Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
Reading some posts in the Creation-only forum, I stumbled across a couple posts in this thread (posts 18 and 19):
I'm a prosecutor, so I guess I usually think in terms of evidence and competing interpretations of evidence. I think that theories that seek to explain history and origins are more akin to theories of a criminal case (i.e., the best interpretation of evidence) and very different than most other scientific theories that can be tested by repeating experiments.
Interesting that you say that. I am lawyer too. The scientists don't understand evidence and burdens of proof, and varying standards of proof. They are so woefully clueless, and yet indignant when you suggest that maybe their science degrees aren't enough to evaluate all the issues in this debate.
What I find particular odd about these comments is that if you look at court cases ever since the Scopes trial, creationism and ID hasn't exactly fared very well. In fact, real science has pretty much dominated the legal arena any time its faced with a challenge.
I just find it really odd when people with expertise completely outside the scientific arena act like they're more qualified to judge science than people with expertise within the scientific arena.
__________________ Creationism has not made a single contribution to agriculture, medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area of biology. Creationism has yielded no classifications, no biogeographies, no underlying mechanisms, no unifying concepts with which to study organisms or life. - Botanical Society of America's Statement on Evolution
Last edited by Pete Harcoff; 28th October 2009 at 10:47 PM.
I agree. There's some really irritating bully-boy lawyer who's high-up in the DI. And they've been pwned every time in court. And they still don't seem to grasp that the burden of proof is on them, which makes it even more laughable that they think we need to be doing it. Dunning-Kruger cases, maybe.
I'll stick to the old ways, thanks very much - not done us too badly so far!
I agree. There's some really irritating bully-boy lawyer who's high-up in the DI. And they've been pwned every time in court. And they still don't seem to grasp that the burden of proof is on them, which makes it even more laughable that they think we need to be doing it. Dunning-Kruger cases, maybe.
Are you thinking of Casey Luskin?
Of course, there's also Phillip Johnson. I wonder if Darwin on Trial has anything to do with the attitude that standards of law somehow apply to science.
I'll stick to the old ways, thanks very much - not done us too badly so far!
Agreed.
__________________ Creationism has not made a single contribution to agriculture, medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area of biology. Creationism has yielded no classifications, no biogeographies, no underlying mechanisms, no unifying concepts with which to study organisms or life. - Botanical Society of America's Statement on Evolution
No, perhaps the guy I'm thinking of isn't part of DI, but I'm sure I saw him in the DI segment on Expelled *shudders*
Of course, there's also Phillip Johnson. I wonder if Darwin on Trial has anything to do with the attitude that standards of law somehow apply to science.
Maybe he can have a judge fix it so that the AIDS virus doesn't exist anymore.
What I find telling are those who tout themselves as creation scientists but in fact their training lies in Law, a profession were selling your point of view to people and making a case based on word of law are the name of the game. A thing many real scientists are not quite as apt at.
__________________ "I would still reply, that the knavery and folly of men are such common phenomena, that I should rather believe the most extraordinary events to arise from their concurrence, than admit of so signal a violation of the laws of nature."
-David Hume
I wonder what those lawyers would do if their client's DNA matched the DNA found at the crime scene. Would they try and argue that the DNA at the crime scene was not from a common source but put there by a common designer? Would they then demand that the prosecutor disprove the existence of this invisible, unevidenced, and untestable designer?
What these two don't seem to understand is that the science is the same. Past events produce evidence that can be analyzed in the present. It doesn't matter if that evidence is a fossil, a fingerprint, or DNA.
__________________ “Because they know not the forces of nature, and in order that they may have comrades in their ignorance, they suffer not that others should search out anything, and would have us believe like rustics and ask no reason...But we ask in all things a reason must be sought.” --William of Conches (c. 1090 – after 1154)
I wonder what those lawyers would do if their client's DNA matched the DNA found at the crime scene. Would they try and argue that the DNA at the crime scene was not from a common source but put there by a common designer? Would they then demand that the prosecutor disprove the existence of this invisible, unevidenced, and untestable designer?
What these two don't seem to understand is that the science is the same. Past events produce evidence that can be analyzed in the present. It doesn't matter if that evidence is a fossil, a fingerprint, or DNA.
Waits for dad.
__________________
Spoiler for Some Good Rules for Christians:
Luke 10:27 (Love God Above All, And Your Neighbor as yourself) And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.
Matthew 7:12 (Do unto others)
Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.
Matthew 5:43-48 (Pray for those that persecute you)
Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
Luke 6:27-29 (Love your enemies.)
But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you, Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you. And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloak forbid not to take thy coat also.
Originally Posted by Saint Augustine
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. dir="ltr">
If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books.
Isaiah 8:12-13 (NIV) "Do not call conspiracy everything that these people call conspiracy; do not fear what they fear, and do not dread it. The Lord Almighty is the one you are to regard as holy, he is the one you are to fear, he is the one you are to dread."
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
__________________ "A belief which leaves no place for doubt is not a belief; it is a superstition." - Jose Bergamin
"You can't trust an honest man." --- Anonymous
"He does not believe who does not live according to his belief." -- Thomas Fuller
"The fact that the author thinks slowly is not serious, but the fact that he publishes faster than he thinks is inexcusable." -- Wolfgang Pauli
"He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?" -- Micah 6:8
"It is because we believe absurdities that we are able to commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
"This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." -- Wolfgang Pauli
"Je ne suis pas marxiste." -- Karl Marx
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so."-- Mark Twain
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." -- Albert Einstein
Then perhaps the laywers should argue that the universe was created last Thursday, including invented evidence that falsely convicts their client. They would then require the prosecuting attorney to prove that the Universe was not created last Thursday complete with false memories and false evidence.
__________________ “Because they know not the forces of nature, and in order that they may have comrades in their ignorance, they suffer not that others should search out anything, and would have us believe like rustics and ask no reason...But we ask in all things a reason must be sought.” --William of Conches (c. 1090 – after 1154)
Linear Mode
