but if science is not really aiming at proving anything, where does that leave your theory. Most scientists I know don't even try to prove anything.
It leaves it rock-solid. No theory can ever be proved; that's not how science works. But theories do reach a point where, after they have been confirmed for long enough by multiple lines of evidence, we think of them as trustworthy. I like the way it is put in this essay (and have highlighted a few sentences):
Has Evolution Been Proven? - Daylight Atheism
"The more evidence that accumulates to support a theory, the more our confidence in it grows. Eventually, a point may be reached where the quantity of evidence supporting the theory is so vast, so overwhelming, that further attempts to deny or question it would be futile and unfounded. This is the case with the theory of evolution, as it is the case with the other theories, such as the atomic theory of matter or the theory of plate tectonics, that form the pillars of modern science. But this is not absolute proof. Not even the best-supported, most thoroughly verified theories of science are put on a pedestal and considered infallible
...
This is not to imply that the theory of evolution is in any way tentative or uncertain. On the contrary, it is extremely robust, backed by over a hundred years of research, experiment and observation. In all that time, not a single piece of evidence that seriously contradicts any part of it has ever turned up. Within the scientific community, evolution is not at all controversial and is no longer questioned; it is considered to be a fact, as simple and indisputable as gravity. While it can never be absolutely proven, it has come as close to attaining this status as it is possible for any scientific theory to be. To attack evolution by labeling it an “unproven theory” misses the point entirely. There is a saying in some scientific circles: “Proof is for mathematics and alcohol.”
like I said if you have any facts on the court case I can adress those. You quote a biased site that is probably one of the most well known evolutionist sites out there. If you can quote talk origins, I might as well quote ken ham, and kent hovind. So again you have no facts.
An interesting point, but an irrelevant one. I take it you opened the link and saw that it was not of Talk Origins' writing, but a complete and unedited record of the trial. In other words, I didn't quote a "biased" site, I pointed to a document hosted on it, giving the facts that you have been asking for. The fact that this record is quoted on a website whose views you disagree with does not matter at all.
Do you acknowledge this?
But to prove someone is lying is very hard to do. Well, lets just say it's very very difficult. Any thing you use as evidence can be tampered relating to it. So I will find this amusing seeing you prove they were lying, as opposed to simply mistaken.
You know, you're right. It
is hard to prove that people are lying, deceitful and dishonest in their representations. It would probably take weeks of careful cross-examination and careful reviewing of all available evidence.
Lucky for us this has been done, then. The Dover trial was decisive, the evidence is all there, and the conclusion admits no dispute. Here are some examples:
On whether ID is science: Kitzmiller v. Dover: Decision of the Court, Part 2
"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."
And also this part, which seems particularly pertinent to you, gradyll:
"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."
And with regards to ID being represented by liars:
Kitzmiller v. Dover: Decision of the Court, Part 3
"We initially note that the Supreme Court has instructed that while courts are "normally deferential to a State's articulation of a secular purpose, it is required that the statement of such purpose be sincere and not a sham." Edwards, 482 U.S. at 586-87 (citing Wallace, 472 U.S. at 64)(Powell, J., concurring); id. at 75 (O'Connor, J., concurring in judgment) . Although as noted Defendants have consistently asserted that the ID Policy was enacted for the secular purposes of improving science education and encouraging students to exercise critical thinking skills, the Board took none of the steps that school officials would take if these stated goals had truly been their objective. The Board consulted no scientific materials. The Board contacted no scientists or scientific organizations. The Board failed to consider the views of the District's science teachers. The Board relied solely on legal advice from two organizations with demonstrably religious, cultural, and legal missions, the Discovery Institute and the TMLC. Moreover, Defendants' asserted secular purpose of improving science education is belied by the fact that most if not all of the Board members who voted in favor of the biology curriculum change conceded that they still do not know, nor have they ever known, precisely what ID is. To assert a secular purpose against this backdrop is ludicrous.
Finally, although Defendants have unceasingly attempted in vain to distance themselves from their own actions and statements, which culminated in repetitious, untruthful testimony, such a strategy constitutes additional strong evidence of improper purpose under the first prong of the Lemon test. As exhaustively detailed herein, the thought leaders on the Board made it their considered purpose to inject some form of creationism into the science classrooms, and by the dint of their personalities and persistence they were able to pull the majority of the Board along in their collective wake."
And also:
Kitzmiller v. Dover: Decision of the Court, Part 3
"The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy."
Now, you might object that although this may show the board of the Dover school to have been shameless liars (which it certainly does) that does not necessarily mean that the Discovery Institute and its representatives lied. But that would be incorrect. They supported the lying school board, they cooperated with them, and they shared in their deceit. And there is, of course, much more. One good example is from the textbook, of Pandas and People. It's a very funny story,
which you can read here, about how their clumsiness in lying tripped them up; but to put it briefly, the textbook began life as a Creationist book, was altered in a deceitful attempt to evade the laws against teaching religion, and became an "Intelligent Design" textbook:
"The earlier drafts, as you might expect from the titles, made repeated references to creationism. But in the wake of the Edwards decision, the book underwent a revision: the term “creationism” was replaced – literally replaced, as in the find-and-replace function of a word processor – with the term “intelligent design”. And in one draft, a transitional fossil was preserved:
Image credit, NCSE.
Clearly, intelligent design is just a retitled form of creationism. What more compelling evidence of this fact could you ask for than the term “cdesign proponentsists”?"
gradyll, you can deny this as much as you like, but the truth is plain to see: Intelligent Design is not science, and the Discovery Institute lied in an attempt to trick people into thinking it was.
