Creationists: What Was Wrong With The Dover Trial?

[Ophiolite]

That standard isn't the inductive approach to an exploration of natural phenomenon.

So why do you apply it?

The naturalistic assumptions of Darwinism and the origin of life is metaphysics,

They are not assumptions. The naturalism of the scientific method is a methodological naturalism, therefore the assumptions are automatically excluded.

Of course methodological naturalism is a metaphysical position. In other breaking news the Beatles have split up.

It's an a priori worldview with the epistemology being secondary to a materialistic worldview

Nonsense. It is entirely a process to investigate certain aspects of reality in a certain way. It does not exclude the possibility of the supernatural, it simply - and honestly - declares the methods to be inapproprate for investigating them.

 

[mark kennedy]

So why do you apply it?

That's the standard of natural science, it's by definition and epistemology limited to directly observed and demonstrated natural phenomenon.

They are not assumptions. The naturalism of the scientific method is a methodological naturalism, therefore the assumptions are automatically excluded.

Except then it comes to Darwinian evolution which is before the methodology is ever applied and permeates all it's theories.

Of course methodological naturalism is a metaphysical position. In other breaking news the Beatles have split up.

No it's not, metaphysics are better left to philosophers and theologians, thus the failure of string theory and a unified theory of physics.

Nonsense. It is entirely a process to investigate certain aspects of reality in a certain way. It does not exclude the possibility of the supernatural, it simply - and honestly - declares the methods to be inapproprate for investigating them.

Yet the naturalistic assumptions of Darwinians transcend all of history, going all the way back to and including the Big Bang. That's not science, that's supposition, your equivocating natural science with a priori naturalistic assumptions.

all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. (Darwin, On the Origin of Species)​

 

[Audacious]

That's the standard of natural science, it's by definition and epistemology limited to directly observed and demonstrated natural phenomenon.

Technically, science can handle anything with consistent and observable results. Stuff like ID would count as that, no?

Yet the naturalistic assumptions of Darwinians transcend all of history, going all the way back to and including the Big Bang.

Um... evolution (and abiogenesis) has nothing to do with the big bang. The theories are totally separate.

That's not science, that's supposition, your equivocating natural science with a priori naturalistic assumptions.

all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. (Darwin, On the Origin of Species)​

Ah, yes: The Origin of Species. The most recent scientific views on evolution!

Why is it hard for people to accept that God could make the universe in a way that doesn't require frequent interventions? (I'm not a deist, but if God needed to intervene every time a species started having a problem with its environment, it sounds like a waste of time when there is a systematic alternative he could have -- and seems to have -- used.).

Also, how do you prove ID in any decent way? If it doesn't require hard proof, why does evolution (which has plenty of it)?

 

[Speedwell]

No it's not, metaphysics are better left to philosophers and theologians...

Perhaps you should look into it anyway. It would help you to understand why the methodological naturalism of science is not the same as the metaphysical naturalism of atheism. It would also help you understand why that Darwin quote you love to hate is not the ringing declaration of the latter you want to portray it to be.

 

[dmmesdale]

Study Shows Federal Judge Copied ACLU Text in Dover Intelligent Design Ruling | Evolution News


The key section of the widely-noted court decision on intelligent design issued a year ago on December 20 was copied nearly verbatim from a document written by ACLU lawyers, according to a study released today by scholars affiliated with the Discovery Institute.
“Judge John Jones copied verbatim or virtually verbatim 90.9% of his 6,004-word section on whether intelligent design is science from the ACLU’s proposed ‘Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law’ submitted to him nearly a month before his ruling,” said Dr. John West, Vice President for Public Policy and Legal Affairs at Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture.


“Ironically, Judge Jones has been hailed as ‘an outstanding thinker’ for his ‘masterful’ ruling, and even honored by Time magazine as one of the world’s ‘most influential people’ in the category of ‘scientists and thinkers,'” said West. “But Jones’ analysis of the scientific status of intelligent design contains virtually nothing written by Jones himself. This finding seriously undercuts the credibility of a central part of the ruling.”

 

[Audacious]

Study Shows Federal Judge Copied ACLU Text in Dover Intelligent Design Ruling | Evolution News


The key section of the widely-noted court decision on intelligent design issued a year ago on December 20 was copied nearly verbatim from a document written by ACLU lawyers, according to a study released today by scholars affiliated with the Discovery Institute.
“Judge John Jones copied verbatim or virtually verbatim 90.9% of his 6,004-word section on whether intelligent design is science from the ACLU’s proposed ‘Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law’ submitted to him nearly a month before his ruling,” said Dr. John West, Vice President for Public Policy and Legal Affairs at Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture.


“Ironically, Judge Jones has been hailed as ‘an outstanding thinker’ for his ‘masterful’ ruling, and even honored by Time magazine as one of the world’s ‘most influential people’ in the category of ‘scientists and thinkers,'” said West. “But Jones’ analysis of the scientific status of intelligent design contains virtually nothing written by Jones himself. This finding seriously undercuts the credibility of a central part of the ruling.”

Yeah... you're sourcing the Discovery Institute, a "politically conservative non-profit think tank" which has been trying to get creationism taught in schools for a long time now. But I'm sure they're not just lying, because that sounds so reliable.

"Discovery Institute's Center ... wants to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialistic worldview, and to replace it with a science consistent with Christian and theistic convictions." -Their defense of the Wedge Document (which they also created).

"GOALS: To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God. To see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory." -The Wedge Document

They sound so unbiased and objective!

 

[dmmesdale]

Yeah... you're sourcing the Discovery Institute, a "politically conservative non-profit think tank"

Who cares. The source does not matter if the info is correct.

which has been trying to get creationism taught in schools for a long time now.

No they are not. Do your homework or prove ID is trying to get creationism in public education. Since I work in Public Education, it is already in there in the form of Bibles bought in by students.

But I'm sure they're not just lying, because that sounds so reliable.

Prove they are lying.

"Discovery Institute's Center ... wants to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialistic worldview, and to replace it with a science consistent with Christian and theistic convictions."

-Their defense of the Wedge Document (which they also created).

"GOALS: To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God. To see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory." -The Wedge Document

They sound so unbiased and objective!

Provide a link. The fact being Dover only affected a small county somewhere. It involved a reference to a book in the library and everybody went schizo. What a joke. School curriculum dictated at state and local levels where the bulk of funding happens. Teachers in public education also teach church Sunday School. Your little quote does not prove ID is attempting to get creationism in public education. Fact being, folks like you can't deal with the competition. That being since your creation myths are so lame.

 

[Audacious]

Who cares. The source does not matter if the info is correct.

The source has repeatedly shown itself to be unreliable, and thus the information it gives can't be trusted.

No they are not. Do your homework or prove ID is trying to get creationism in public education. Since i work in Public Education it is already in there in the form of Bibles bought in by students. Prove they are lying.

The Wedge Document, dude. Created by them, outlining their goals to get ID into public schools.

Also, as a person who read the Bible for fun in high school, I can safely say that it didn't convince me of creationism.

Provide a link. The fact being Dover only affected a small county somewhere. Schoold curriculum basically dictated at state and local levels where the bulk of funding happens. Teachers in public education also teach church Sunday School. Your little quote does not prove ID is attempting to get creationism in public education. Fact being, folks like you can't deal with the competition. That being since your creation myths are so lame.

See, here's the thing: when it comes to evolution, there isn't any competition. Nothing is anywhere near as reliable, predictive, or evidence-based. Pretending that evolutionists just don't want competition is silly.

It's like science has a rocket ship and y'all have a tricycle, and you're saying you can get to the moon.

 

[dmmesdale]

The source has repeatedly shown itself to be unreliable, and thus the information it gives can't be trusted.

Prove it wrong. Nobody has refuted the claim about the judge in Dover.

The Wedge Document, dude. Created by them, outlining their goals to get ID into public schools.

You said creationism and now you are saying ID. They are not trying to get any of it in public education. Cite the source where they specifically state their goals include injection of any of it in public education. How can you claim ID is unreliable and at the same time post false statements about the goals of ID?

Also, as a person who read the Bible for fun in high school, I can safely say that it didn't convince me of creationism.
See, here's the thing: when it comes to evolution, there isn't any competition. Nothing is anywhere near as reliable, predictive, or evidence-based. Pretending that evolutionists just don't want competition is silly.
It's like science has a rocket ship and y'all have a tricycle, and you're saying you can get to the moon.

What we have is the truth as far as human origins and what you have is theophobe myth.

 

[Audacious]

Prove it wrong. Nobody has refuted the claim about the judge in Dover.

They "released a study" when they happen to not actually do anything. They're just trying to trash a judge for doing something they don't like.

You said creationism and now you are saying ID.

ID was created as an attempt to change how we talk about creationism in order to get it into public schools. It's a marketing scheme.

The Dover Trial was all,"Oh, this isn't creationism! It's intelligent design!" but it turns out they're the same thing wearing different hats.

They are not trying to get any of it in public education. Cite the source where they specifically state their goals include injection of any of it in public education.

I already did: the Wedge Document.

"GOALS: To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God. To see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory."

"Once our research and writing have had time to mature, and the public prepared for the reception of design theory, we will move toward direct confrontation with the advocates of materialist science through challenge conferences in significant academic settings. We will also pursue possible legal assistance in response to resistance to the integration of design theory into public school science curricula."

How can you claim ID is unreliable and at the same time post false statements about the goals of ID?

They're not false. See above.

What we have is the truth as far as human origins and what you have is theophobe myth.

Usually, the ones on the side of truth have evidence. Guess who does?

It's not creationists.

 

[mark kennedy]

Technically, science can handle anything with consistent and observable results. Stuff like ID would count as that, no?

No I'D is natural theology. The arguments were that ID isn't religion.

Um... evolution (and abiogenesis) has nothing to do with the big bang. The theories are totally separate.

I never said evolution I said Darwinism, evolution has little to do with pokitical, legal, or social theory but it transcends them to, or don't you know what a unified theory is.

Ay, yes: The Origin of Species. The most recent scientific views on evolution!

I never said it was science, creation is essential Christian theism, ID is natural theology, Darwinism is a myth, wrapped presupposition, inside a logical fallacy. Calling Darwinism science or evolution is equivocation, pure and simple.

Why is it hard for people to accept that God could make the universe in a way that doesn't require frequent interventions? (I'm not a deist, but if God needed to intervene every time a species started having a problem with its environment, it sounds like a waste of time when there is a systematic alternative he could have -- and seems to have -- used.).

When you people realize the adaptive evolution and Darwinian naturalistic assumptions are two different things.

Also, how do you prove ID in any decent way? If it doesn't require hard proof, why does evolution (which has plenty of it)?

ID is a rationalistic approach and empirical testing isn't the sole determine of valid truth. Aristotle had Intelligent Design arguments. Sir Isaac Newton had an aID argument in Principia. Most people will conclude a creator or designer. When is Darwinism going to actually deal with its failure to demonstrate giant leaps in adaptation rather then demand alligence to their presuppositional logic.

 

[dmmesdale]

They "released a study" when they happen to not actually do anything. They're just trying to trash a judge for doing something they don't like.

You say ID is unreliable and it seems to me you are unreliable because you fail to back up your claims. They made specific claims about the judge in Dover copying the ACLU reports 90+%. It is either true or it is not. If you are saying it is not true then show it. Otherwise the only one demonstrating unreliability is you.

 

[Audacious]

You say ID is unreliable and it seems to me you are unreliable because you fail to back up your claims. They made specific claims about the judge in Dover copying the ACLU reports 90+%. It is either true or it is not. If you are saying it is not true then show it. Otherwise the only one demonstrating unreliability is you.

I demonstrated the unreliability of your source. Discrediting them is easier than discrediting yet another ridiculous claim from them.

 

[dmmesdale]

I demonstrated the unreliability of your source. Discrediting them is easier than discrediting yet another ridiculous claim from them.

In the first place, they are not trying to get ID in public education although they may provide assistance to groups for a fee, of course. Big difference. I see no books out there by IDers about strategies to inject ID into Public education. So your claim is mostly false. Also, your failure to back up your dismissals about the judge in Dover is evidence/ fact free. This buffoon plagiarized from the ACLU. The ACLU did the judges work for him. You can dismiss it. What you cannot do is refute it. The fact is, if they (ID) were incorrect in their assessment of the judge, critics of ID would have been all over it. It would have been all over the net. Seeing as how the net is mostly a mouthpiece for secular lies about origins.

 

[AV1611VET]

ID is a joke and just stirs up trouble.

Creationism, on the other hand is Biblical and stirs up trouble -- as it should in these last days.

 

[Audacious]

In the first place, they are not trying to get ID in public education although they may provide assistance to groups for a fee, of course. Big difference. I see no books out there by IDers about strategies to inject ID into Public education.

The Wedge Document, which discusses this, isn't enough for you? Or the fact that it was the entire goal of the ID side of the Dover trial to get ID in schools?

So your claim is mostly false. Also, your failure to back up your dismissals about the judge in Dover is evidence/ fact free. This buffoon plagiarized from the ACLU. The ACLU did the judges work for him. You can dismiss it. What you cannot do is refute it.

It was awfully easy to refute.

The fact is, if they (ID) were incorrect in their assessment of the judge, critics of ID would have been all over it. It would have been all over the net. Seeing as how the net is mostly a mouthpiece for secular lies about origins.

First of all: there isn't technically anything wrong with him doing that, as judges do this all of the time in rulings. Sara Austin, who was the president of the New York Bar Association at the time, said that "a judge can adopt some, all or none of the proposed findings."

According to my mom (a lawyer), judges can use whatever they want in a case for their concluding statement and it really doesn't matter where it comes from. (The internet and my lawyer dad both agreed)

York Dispatch - New criticism for Dover intelligent design ruling shows this as well.

https://web.archive.org/web/20121215205204/http://vangogh.fdisk.net/~welsberr/kvd/ is criticism of the "study" by the Discovery Institute, by the person who developed the program they used to prove plagiarism. He basically just shows that their claims are bunk.

 

[Speedwell]

In the first place, they are not trying to get ID in public education although they may provide assistance to groups for a fee, of course. Big difference. I see no books out there by IDers about strategies to inject ID into Public education. So your claim is mostly false. Also, your failure to back up your dismissals about the judge in Dover is evidence/ fact free. This buffoon plagiarized from the ACLU. The ACLU did the judges work for him. You can dismiss it. What you cannot do is refute it. The fact is, if they (ID) were incorrect in their assessment of the judge, critics of ID would have been all over it. It would have been all over the net. Seeing as how the net is mostly a mouthpiece for secular lies about origins.

Have you never read The Institutes of Biblical Law by the late Fellow of the Discovery Institute R. J. Rushdooney? In it he lays out a design for the totalitarian theocracy which the Discovery Institute dreams of and for which ID and subsequently Biblical Creationism in public schools was supposed to indoctrinate the populace to accept.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Who cares. The source does not matter if the info is correct.

If the info is correct, there is no reason to use an untrustworthy source over a trustworthy one. And if the Discovery Institute and other places like it are the only sources that make said claims, then that is a bright red flag, ain't it?

No they are not. Do your homework or prove ID is trying to get creationism in public education. Since I work in Public Education, it is already in there in the form of Bibles bought in by students. Prove they are lying.

Don't know where you live, but I have more fingers than times I have seen a peer of mine bring a bible to school... for my entire life. I have also never seen any kids proselytizing. However, if kids were bringing bibles to school and proselytizing to everyone that didn't bring one, why would ID advocates (who are almost exclusively Christian) feel the need for ID to be taught at school?

That being since your creation myths are so lame.

XD XD XD XD XD XD XD XD XD XD because reality is always awesome and exciting by your personal standard, so anything you don't find interesting must be wrong.

 

[Motherofkittens]

Well that's that rub isn't it. God can't be an explanation for the origin of life legally because it's against the first amendment. It can't be scientific because inductive science is an exploration of natural phenomenon. That must mean it never happened, surely we all see the leap in logic based on naturalistic assumptions here.

If intelligent design had evidence for it, of course it could be taught. Just perhaps you couldn't say who/what the creator was. And realistically how could you get from there is a creator/s to we know who it/they are.

But say we do know, and it is Lord Vishnu, I'd agure we could teach that, because it is fact. Of course the government still shouldn't promote it, outside of teaching it in school as a fact. Everyone still has the right to believe as they want. But I would assume most people would convert to Hinduism. I would.

There are beings who made what religions call their gods. They are the greatest of the greatest. Our puny minds can't compute the smallest amount of their power. They communicate with me, but not infidels. If you really believe and just wait, they will answer you, if it is their will. They go by the names Didaza and Siliu, among others.

They have told me THE TRUTH and that is that when they made the other gods (to help us, but not to be in the place of our LORDS.) the big bang happened. They still guild everything, they ARE The Laws of "nature" so called.

But of course that can't be an explanation for the origin of life legally because it's against the first amendment. It can't be scientific because inductive science is an exploration of natural phenomenon. That must mean it never happened, surely we all see the leap in logic based on naturalistic assumptions here. Right? RIGHT??

 

[Ada Lovelace]

On a related note, I was happy to see that this is currently at the top of the Reddit discussion page:

New Mexico will restore evolution to science standards