Transcripts of Evo/ID legal battle in Dover, PA

[john crawford]

An intelligently designed legal attack is exposing the soft underbelly of neo-Darwinist facism in public education.

Fascinating details emerging from the court transcripts of the historic Evo/ID legal battle in PA.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover.html

 

[nvxplorer]

LOL

From racism to fascism. Is this your new shtick, John?

 

[KerrMetric]

An intelligently designed legal attack is exposing the soft underbelly of neo-Darwinist facism in public education.

Fascinating details emerging from the court transcripts of the historic Evo/ID legal battle in PA.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover.html

ROTFLMAO. I thought you didn't trust talkorigins links. Changing your mind?

 

[Nathan Poe]

ROTFLMAO. I thought you didn't trust talkorigins links. Changing your mind?

Creationists trust anything that tells them what they want to hear; don't you know that by now?

 

[GoSeminoles!]

An intelligently designed legal attack is exposing the soft underbelly of neo-Darwinist facism in public education.

I enjoy exposing what's under my belly.

Heil Hitler.

 

[Loudmouth]

An intelligently designed legal attack is exposing the soft underbelly of neo-Darwinist facism in public education.

What was exposed was that the book "Of Pandas and People" was edited to fly under the radar. All they did was replace the word "God" with "Intelligent Designer" and then tried to pretend it wasn't a creationist book.

Instead of hurling epithets perhaps you could present some science? What scientific evidence did the legal team provide? Why is this a legal attack? Shouldn't IDsts be pursuing a scientific attack?

Fascinating details emerging from the court transcripts of the historic Evo/ID legal battle in PA.

Read some of the transcripts from Day 1. Kenneth Miller tore the ID crowd a new one, ripping up argument after argument found in "Of Pandas and People."

 

[michabo]

I enjoy exposing what's under my belly.

Under my belly is just my colon which... ah, I see. Yes, that is a good description of the ID argument.

 

[john crawford]

LOL

From racism to fascism. Is this your new shtick, John?

Obviously, I'm a switch hitter and can bat left and right when combatting racial prejudice and academic facism in public high schools and universities.

Where 'ya been? Don't tell me you're as obsessed with neo-Darwinist facism as with my posts on neo-Darwinist racism. Did you read any of the transcripts?

 

[ChrisPelletier]

Not to come off as overly lazy, but are there any MP3's?

 

[john crawford]

ROTFLMAO. I thought you didn't trust talkorigins links. Changing your mind?

Hey, when they're just feeding us transcripts of court proceedings which they expect to result in a victory for the plaintiffs, why not? You can link to the same transcripts on the Discovery Institute's website.

http://www.discovery.org/csc/

 

[GoSeminoles!]

Did you read any of the transcripts?

I enjoyed reading Barbara Forrest's history of the Pandas book, documenting its authors' use of the find-and-replace feature on their word processor to switch "creationism" for "intelligent design." Gee, I wonder why anyone would think ID is just creationism with a new label.

A bottle of vomit labeled "Wild Turkey" is still a bottle of vomit.

 

[john crawford]

Creationists trust anything that tells them what they want to hear; don't you know that by now?

Same goes for evos according to the inverse of Poe's Law.

 

[john crawford]

Heil Hitler.

That's racially offensive to Jews and Christians and should be expunged from your record by the moderators.

 

[ChrisPelletier]

or audiostreams?

 

[Loudmouth]

Hey John, I noticed that you label yourself as a Senior Veteran. Isn't that awfully racist of you, saying that you are either young or old, a veteran or a peace-nik? I mean, you seniors are so racist that you demand your own menu at restaurants, preferred seating on buses (young people have to sit behind the seniors), preferred government programs for veterans, etc.

 

[john crawford]

What was exposed was that the book "Of Pandas and People" was edited to fly under the radar. All they did was replace the word "God" with "Intelligent Designer" and then tried to pretend it wasn't a creationist book.

Instead of hurling epithets perhaps you could present some science? What scientific evidence did the legal team provide? Why is this a legal attack? Shouldn't IDsts be pursuing a scientific attack?

Read some of the transcripts from Day 1. Kenneth Miller tore the ID crowd a new one, ripping up argument after argument found in "Of Pandas and People."

According to an amici curiae, biologists and other scientists are requesting that the court not decide what the nature of science is.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=558

The plaintiffs are lucky that the Dover School Board didn't elect to include Professor Lubenow's "Bones of Contention" in the school library. Then Kenneth R. Miller would have the historic opportunity to legally defend creationist charges that all neo-Darwinist theories of human evolution in and out of Africa are intrinsically, inherently and inescapably racist.

 

[AngelusTenebrae]

According to an amici curiae, biologists and other scientists are requesting that the court not decide what the nature of science is.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=558

The plaintiffs are lucky that the Dover School Board didn't elect to include Professor Lubenow's "Bones of Contention" in the school library. Then Kenneth R. Miller would have the historic opportunity to legally defend creationist charges that all neo-Darwinist theories of human evolution in and out of Africa are intrinsically, inherently and inescapably racist.

The rest of the world doesn't care what Americans redefine as science. Evolution will continue being taught at Canadian, Japanese or European universities, and ID and creationism will be kept out of those mentioned institutions.

 

[Ophis]

The plaintiffs are lucky that the Dover School Board didn't elect to include Professor Lubenow's "Bones of Contention" in the school library. Then Kenneth R. Miller would have the historic opportunity to legally defend creationist charges that all neo-Darwinist theories of human evolution in and out of Africa are intrinsically, inherently and inescapably racist.

I wouldn't call that luck. I'd call that the fact that even the Dover school board has limits on how much garbage it's willing to put in a library.

 

[john crawford]

I enjoyed reading Barbara Forrest's history of the Pandas book, documenting its authors' use of the find-and-replace feature on their word processor to switch "creationism" for "intelligent design." Gee, I wonder why anyone would think ID is just creationism with a new label.

There's nothing wrong with modifying and turning a fundamentally religious concept and premise into a scientific theory, is there? After all, Darwin used the biblical concept and common knowledge of common ancestral origins to base his original concept and theory of 'natural selection' on. What's good for the evolutionist goose holds true for intelligent designers and other legal theorists.

A bottle of vomit labeled "Wild Turkey" is still a bottle of vomit.

I wouldn't sip and chase any more Wild Turkey if I was you, in that case. Obviously, you are not a connosiour of fine Kentucky distillates.

 

[AngelusTenebrae]

There's nothing wrong with modifying and turning a fundamentally religious concept and premise into a scientific theory, is there? After all, Darwin used the biblical concept and common knowledge of common ancestral origins to base his original concept and theory of 'natural selection' on. What's good for the evolutionist goose holds true for intelligent designers and other legal theorists.

No, except you can't just simply cross out "religion" and write in "scientific theory" instead. You can't call creationism a scientific theory because no scientific research or methods have been used with it. It's not because we don't like it, but because it is inconsistent with other scientists' previous findings. If you still want creationism to be accepted as science, it must be modified. And as mentioned before, creationism is backwards in terms of science.