong. All iD had to do is demand why it was being accused of drawing its conclusions from religious doctrine. They didn't need to prove they were doing science. Whatever that is. They obviously thought and presented to friend and foe that their conclusions were based on investigating natures evidence. like anything else, Its up to accusers to say the conclusions could only come from religion. They should of been forced to prove it. Which they couldn't do. ID was simply SOOOOO confident that it was so obvious thier methodology was scientific that they allowed a crazy questioning of thier methods. The judge really just made a private opinion that ID was wrong conclusions and, Like Larry Moran says, they were THIS not scientific. The judge is incompetent famously by this decision. Lawyers should not decide what is true in science or what science is. None of thier concern. Another trial and all the way to the top. ID and YEC can prove to the public its nuts to say thier serious, thoughtful conclusions are not based on natures evidence. Not bible verses. Anyways any censorship of truth is illegal and especially state censorship of religious conclusions SINCE they accuse them of religious conclusions.

Michael Fugate said:...could the designer be a bird?

Paul Burnett said:

Michael Fugate said:...could the designer be a bird?

The designer may have been a malaria protozoan who designed humans to be food for His people.

Dave Luckett said: "Another trial and all the way to the top," says Byers. And the Black Knight re-enters the lists. "Come on, you pansy, I'll bite your kneecaps off". And Martinez, who thinks that all he has to do is not get a "Darwinist" judge. If there's ever another trial - unlikely, because the major creationist organisations know that rational examination of their position is fatal to them - it'll have exactly the same result, except that the damages will be more punitive, due to the recklessness of the attack on the plaintiff's Constitutional rights, in the light of Kitzmiller. But by all means, Byers, Martinez. Bring it on. Have the courage of your convictions, though, not like the DI. It bailed, as soon as it became clear that this was going to court. It knew that the jig was up. Don't do that. Surely you can get activists of your kidney elected to some school board somewhere, if you pick the right district. Come on, do it. Support them to the hilt. Assault the hated Darwinism. Put your lives, your sacred honor, but especially your fortunes on the line. Put down your money and call. Demand to see the cards again. We'll all be delighted, over here.

Robert Byers said: All iD had to do is demand why it was being accused of drawing its conclusions from religious doctrine.

Its up to accusers to say the conclusions could only come from religion. They should of been forced to prove it. Which they couldn't do.

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

The Evolution of Antievolution Policies After Kitzmiller v. Dover
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2015/12/the-evolution-o-9.html

Eric Rothschild podcast on Kitzmiller v. Dover: https://soundcloud.com/penn-arts-sciences/kitzmiller-v-dover-podcast

eric said:

Robert Byers said: All iD had to do is demand why it was being accused of drawing its conclusions from religious doctrine.

And this was addressed specifically in the Kitzmiller case. Haven't you read the testimony and related documentation? The defense made your demand, and the plaintiffs responded with evidence and argument that OPAP was religious creationism. The Judge then ruled on that specific question; he ruled that, based on the evidence presented by both sides, OPAP was a form of religious creationist argument.

Its up to accusers to say the conclusions could only come from religion. They should of been forced to prove it. Which they couldn't do.

Well funnily enough, that's exactly what they did. And here is Judge Jones' finding, where he explicitly describes the proof that you say plaintiffs couldn't give:

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

Robert Byers said:

eric said:

Robert Byers said: All iD had to do is demand why it was being accused of drawing its conclusions from religious doctrine.

And this was addressed specifically in the Kitzmiller case. Haven't you read the testimony and related documentation? The defense made your demand, and the plaintiffs responded with evidence and argument that OPAP was religious creationism. The Judge then ruled on that specific question; he ruled that, based on the evidence presented by both sides, OPAP was a form of religious creationist argument.

Its up to accusers to say the conclusions could only come from religion. They should of been forced to prove it. Which they couldn't do.

Well funnily enough, that's exactly what they did. And here is Judge Jones' finding, where he explicitly describes the proof that you say plaintiffs couldn't give:

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

THATS the judges points? Another case please. THE CONSTITUTION said creationism isn't science?! No it didn't say that! Chapter and verse please. The constitution FORBIDS creationism being taught as science. Very bust founders fathers indeed. The Edwards case COURT found creationism to not be science and found it to be religious conclusions. the only thing the court could say is if its religious. Not of their business to judge what science is or is not. no authority. period. If they can't find creationism to be religious without first finding it to be not science thats too bad. This should of been argued. The court got away with making two conclusions of which ot only had authority to make one. Finally why is 'religious" conclusions on origins illegal? is not the truth the objective of education aND THE RIGHT OF STUDENTS. argue that ID. Is the state saying these religious conclusions on origins is false? What right to say that? Indeed its illegal. Isn't this what they invoke for the censorship?

Robert Byers said: Finally why is 'religious" conclusions on origins illegal? is not the truth the objective of education aND THE RIGHT OF STUDENTS. argue that ID. Is the state saying these religious conclusions on origins is false? What right to say that? Indeed its [sic] illegal. Isn't this what they invoke for the censorship?

gnome de net said:

Robert Byers said: Finally why is 'religious" conclusions on origins illegal? is not the truth the objective of education aND THE RIGHT OF STUDENTS. argue that ID. Is the state saying these religious conclusions on origins is false? What right to say that? Indeed its [sic] illegal. Isn't this what they invoke for the censorship?

Read and repeat each of the following sentences veeeery sloooowly: Religious conclusions on origins are not scientific conclusions on origins. Religious conclusions are not scientific conclusions. Religion is not science. Religious subjects are taught in a class about religion. Scientific subjects are taught in a class about science. Religious subjects cannot be taught in a class about science. Teaching a religious subject in a science class in a tax-supported public school would be like locking the church doors after every Sunday morning service to prevent the congregation from leaving, and then teaching them about — shudder — E-V-O-L-U-T-I-O-N!

Robert Byers said:

gnome de net said:

Robert Byers said: Finally why is 'religious" conclusions on origins illegal? is not the truth the objective of education aND THE RIGHT OF STUDENTS. argue that ID. Is the state saying these religious conclusions on origins is false? What right to say that? Indeed its [sic] illegal. Isn't this what they invoke for the censorship?

Read and repeat each of the following sentences veeeery sloooowly: Religious conclusions on origins are not scientific conclusions on origins. Religious conclusions are not scientific conclusions. Religion is not science. Religious subjects are taught in a class about religion. Scientific subjects are taught in a class about science. Religious subjects cannot be taught in a class about science. Teaching a religious subject in a science class in a tax-supported public school would be like locking the church doors after every Sunday morning service to prevent the congregation from leaving, and then teaching them about — shudder — E-V-O-L-U-T-I-O-N!

You don't understand my points backing my point that this is a legal matter first. First things first.

Robert Byers first said: Finally why is 'religious" conclusions on origins illegal? is not the truth the objective of education aND THE RIGHT OF STUDENTS. argue that ID. Is the state saying these religious conclusions on origins is false? What right to say that? Indeed its [sic] illegal. Isn't this what they invoke for the censorship?

gnome de net then said: Read and repeat each of the following sentences veeeery sloooowly: Religious conclusions on origins are not scientific conclusions on origins. Religious conclusions are not scientific conclusions. Religion is not science. Religious subjects are taught in a class about religion. Scientific subjects are taught in a class about science. Religious subjects cannot be taught in a class about science. Teaching a religious subject in a science class in a tax-supported public school would be like locking the church doors after every Sunday morning service to prevent the congregation from leaving, and then teaching them about — shudder — E-V-O-L-U-T-I-O-N!

Robert Byers responded: You don't understand my points backing my point that this is a legal matter first. First things first.

gnome de net said:

Robert Byers first said: Finally why is 'religious" conclusions on origins illegal? is not the truth the objective of education aND THE RIGHT OF STUDENTS. argue that ID. Is the state saying these religious conclusions on origins is false? What right to say that? Indeed its [sic] illegal. Isn't this what they invoke for the censorship?

gnome de net then said: Read and repeat each of the following sentences veeeery sloooowly: Religious conclusions on origins are not scientific conclusions on origins. Religious conclusions are not scientific conclusions. Religion is not science. Religious subjects are taught in a class about religion. Scientific subjects are taught in a class about science. Religious subjects cannot be taught in a class about science. Teaching a religious subject in a science class in a tax-supported public school would be like locking the church doors after every Sunday morning service to prevent the congregation from leaving, and then teaching them about — shudder — E-V-O-L-U-T-I-O-N!

Robert Byers responded: You don't understand my points backing my point that this is a legal matter first. First things first.

OK. The legal matter. Religious conclusions on origins are not illegal. IOW, any religious conclusion on origins is legal; it just can't be legally taught as science in a government-supported public-school science class if it isn't science. The religious conclusions of ID/Creationism have not been reached scientifically; therefore, they are not scientific alternatives to Evolution and are not permitted in such a science classroom. The state is not saying these religious conclusions on origins are false; nor is the state saying they're true. To do either would be illegal because the Establishment Clause of the Constitution's First Amendment prohibits such a decision, just as it prohibits favoring any religious conclusion over any other religious conclusion. To favor one over another would represent establishment, which is prohibited. There is no censorship of religious conclusions on origins; just a few times and places where they're inappropriate. Just like nobody should either object to you driving safely on a highway, or approve of you driving on a crowded sidewalk. Have I now satisfied your demand for "First things first"?

Robert Byers said: Do you agree it means the state is opining on religious truth?

Robert Byers said:

gnome de net said:

Robert Byers first said: Finally why is 'religious" conclusions on origins illegal? is not the truth the objective of education aND THE RIGHT OF STUDENTS. argue that ID. Is the state saying these religious conclusions on origins is false? What right to say that? Indeed its [sic] illegal. Isn't this what they invoke for the censorship?

gnome de net then said: Read and repeat each of the following sentences veeeery sloooowly: Religious conclusions on origins are not scientific conclusions on origins. Religious conclusions are not scientific conclusions. Religion is not science. Religious subjects are taught in a class about religion. Scientific subjects are taught in a class about science. Religious subjects cannot be taught in a class about science. Teaching a religious subject in a science class in a tax-supported public school would be like locking the church doors after every Sunday morning service to prevent the congregation from leaving, and then teaching them about — shudder — E-V-O-L-U-T-I-O-N!

Robert Byers responded: You don't understand my points backing my point that this is a legal matter first. First things first.

OK. The legal matter. Religious conclusions on origins are not illegal. IOW, any religious conclusion on origins is legal; it just can't be legally taught as science in a government-supported public-school science class if it isn't science. The religious conclusions of ID/Creationism have not been reached scientifically; therefore, they are not scientific alternatives to Evolution and are not permitted in such a science classroom. The state is not saying these religious conclusions on origins are false; nor is the state saying they're true. To do either would be illegal because the Establishment Clause of the Constitution's First Amendment prohibits such a decision, just as it prohibits favoring any religious conclusion over any other religious conclusion. To favor one over another would represent establishment, which is prohibited. There is no censorship of religious conclusions on origins; just a few times and places where they're inappropriate. Just like nobody should either object to you driving safely on a highway, or approve of you driving on a crowded sidewalk. Have I now satisfied your demand for "First things first"?

Yes for the attempt but... Your most wrong on point one. What they say is illegal is the religious conclusion on origins. Its not that it is illegal because its not science. They don't say what you say. They are banning religious conclusions.on origins in school as actual explanations. Not as science explanations. Even your side would not say the constitution refers to science classes. Its religion period. This is my point. AMEN . The state can't say religious conclusions are false. Yet in banning them as a option in subjects dedicated to truth they are saying this. They are not saying religious conclusions are banned in science class. They are banned period. In saying they are not true they are picking sides. Why do you need to persuade yourself its only false science being banned? Do you disagree religious conclusions can benned? Do you agree it means the state is opining on religious truth? Hmm.

Robert Byers said: Your most wrong on point one. What they say is illegal is the religious conclusion on origins. Its not that it is illegal because its not science. They don't say what you say. They are banning religious conclusions.on origins in school as actual explanations. Not as science explanations. Even your side would not say the constitution refers to science classes. Its religion period. This is my point. AMEN . The state can't say religious conclusions are false. Yet in banning them as a option in subjects dedicated to truth they are saying this. They are not saying religious conclusions are banned in science class. They are banned period. In saying they are not true they are picking sides. Why do you need to persuade yourself its only false science being banned? Do you disagree religious conclusions can benned? Do you agree it means the state is opining on religious truth? Hmm.

@ Robert Byers:

As some one has already noted elsewhere, science doesn't care where an explanation comes from — religion, aliens, or notes found in your grandfather's old hat up in the attic — as long as the explanation withstands scientific scrutiny.

gnome de net said:

Robert Byers said: Your most wrong on point one. What they say is illegal is the religious conclusion on origins. Its not that it is illegal because its not science. They don't say what you say. They are banning religious conclusions.on origins in school as actual explanations. Not as science explanations. Even your side would not say the constitution refers to science classes. Its religion period. This is my point. AMEN . The state can't say religious conclusions are false. Yet in banning them as a option in subjects dedicated to truth they are saying this. They are not saying religious conclusions are banned in science class. They are banned period. In saying they are not true they are picking sides. Why do you need to persuade yourself its only false science being banned? Do you disagree religious conclusions can benned? Do you agree it means the state is opining on religious truth? Hmm.

The court ruled only that Intelligent Design could not be taught in a public school biology class (which is a science class) because Intelligent Design is not science. That. Is. All. The court did not rule that Intelligent Design's conclusions on origins are either true or false. The court did not rule that Intelligent Design's conclusions on origins could not be taught in some other public school class like Social Studies, Current Events, or Comparative Religions for example. The court did not rule that Intelligent Design's conclusions on origins could not be taught in church's Sunday School class or in a private school. The court did not rule that Intelligent Design's conclusions on origins could not be the subject of a pastor's sermon. The court did not rule that Intelligent Design's conclusions on origins could not be the subject of a print book or eBook available from amazon.com or a brick-and-mortar book store. The court did not rule that Intelligent Design's conclusions on origins could not be discussed online or in restaurants or taverns or living rooms throughout the country. Where do you find that Intelligent Design's conclusions on origins have been "banned period"? "Why do you need to persuade yourself" that you are being censored and persecuted?

Robert Byers said:Those are science classes. That is they deal with what are the true origins of this or that. ... I think I'm right here.

Robert Byers said:

gnome de net said:

Robert Byers said: Your most wrong on point one. What they say is illegal is the religious conclusion on origins. Its not that it is illegal because its not science. They don't say what you say. They are banning religious conclusions.on origins in school as actual explanations. Not as science explanations. Even your side would not say the constitution refers to science classes. Its religion period. This is my point. AMEN . The state can't say religious conclusions are false. Yet in banning them as a option in subjects dedicated to truth they are saying this. They are not saying religious conclusions are banned in science class. They are banned period. In saying they are not true they are picking sides. Why do you need to persuade yourself its only false science being banned? Do you disagree religious conclusions can benned? Do you agree it means the state is opining on religious truth? Hmm.

The court ruled only that Intelligent Design could not be taught in a public school biology class (which is a science class) because Intelligent Design is not science. That. Is. All. The court did not rule that Intelligent Design's conclusions on origins are either true or false. The court did not rule that Intelligent Design's conclusions on origins could not be taught in some other public school class like Social Studies, Current Events, or Comparative Religions for example. The court did not rule that Intelligent Design's conclusions on origins could not be taught in church's Sunday School class or in a private school. The court did not rule that Intelligent Design's conclusions on origins could not be the subject of a pastor's sermon. The court did not rule that Intelligent Design's conclusions on origins could not be the subject of a print book or eBook available from amazon.com or a brick-and-mortar book store. The court did not rule that Intelligent Design's conclusions on origins could not be discussed online or in restaurants or taverns or living rooms throughout the country. Where do you find that Intelligent Design's conclusions on origins have been "banned period"? "Why do you need to persuade yourself" that you are being censored and persecuted?

Your wrong or I am. Lets work this out. ID was offered as another option in classes dealing with origins. Those are science classes. That is they deal with what are the true origins of this or that. Someone took them to court. SAYING it was illegal in the constitution etc for ID to be taught in same class. they did not say it was illegal in the constitution to teach iD because it was not science. It was illegal to teach it BECAUSE m After finding it not to be science, it was found to be religious. SO ILLEGAL. YOUR truing to say , without anyone else correcting you her by the way, that the court only found iD not to be science. The court has no right or interest for such a thing. NO. The court found iD to be religious, after finding it was not science. So banning ID. Then I make my case why this is illegal by the very law it invokes for the censorship. You need to prove the courts were only decoding if iD was science. What does that matter as you see it if only this was the courts job?? ITS a court. Its about the law and not scientific philosophy. I think I'm right here.

From https://www.bu.edu/lawlibrary/PDFs/research/portals/probonofiles/kitzmiller.pdf — [emphasis added] 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. [snip] To conclude and reiterate, we express no opinion on the ultimate veracity of ID as a supernatural explanation. However, we commend to the attention of those who are inclined to superficially consider ID to be a true "scientific" alternative to evolution without a true understanding of the concept the foregoing detailed analysis. It is our view that a reasonable, objective observer would, after reviewing both the voluminous record in this case, and our narrative, reach the inescapable conclusion that ID is an interesting theological argument, but that it is not science.

Robert Byers said: After finding it not to be science, it was found to be religious. [snip] The court found iD to be religious, after finding it was not science.

Where do you find that Intelligent Design's conclusions on origins have been "banned period"? "Why do you need to persuade yourself" that you are being censored and persecuted?

Bobsie said:

Robert Byers said:Those are science classes. That is they deal with what are the true origins of this or that. ... I think I'm right here.

Science deals exclusively with what the empirical evidence tells us. Nothing more. Unless you can bring compelling empirical evidence, whatever you "believe" is true is irrelevant in science. So no Robert, you're thinking is wrong. No matter that you can't get your head around it, truth is in the evidence, not your mind.

Robert Byers said:

Bobsie said:

Robert Byers said:Those are science classes. That is they deal with what are the true origins of this or that. ... I think I'm right here.

Science deals exclusively with what the empirical evidence tells us. Nothing more. Unless you can bring compelling empirical evidence, whatever you "believe" is true is irrelevant in science. So no Robert, you're thinking is wrong. No matter that you can't get your head around it, truth is in the evidence, not your mind.

Thats not what these court decisions said. They didn't rule against empirical science frauds. They ruled against religious conclusions. It was a one, two punch but only the second punch is what they ruled on or could. Why do you guys get shy about this. Its like your uncomforatable with state censorship!

gnome de net said:

Robert Byers said: After finding it not to be science, it was found to be religious. [snip] The court found iD to be religious, after finding it was not science.

Perhaps it wasn't clear above but the Court found ID to be religious first (the Plaintiffs' argument confirmed), and unscientific second (the Defendants' argument denied). Also, Robert, repeating a falsehood doesn't make it true. Also also,

Where do you find that Intelligent Design's conclusions on origins have been "banned period"? "Why do you need to persuade yourself" that you are being censored and persecuted?

Robert Byers said:

Bobsie said:

Robert Byers said:Those are science classes. That is they deal with what are the true origins of this or that. ... I think I'm right here.

Science deals exclusively with what the empirical evidence tells us. Nothing more. Unless you can bring compelling empirical evidence, whatever you "believe" is true is irrelevant in science. So no Robert, you're thinking is wrong. No matter that you can't get your head around it, truth is in the evidence, not your mind.

Thats not what these court decisions said. They didn't rule against empirical science frauds. They ruled against religious conclusions. It was a one, two punch but only the second punch is what they ruled on or could. Why do you guys get shy about this. Its like your uncomforatable with state censorship!

thats tioght booby, you were censored the judges ruled that you religions was incorrecto and wroing they is a banned in the US of a next we is comin for canada you will not be allowed to blelieve anything no more what is yous gonna dos abouts its

Robert,

You refuse to acknowledge that this was an attempt to wedge religion/non-science into a science class. As true as the religion/non-science might be, it is not a scientific truth. Even if the accepted science is flawed, it must be challenged by something that is scientifically as good or better. Otherwise it's no longer a science class.

Although you want it to be more and wish that it had been more, that's all this case is about.

In a French class, should students be taught German? In a music class, should they be taught bookkeeping/accounting? Would you want students in a religion class to be taught nuclear physics?

Instead of getting a headache from bouncing off the Wall of Separation in an exercise in futility, focus all of your admirably inexhaustible energy on creating an acceptable class for a public K-12 school that could explore these and other approaches to The Truth™. Your chances of success would be immeasurably improved.

Robert, I will ask the same thing I asked Ray:
If you want your creationism taught in schools, then all you need do is tell us who the designer is and how you know that. You need to tell us how, what, where, when and why it designed, made, created - whatever you want to call it. Give us a supernatural science.

Creationists are fools - they tie their belief in God to observable nature. If nature says common descent and their religion says that can't be true, then they have a nasty choice either deny nature or deny God.

gnome de net said: Robert, You refuse to acknowledge that this was an attempt to wedge religion/non-science into a science class. As true as the religion/non-science might be, it is not a scientific truth. Even if the accepted science is flawed, it must be challenged by something that is scientifically as good or better. Otherwise it's no longer a science class. Although you want it to be more and wish that it had been more, that's all this case is about. In a French class, should students be taught German? In a music class, should they be taught bookkeeping/accounting? Would you want students in a religion class to be taught nuclear physics? Instead of getting a headache from bouncing off the Wall of Separation in an exercise in futility, focus all of your admirably inexhaustible energy on creating an acceptable class for a public K-12 school that could explore these and other approaches to The Truth™. Your chances of success would be immeasurably improved.

Robert Byers said:

gnome de net said: Robert, You refuse to acknowledge that this was an attempt to wedge religion/non-science into a science class. As true as the religion/non-science might be, it is not a scientific truth. Even if the accepted science is flawed, it must be challenged by something that is scientifically as good or better. Otherwise it's no longer a science class. Although you want it to be more and wish that it had been more, that's all this case is about. In a French class, should students be taught German? In a music class, should they be taught bookkeeping/accounting? Would you want students in a religion class to be taught nuclear physics? Instead of getting a headache from bouncing off the Wall of Separation in an exercise in futility, focus all of your admirably inexhaustible energy on creating an acceptable class for a public K-12 school that could explore these and other approaches to The Truth™. Your chances of success would be immeasurably improved.

There is no conspiracy wedge. The purpose is to teach the truth on origins where classes teach about it. The censorship by the state is illegal. The court decision censored ID by saying it was religious conclusions and so illegal. They did not censor it because it was not scientific. They only used the NOT SCIENCE stuff to lead to it being a religious thing. IIts none of the business of judges to decide what is science. They have no authority or ability or any right of anyone to care what they think. ID should of said it was up to them to prove ID was a religious thing. NOT say prove its not science. A mistake. anyways bigger cases easily can be brought up to overthrow the whole censorship from the state in education. The people will decide if ID or evolution are science. Science class is really origin conclusion class amongst other matters. Its about the truth in origins. Science is about figuring out better what is true. Banning cLAIMED religious conclusions is illegal as it means they are not a option for the truth. The use of the separation stuff in reality goes both ways. ID and yEC are anyways clearly scientific ideas. Right or wrong they use science methodology as much as anyone. They are not doing something else. They are not trying to be unscientific. As one of the jUdges points said. ONE can not oppose conclusion in science. SURE YOU CAN> The judge is laughable wrong.

hey booby, Ray has been hanging around here claiming that species is immutable A mistake. why dont you be settin him to sraights SURE YOU can you know tell him about how reproduction is just a minor trait that can vary in an instant like. NOT say prove its not possible.

Robert Byers said: The people will decide if ID or evolution are science.

Robert Byers said: There is no conspiracy wedge. The purpose is to teach the truth on origins where classes teach about it. The censorship by the state is illegal. The court decision censored ID by saying it was religious conclusions and so illegal. They did not censor it because it was not scientific. They only used the NOT SCIENCE stuff to lead to it being a religious thing. IIts none of the business of judges to decide what is science. They have no authority or ability or any right of anyone to care what they think. ID should of said it was up to them to prove ID was a religious thing. NOT say prove its not science. A mistake. anyways bigger cases easily can be brought up to overthrow the whole censorship from the state in education. The people will decide if ID or evolution are science. Science class is really origin conclusion class amongst other matters. Its about the truth in origins. Science is about figuring out better what is true. Banning cLAIMED religious conclusions is illegal as it means they are not a option for the truth. The use of the separation stuff in reality goes both ways. ID and yEC are anyways clearly scientific ideas. Right or wrong they use science methodology as much as anyone. They are not doing something else. They are not trying to be unscientific. As one of the jUdges points said. ONE can not oppose conclusion in science. SURE YOU CAN> The judge is laughable wrong.

The people will decide if ID or evolution are science.

Nick Matzke said: I posted at SC: The idea that ID was science was raised BY THE DEFENSE, in order to provide a secular purpose and secular effect. Thus, the judge had 2 options (1) ignore their argument, attracting complaints that he didn't address the Defense's argument, and increasing the chance he would be overturned on appeal (which judges hate) -- at the time, an appeal seemed likely, based on School Board/Thomas More Law Center rhetoric; or (2) address the science argument straight on, in as thorough a way as possible. He chose #2. If he'd chosen #1, the DI would be "complaining" about that, and arguing that the decision was meaningless because it didn't address the crucial science question, which is the reason teaching ID has a secular purpose and secular effect despite religious implications. The ID movement has put forth that argument-from-science numerous times, often explicitly in discussion of legal matters, and fairly often in explicit "day in court" fantasies. I have a collection of them somewhere...

Robert Byers said: There is no conspiracy wedge. The purpose is to teach the truth on origins where classes teach about it. The censorship by the state is illegal. The court decision censored ID by saying it was religious conclusions and so illegal. They did not censor it because it was not scientific. They only used the NOT SCIENCE stuff to lead to it being a religious thing.

(1) There is no conspiracy wedge.

(2) The purpose is to teach the truth on origins where classes teach about it.

(3) The censorship by the state is illegal.

(4) The court decision censored ID by saying it was religious conclusions and so illegal.

(5) They did not censor it because it was not scientific.

(6) They only used the NOT SCIENCE stuff to lead to it being a religious thing.

https://www.bu.edu/lawlibrary/PDFs/research/portals/probonofiles/kitzmiller.pdf [again, emphasis added] 1. [Whether] An Objective Observer Would Know that ID and Teaching About "Gaps" and "Problems" in Evolutionary Theory are Creationist, Religious Strategies that Evolved from Earlier Forms of Creationism 2. Whether an Objective Student Would View the Disclaimer as a [sic] Official Endorsement of Religion 3. Whether an Objective Dover Citizen Would Perceive Defendants' Conduct to be an Endorsement of Religion 4. Whether ID is Science

gdn
The sum of what you said.
It doesn't matter if anyone asked the court to rule on the science of ID. They did not rule ID was illegal because it was not science. They ruled that because IT was not science it was religious.
You said a double barrel sho. NOPE. One barrel is all the court could judge on. The science thing is just a aid to the judge.
ONE BARREL shot did this frontier judge fire.

The moral demand and absolutely backed by the government/constitution is to teach the truth. Its not up to teachers or courts or elites to decide the truth if choices must be made. Would you allow a creationist teacher to pick ID/YEC and not evolution?
So iy must be up to the people to decide if something is worthy to be taught the kids as truth.

If the state(and the constitution makes it the state) censors one side then EITHER the state is saying the side censored is not true OR truth is not the priority objective in school. IN the former its clearly illegal by the law invoked for the censorship and in the latter its an absurdity Especially in science class where science is meant to more accurately get to the truth.
NO. All censorship here is illegal.
NOW.
Later can the people(legislature) voye ID is not science. YES. Likewise they can vote it is. Otherwise who judges?

Thats my case and I insist ID/TEC have a great case. many other points also.
These decisions were laughingly bad from these obscure judges.

I don't see your point here in opposition. ITS like you want to believe the judge only DECIDED if iD was science. He didn't decide it was a theology(his words).
Jis only legal decision was the religious one and what the lawsuit was about.
You also seem to think if iD was shown to be science, or this judge wrongly was persuaded it was science, then it would not of been ruled as religious or only half religious.
HMMM.
I say the only reason it was found religious was because it was not science. No option for bad science of coming from drug induced dreams. In fact the judge clearly said it was not science bECAUSE it was saying accepted scientific conclusions were wrong.
In short no one can question accepted scientific conclusions but is be definition unscientific and religious.
A other laughable claim of this Judge.

In reality the judge just said the conclusion nullified its methodology claims to science.
The judge said iD was not true because he said so. SO its not science and so its theology.

i gues i'm alsi saying ID proving its science would of made no difference. The decision of it being religion was in its methodology or otherwise the judge is saying it had nothing to do with methodology but only conclusions.
obviously it was just conclusions. Obviously.

Robert Byers said: gdn The sum of what you said. It doesn't matter if anyone asked the court to rule on the science of ID. They did not rule ID was illegal because it was not science. They ruled that because IT was not science it was religious. You said a double barrel sho. NOPE. One barrel is all the court could judge on. The science thing is just a aid to the judge. ONE BARREL shot did this frontier judge fire. The moral demand and absolutely backed by the government/constitution is to teach the truth. Its not up to teachers or courts or elites to decide the truth if choices must be made. Would you allow a creationist teacher to pick ID/YEC and not evolution? So iy must be up to the people to decide if something is worthy to be taught the kids as truth. If the state(and the constitution makes it the state) censors one side then EITHER the state is saying the side censored is not true OR truth is not the priority objective in school. IN the former its clearly illegal by the law invoked for the censorship and in the latter its an absurdity Especially in science class where science is meant to more accurately get to the truth. NO. All censorship here is illegal. NOW. Later can the people(legislature) voye ID is not science. YES. Likewise they can vote it is. Otherwise who judges? Thats my case and I insist ID/TEC have a great case. many other points also. These decisions were laughingly bad from these obscure judges. I don't see your point here in opposition. ITS like you want to believe the judge only DECIDED if iD was science. He didn't decide it was a theology(his words). Jis only legal decision was the religious one and what the lawsuit was about. You also seem to think if iD was shown to be science, or this judge wrongly was persuaded it was science, then it would not of been ruled as religious or only half religious. HMMM. I say the only reason it was found religious was because it was not science. No option for bad science of coming from drug induced dreams. In fact the judge clearly said it was not science bECAUSE it was saying accepted scientific conclusions were wrong. In short no one can question accepted scientific conclusions but is be definition unscientific and religious. A other laughable claim of this Judge. In reality the judge just said the conclusion nullified its methodology claims to science. The judge said iD was not true because he said so. SO its not science and so its theology. i gues i'm alsi saying ID proving its science would of made no difference. The decision of it being religion was in its methodology or otherwise the judge is saying it had nothing to do with methodology but only conclusions. obviously it was just conclusions. Obviously.

phhht said: Gods you're dumb, Byers.

Robert Byers said: They did not rule ID was illegal because it was not science. They ruled that because IT was not science it was religious.

The moral demand and absolutely backed by the government/constitution is to teach the truth.

Later can the people(legislature) voye ID is not science. YES. Likewise they can vote it is.

You also seem to think if iD was shown to be science, or this judge wrongly was persuaded it was science, then it would not of been ruled as religious or only half religious.

I say the only reason it was found religious was because it was not science.

No option for bad science of coming from drug induced dreams.

In fact the judge clearly said it was not science bECAUSE it was saying accepted scientific conclusions were wrong.

i gues i'm alsi saying ID proving its science would of made no difference.

Scott F said:

Robert Byers said: They did not rule ID was illegal because it was not science. They ruled that because IT was not science it was religious.

This statement is wrong, and contradicted by all the evidence.

The moral demand and absolutely backed by the government/constitution is to teach the truth.

This statement is wrong, and contradicted by all the evidence.

Later can the people(legislature) voye ID is not science. YES. Likewise they can vote it is.

This statement is wrong, and contradicted by all the evidence. Science is not subject to a vote by "the people".

You also seem to think if iD was shown to be science, or this judge wrongly was persuaded it was science, then it would not of been ruled as religious or only half religious.

This statement is wrong, and contradicted by all the evidence. GNE did not say that. Go back and re-read what he said and try again.

I say the only reason it was found religious was because it was not science.

It doesn't matter how many times you repeat it, this statement is still wrong.

No option for bad science of coming from drug induced dreams.

This statement is not even wrong.

In fact the judge clearly said it was not science bECAUSE it was saying accepted scientific conclusions were wrong.

This statement is wrong, and contradicted by all the evidence.

i gues i'm alsi saying ID proving its science would of made no difference.

No matter how many times you repeat it, this statement is still wrong. Okay, Robert. I've skipped a few, because I couldn't understand them. Basically, I could not find a single sentence that you wrote that was in any way correct, right, true, or in any way connected to reality. You really do exist on a different planet. GNE is correct. You read things that aren't there, while ignoring things that are. It must be an amazing gift to be so talented.

Robert Byers said: Its about understanding, fully, legal decisions and when they are wrong or right. anyone can and should do it. It was an interesting debate here. I have had lots on the legal matters in these matters. I say its impossible to find legal standing, in the constitution, for censorship on subjects of human inquiry/science. So any decision can be shown to have failed as i did here if one keeps up with the line of reasoning. Several matters are going on. Yet finally the judge really said the ID folks had the wrong answer and so it was a religious answer/theology and so not science. An absurdity to have judges decide truth. Anyways banning religious conclusions, which they were not, is illegal in subject seeking accurate conclusions or otherwise the state is giving a opinion on religious conclusions and obviously breaking the law it invokes for the censorship.

Robert Byers said: An absurdity to have judges decide truth.

emphasis added for clarity Anyways banning religious conclusions, which they were not, is illegal in subject seeking accurate conclusions or otherwise the state is giving a opinion on religious conclusion and obviously breaking the law it invokes for the censorship.

Re "Declare victory. "

I WIN!

What?

Oh.