- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,855,997
- 52,622
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You know, for a guy on a discussion forum, you don't seem particularly apt to discuss anything.
This is true, I do not want to sound like a parrot, just parroting what is so abundantly available. I would be more inclined to discussion if it appeared that the opposition understood both sides of the issue; though, this does not appear to be the case.
So we can hear more lies?
So why are you here, exactly?
This is a loaded question, are you implying that Michael Shermer and Donald Prothero are lairs?
This is true, I do not want to sound like a parrot, just parroting what is so abundantly available.
I would be more inclined to discussion if it appeared that the opposition understood both sides of the issue; though, this does not appear to be the case.
That reminds me.I have forgotten more about ID than you have learned, and I still know more about it than you do.
If you say so, not sure what the Dover trial has to do with anything, Stephen Meyer's official position is that he declined to testify at the Dover trial, that the courts are not the appropriate forum for scientific debate.
And on another note, it doesn't even seem like YOU understand both sides.
So we can hear more lies?
ah yes, my bad, sorry.Boyce Rensberger is not an evolutionary biologist. He is a journalist. Want to try again? Why don't you use quotes from the material that the scientists write themselves?
ah yes, my bad, sorry.
boyce is indeed educated and proficient in the field, a science writer for over 32 years.
read some about boyce:
web.med.harvard.edu/healthcaucus/bg_rensberger.html
so yes, boyce does indeed carry some weight in this matter
Maybe he declined because he didn't want to be exposed under oath like Michael Behe was.
Three other Discovery Institute Fellows—Stephen Meyer, William Dembski, and John Angus Campbell—were initially willing to testify but ultimately did not do so because of disagreements with TMLC attorneys.
As it became clear that the plaintiffs planned to focus their case on the “intelligent design movement” (which Judge Jones calls the “IDM”) rather than simply on the actors in Dover, and as it became increasingly clear that TMLC would not represent those interests, the publisher of Pandas, the Foundation for Thought and Ethics (FTE), sought to intervene as co-defendant. FTE filed a motion to intervene on May 23, 2005, but after hearing the motion, Judge Jones denied it on July 27, 2005.
When the testimony at trial revealed the religious motives and questionable conduct of the individual school board members and the poor impression the board members had made upon Judge Jones, it became increasingly clear that the school board would lose. However, the Discovery Institute maintained that there was no reason for the judge to conflate the actions of the school board with those of the “IDM.” There was also no reason for the judge to try to resolve the scientific controversy over whether a theory that pointed to intelligence as a possible explanation for a scientific phenomenon should be recognized as scientific. In support of this view, the Discovery Institute filed an amicus brief urging the court to decline the invitation to employ demarcation criteria so as to arbitrarily exclude intelligent design from science. In addition, eighty-five scientists—including professors from the University of Georgia, the University of Michigan, and the University of Iowa, as well as a member of the National Academy of Sciences— filed an amicus brief imploring the court not to assume that scientific questions could be resolved by judicial decree. Despite his listing of these briefs in a footnote, there is no evidence from the text of Judge Jones’s opinion that he ever considered the arguments made in either brief. By contrast, “90.9% (or 5,458 words) of Judge Jones’s 6,004-word section on intelligent design as science was taken virtually verbatim from the ACLU’s proposed ‘Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law’ submitted to Judge Jones nearly a month before his ruling.”
INTELLIGENT DESIGN WILL SURVIVE KITZMILLER V. DOVER
That's what we need, the ACLU mandating what is and what is not science.
If ID is science, then Bill Gate's diary is a computer manual.No one is stopping the ID folks from showing it is real science.
No one is stopping the ID folks from showing it is real science.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?