Transcripts of Evo/ID legal battle in Dover, PA

[Loudmouth]

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

Of course they are. Scientists define what science is, not courts of law. Science is a world wide community with agree upon rules.

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.

Do you really think this racism thing is fooling anybody?

 

[notto]

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.

Come on John, be honest.

You've never read Origin have you.

 

[notto]

The transcripts keep referring the Intelligent Design theory.

What is the theory of intelligent design? Where can I read about its methodology and how it can be falsified? What experiments are based on this methodolgy and its conclusions and predictions?

Talk about a soft underbelly.

 

[john crawford]

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 didn't label myself as a Senior Veteran. I got honorably promoted to that distinctive class by the wise old owls of ChristianForums who are watching these discussions with open Christian hearts and Christian eyes, since they are all full of the discerning eyes of the Holy Spirit.

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.

Now, now. Loudmouth, don't start confusing racial discrimination with discrimination based on age, lest you open up a whole new line of attack on neo-Darwinist age theories about the human fossil remains of our biblical ancestors. It's bad enough that Charles Darwin was as much a chauvinistic French sexist as he was a British racist. Now you want to add theoretical ageism to the list of complaints creationists have about neo-Darwinist racism and facism? My advice to you would be to quit while neo-Darwinst race theorists and scientific facists still have their European shirt-tails on in our public schools and state universities.

 

[nvxplorer]

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?

Academic fascism. You’re a hoot, John. Why not go for broke, and use a more nonsensical term: Academic Islamofascism. You’re the King of Insults. Rickles has nothing on you. John Crawford; How to Say “Bad Person” in 1000 Meaningless Ways.

 

[john crawford]

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.

Ah, so. You are honorable prophet of Canadian, Japanese and European people. Welcome to America, the land of free speech and equal opportunity where every guru in the world can set up a non-profit foundation to rake in the proselytes and their money.

Too bad that some Canadian and European universities are nothing more than mental institutions these days.

 

[Elduran]

Ah, so. You are honorable prophet of Canadian, Japanese and European people. Welcome to America, the land of free speech and equal opportunity where every guru in the world can set up a non-profit foundation to rake in the proselytes and their money.

Too bad that some Canadian and European universities are nothing more than mental institutions these days.

And yet the education systems in those countries still beat yours hands down... With no mention of creationism or ID in their science classes. Odd that...

 

[Ophis]

Ah, so.

He's mocking oriental people!

Racist!!!!!

 

[john crawford]

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.

Just wait until the Dover School Board wins this case and see what book they next elect to put in the school library. What's your problem anyway? Don't like the American system of republican democracy and would prefer a neo-Darwinist totalitarian regime in its place?

What good is science anyway, if current theories can't be tested, challenged and replaced by other scientists? Look what happened to Marxist-Leninist theories of scientific materialism in the former Soviet Union. Do you want the same foundational collapse of science to happen in America also?

 

[Loudmouth]

Now, now. Loudmouth, . . .

I was only funning around. I did notice that you have the singular distinction of stringing together more propoganda than anyone I have ever seen. Goebels would be proud.

 

[Ophis]

Just wait until the Dover School Board wins this case and see what book they next elect to put in the school library. What's your problem anyway? Don't like the American system of republican democracy and would prefer a neo-Darwinist totalitarian regime in its place?

Well personally I'm a big fan of European parliamentary democracy. We'll see who wins the case, I don't think you should be so confident. And how exactly do you have a "neo-Darwinist totalitarian regime"? What is neo-Darwinism anyway? When did it become neo? When did it start producing political systems?

And my "problem" is that you seem unable to think for yourself and blindly follow some paranoid idiotic book.

What good is science anyway, if current theories can't be tested, challenged and replaced by other scientists? Look what happened to Marxist-Leninist theories of scientific materialism in the former Soviet Union. Do you want the same foundational collapse of science to happen in America also?

Testing and challenging a theory is different from making unfounded philosophical accusations about it.

 

[Elduran]

Testing and challenging a theory is great, but the process should actually involve some testing and challenging, not just trying to force something else in through political avenues and making kids listen to an unsound idea which hasn't actually made it into mainstream science.

 

[john crawford]

No, except you can't just simply cross out "religion" and write in "scientific theory" instead.

Why not? That's what Charles Darwin did.

You can't call creationism a scientific theory because no scientific research or methods have been used with it.

You're just reiterating neo-Darwinist racial progaganda here, since creation scientists are as scientific as neo-Darwinist racial theorists are. Obviously, you don't even know what 'science' is any more than you can define 'religion.'

It's not because we don't like it, but because it is inconsistent with other scientists' previous findings.

You are obviously completely unaware of the fact that "scientific findings" are constantly being revised and updated, and seem to wish that 'science' remain in the dark ages which neo-Darwinists want to bind modern humanity. Real scientists, like yours truly of course, go about their business regardless of what anyone else dictates what they think or not.

If you still want creationism to be accepted as science, it must be modified.

I agree. The science of creation must be completely divorced from religion to the same extent and degree that the 'science" of evolution is. Unfortunately, it is impossible to divorce neo-Darwinism from the Bible since the scientific concept and idea of common ancestral descent is originally biblically constituted, and it is impossible to deduce or infer common ancestral origins from natural observations alone.

And as mentioned before, creationism is backwards in terms of science.

Science is only possible because of the logical coherence and constistancy of creationist thought since 'random mutations' only give rise to complete chaos in human thought and by intelligent definition, may not be the source of coherent logical consistancy in human thinking.

 

[john crawford]

Scientists define what science is, not courts of law. Science is a world wide community with agree upon rules.

Of course. Just like any other religious community.

Do you really think this racism thing is fooling anybody?

Yes. Neo-Darwinist racial theories about human origins are fooling a lot of Christians, Muslims and Jews into believing that their human ancestors descended from African monkey and ape ancestors in accordance with neo-Darwinist racial theories about the original ancestors and descendents of African people.

 

[nvxplorer]

Science is only possible because of the logical coherence and constistancy of creationist thought since 'random mutations' only give rise to complete chaos in human thought and by intelligent definition, may not be the source of coherent logical consistancy in human thinking.

Wait...let me read this again...

Yep, I did see the word “coherent.”

No offense, John. Just kidding.

 

[Ophis]

Of course. Just like any other religious community.

The big fat blindingly obvious difference being that science is based on continuous investigation and questioning, whereas religion is generally based on acceptance of a doctrine which cannot be questioned.

Yes. Neo-Darwinist racial theories about human origins are fooling a lot of Christians, Muslims and Jews into believing that their human ancestors descended from African monkey and ape ancestors in accordance with neo-Darwinist racial theories about the original ancestors and descendents of African people.

Of course, there is the very small possibility that there is not in fact an evil worldwide conspiracy to fool the innocent theists, and that almost every scientist believes in evolution because of the evidence rather than because they are idiots or racist conspirators. And that perhaps, just perhaps, John Crawford is wrong.

 

[john crawford]

Come on John, be honest.

You've never read Origin have you.

That is correct. I only studied "Descent of Man," and assume that Darwin's speculations on human origins from African ape progenitors reflected his views in "Origin of Species, and the Preservation of Favoured Races."

I could care less about the origins of horses, pigs, cats and dogs, since none of their species were created in the image and likeness of God.

When Darwin and Linnaeus classified human beings as pure animals and nothing more, though, they stepped into a bucket of evolutionist sh..., if you get my genetic drift into Genesis here.

 

[john crawford]

The transcripts keep referring the Intelligent Design theory.

What is the theory of intelligent design? Where can I read about its methodology and how it can be falsified? What experiments are based on this methodolgy and its conclusions and predictions?

Talk about a soft underbelly.

IDT is being revealed in the Dover court case which exposes the soft underbelly of neo-Darwinist race theories. Stay tuned.

 

[john crawford]

Academic fascism. You’re a hoot, John. Why not go for broke, and use a more nonsensical term: Academic Islamofascism. You’re the King of Insults. Rickles has nothing on you. John Crawford; How to Say “Bad Person” in 1000 Meaningless Ways.

Hmm. Islamofacism equals neo-Darwinist racism. That's a hoot only the Hooters Restaurant girls might appreciate since most of them used to be Christians before neo-Darwinist race theorists converted them into evoltionary biologists and scientists.

Me, the "King of Insults?" Check this website out:

http://www.islamdenouncesterrorism.com/p_darwinism_materialism.html

 

[notto]

IDT is being revealed in the Dover court case which exposes the soft underbelly of neo-Darwinist race theories. Stay tuned.

Let us know when the transcript discusses it. So far, I haven't seen it. Point it out if you see it.

Remember, cutting and pasting 'creationism' with 'intelligent design' doesn't count.

Other than that, why would I need to look at a court case to have it be revealed? You would think I might be able to find information in a research article or something.

What a strange place to reveal a scientific theory. Reminds me of, oh, what is it - creationsm.