The Dover Trial and "Nova" special

[The Barbarian]

An analysis of the ruling showed that over 90% of Judge Jones’s section on whether ID is science was copied verbatim or nearly verbatim from an ACLU brief submitted about a month before the ruling was issued.

As is often the case when the judge finds one side's arguments to be compelling. If he didn't agree with them, why would he have agreed with them?

Commenting on Jones’s activism, anti-ID legal scholar Jay Wexler stated that “the part of Kitzmiller that finds ID not to be science is unnecessary, unconvincing, not particularly suited to the judicial role, and even perhaps dangerous both to science and to freedom of religion.” (Jay D. Wexler, “Kitzmiller and the ‘Is It Science?’ Question,” 5 First Amendment Law Review 90, 93 (2006).)

The kicker was the Wedge Document, showing that ID is actually a religious doctrine, and the "governing goal" of ID was to spread a particular religious POV. Didn't help that IDer Michael Behe, under oath, admitted that ID is science in the same sense that astrology is science. Or that Of Pandas and People, a supposedly ID "textbook" was actually creationist textbook with every reference to "creationist" removed and replaced with "design proponent."

It's Time for Some Folks to Get Over Dover | Evolution News

ID will never get over Dover. As ID inventor Philip Johnson admitted, the trial was a "train wreck" for ID.

 

[Job 33:6]

"ID will never get over Dover. " @The Barbarian

Creationists lost this war over 300 years ago. Yet here they are. They still aren't over it.

Despite having lost the scientific community, despite having lost a place in public schools, despite having lost in Dover and in more recent times, despite having lost in public opinion.

 

[stevevw]

As is often the case when the judge finds one side's arguments to be compelling. If he didn't agree with them, why would he have agreed with them?

I think the point was that the judge was agreeing and making judgement on stuff that should not have been made. The hearing was about whether ID breached the constitution as far as separation of church and state and not whether ID is a science or not. The court was not setup to properly hear that and therefore the judge had overstepped the mark which points to him involving himself personally rather than judicially. For example

Judge Jones:
Employed a false definition of ID, wrongly holding that it requires “supernatural creation” — a position refuted during the trial by ID proponents who testified and in other evidence given to the judge.

Ignored the positive case for design and falsely claimed that ID proponents make their case solely by arguing against evolution.

Misrepresented the Of Pandas and People textbook as if it supported creationism, when in fact its thesis was fundamentally distinct from creationism.

Overstepped the bounds of his role as a judge and engaged in judicial activism. Jones found that ID had been refuted when in fact he had been presented with credible scientific witnesses and publications on both sides showing evidence of a scientific debate.

Blatantly ignored and denied the existence of pro-ID peer-reviewed scientific publications that were documented for him and were even the subject of testimony in his own courtroom.

Violated a fundamental rule of constitutional law by declaring a religious belief to be “false” from the bench of a U.S. court.

Engaged in further judicial activism by presuming that it is permissible for a federal judge to define science, settle controversial social questions, settle controversial scientific questions, settle issues for parties outside of the case at hand. Jones wrote that his ruling would be “a primer” for people “someplace else.”
Does the Kitzmiller v. Dover Ruling Show that Intelligent Design is Academically Substandard? | Evolution News

The kicker was the Wedge Document, showing that ID is actually a religious doctrine, and the "governing goal" of ID was to spread a particular religious POV. Didn't help that IDer Michael Behe, under oath, admitted that ID is science in the same sense that astrology is science. Or that Of Pandas and People, a supposedly ID "textbook" was actually creationist textbook with every reference to "creationist" removed and replaced with "design proponent."

In the context I don't think that really mattered or was relevant. Because the hearing was not setup to determine such a fundamental question it therefore was not prepared for properly. There could have been other witnesses and courses the hearing took with cross examination that were not included. That was the main reason some say any determination about ID as a science was not really something that was properly established. In fact some of the better supporters of ID refused to testify as they could see where the case was heading and felt it was useless to get involved.

ID will never get over Dover. As ID inventor Philip Johnson admitted, the trial was a "train wreck" for ID.

I really don't think a single court case can determine such a big question nor should it.

 

[The Barbarian]

I think the point was that the judge was agreeing and making judgement on stuff that should not have been made. The hearing was about whether ID breached the constitution as far as separation of church and state and not whether ID is a science or not.

ID's self-proclaimed "Governing Goal" of establishing religion was the key evidence. That demonstrated that it's religion, not science.

Judge Jones:
Employed a false definition of ID, wrongly holding that it requires “supernatural creation” — a position refuted during the trial by ID proponents who testified and in other evidence given to the judge.

Well, let's see what they say when they think no one else is listening...

Governing Goals:

• "To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies"
• "To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God"

Discovery Institute's "Wedge Document"

Pretty much settled that issue, didn't it?

Ignored the positive case for design and falsely claimed that ID proponents make their case solely by arguing against evolution.

There is no positive case for design in nature. Created, yes. Designed, no. Design is what creatures must do. And as the evidence shows, no designer would work the way nature does.

Misrepresented the Of Pandas and People textbook as if it supported creationism, when in fact its thesis was fundamentally distinct from creationism.

The real exposure there was the finding that the book had been written by a creationist, and altered only in removing "creationist" in every mention, replacing it with "design proponent." Unfortunately for the defendants, one typo exposed that particular hoax.

And I went back through my old copies of Science magazine and found the term used occasionally."[20] In a new draft of Pandas prepared shortly after the 1987 Supreme Court ruling, approximately 150 uses of the root word "creation", such as "creationism" and "creationist", were systematically changed to refer to intelligent design.[29] The definition remained essentially the same, with "intelligent design" substituted for "creation", and "intelligent creator" changed to "intelligent agency":

Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc.[21]


The term "creationists" was changed to "design proponents", but in one case the beginning and end of the original word "creationists" were accidentally retained, so that "creationists" became "cdesign proponentsists".

The basic metabolic pathways (reaction chains) of nearly all organisms are the same. Is this because of descent from a common ancestor, or because only these pathways (and their variations) can sustain life? Evolutionists think the former is correct, cdesign proponentsists accept the latter view.
Of Pandas and People - Wikipedia

Overstepped the bounds of his role as a judge and engaged in judicial activism.

When one of the witnesses for the defense (Michael Behe) admitted under oath that ID is science in the same sense that astrology is science, the decision was inevitable.

Violated a fundamental rule of constitutional law by declaring a religious belief to be “false” from the bench of a U.S. court.

So if a judge were to rule that the Earth is round, that would be unconstitutional? Are you sure about that?

I really don't think a single court case can determine such a big question nor should it.

What was established was that ID is a religious doctrine (which it's advocates privately proclaimed to each other). As such, it can't be taught in a public school science class.

And that's the end of it.

 

[stevevw]

ID's self-proclaimed "Governing Goal" of establishing religion was the key evidence. That demonstrated that it's religion, not science.
Well, let's see what they say when they think no one else is listening...
Governing Goals:

• "To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies"
• "To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God"

Discovery Institute's "Wedge Document"
Pretty much settled that issue, didn't it?

Except you have left out the other governing goals they have which put things into better perspective ie
• To see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory.

From what I understand the goal of defeating scientific materialism and replacing this with a theistic understanding that nature and humans are created by God does not imply the creationism that the bible supports such as a supernatural act around 6,000 years ago. DI position would be no different to theistic evolution. Theistic evolution though supporting evolution takes the position that the evolutionary process is a mechanism used by God. If ID was only about creationism which supports supernatural creation then why does the Discovery Institute have an extensive program on scientific research that produces many peer reviewed papers on ID.

This position is not to different to Francis Collins and the Biologos
We embrace the historical Christian faith, upholding the authority and inspiration of the Bible. We affirm evolutionary creation, recognizing God as Creator of all life over billions of years.
About BioLogos
Among the aims of the Foundation, is to present a credible synthesis between creation and evolution.
What is the BioLogos Project | Inters.org

What it means by defeating scientific materialism is not about religion. Many non religious scientists agree that some use science like a religion claiming that we can only understand nature in a material sense. But many scientists like Thomas Nagel who is an atheist support non-religious ideas beyond the material view. Some like Rupert Sheldrake take a stronger view about scientific materialism.
So the DI is only proposing something that the non religious sector agrees with.

Is Scientific Materialism "Almost Certainly False"?
Evolutionary psychologists invoke natural selection to explain humanity's remarkable attributes, but only in a hand-wavy, retrospective fashion, according to Nagel. A genuine theory of everything, he suggests, should make sense of the extraordinary fact that the universe "is waking up and becoming aware of itself." In other words, the theory should show that life, mind, morality and reason were not only possible but even inevitable, latent in the cosmos from its explosive inception.
Is Scientific Materialism "Almost Certainly False"?

Banned TED Talk: The Science Delusion - Rupert Sheldrake at TEDx Whitechapel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TerTgDEgUE

There is no positive case for design in nature. Created, yes. Designed, no. Design is what creatures must do. And as the evidence shows, no designer would work the way nature does.

So if God is called a Creator God in the bible what role did he play in creation. Didn't God use evolution as a means to allow life to exist. Isn't that what theistic evolution is about. Are you saying there is a positive case for creation.

Ultimately it is God who put life on earth and it is He who ensures its survival. The way nature works is the way God intended to ensure the outcomes we have. Otherwise if you take the materialistic position which is what DI was talking about then the way nature works has no guarantee of outcome. The environment dictates the outcomes. If earth did not have the specific environments it has there would be no life. But if it is subject to chance events through the expansion of the universe it may have ended up like any other planet that has no life. Would God take such a risk without installing some laws and codes that directed things.

The real exposure there was the finding that the book had been written by a creationist, and altered only in removing "creationist" in every mention, replacing it with "design proponent." Unfortunately for the defendants, one typo exposed that particular hoax.

And I went back through my old copies of Science magazine and found the term used occasionally."[20] In a new draft of Pandas prepared shortly after the 1987 Supreme Court ruling, approximately 150 uses of the root word "creation", such as "creationism" and "creationist", were systematically changed to refer to intelligent design.[29] The definition remained essentially the same, with "intelligent design" substituted for "creation", and "intelligent creator" changed to "intelligent agency":

Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc.[21]


The term "creationists" was changed to "design proponents", but in one case the beginning and end of the original word "creationists" were accidentally retained, so that "creationists" became "cdesign proponentsists".

The basic metabolic pathways (reaction chains) of nearly all organisms are the same. Is this because of descent from a common ancestor, or because only these pathways (and their variations) can sustain life? Evolutionists think the former is correct, cdesign proponentsists accept the latter view.
Of Pandas and People - Wikipedia

When one of the witnesses for the defense (Michael Behe) admitted under oath that ID is science in the same sense that astrology is science, the decision was inevitable.

So if a judge were to rule that the Earth is round, that would be unconstitutional? Are you sure about that?

What was established was that ID is a religious doctrine (which it's advocates privately proclaimed to each other). As such, it can't be taught in a public school science class.

And that's the end of it.

Fair enough, I am not that familiar with the court case. It seems they went into that court case unprepared. Unprepared by legal advice which probably would have shown that they had a contradictory position. That is probably why some did not take part. But still isn't this only about semantics because the actual application that DI and ID uses is based on science. How can an organisation or ID make a scientific case for design by using supernatural means such as creationism. It defeats their purpose and existence. Sure they may in secrecy be trying to show that God is the designer/creator but they cannot make a case based on super-naturalism. I thought their aim was to show this through science.

 

[Job 33:6]

Except you have left out the other governing goals they have which put things into better perspective ie
• To see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory.

From what I understand the goal of defeating scientific materialism and replacing this with a theistic understanding that nature and humans are created by God does not imply the creationism that the bible supports such as a supernatural act around 6,000 years ago. DI position would be no different to theistic evolution. Theistic evolution though supporting evolution takes the position that the evolutionary process is a mechanism used by God. If ID was only about creationism which supports supernatural creation then why does the Discovery Institute have an extensive program on scientific research that produces many peer reviewed papers on ID.

This position is not to different to Francis Collins and the Biologos
We embrace the historical Christian faith, upholding the authority and inspiration of the Bible. We affirm evolutionary creation, recognizing God as Creator of all life over billions of years.
About BioLogos
Among the aims of the Foundation, is to present a credible synthesis between creation and evolution.
What is the BioLogos Project | Inters.org

What it means by defeating scientific materialism is not about religion. Many non religious scientists agree that some use science like a religion claiming that we can only understand nature in a material sense. But many scientists like Thomas Nagel who is an atheist support non-religious ideas beyond the material view. Some like Rupert Sheldrake take a stronger view about scientific materialism.
So the DI is only proposing something that the non religious sector agrees with.

Is Scientific Materialism "Almost Certainly False"?
Evolutionary psychologists invoke natural selection to explain humanity's remarkable attributes, but only in a hand-wavy, retrospective fashion, according to Nagel. A genuine theory of everything, he suggests, should make sense of the extraordinary fact that the universe "is waking up and becoming aware of itself." In other words, the theory should show that life, mind, morality and reason were not only possible but even inevitable, latent in the cosmos from its explosive inception.
Is Scientific Materialism "Almost Certainly False"?

Banned TED Talk: The Science Delusion - Rupert Sheldrake at TEDx Whitechapel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TerTgDEgUE


So if God is called a Creator God in the bible what role did he play in creation. Didn't God use evolution as a means to allow life to exist. Isn't that what theistic evolution is about. Are you saying there is a positive case for creation.

Ultimately it is God who put life on earth and it is He who ensures its survival. The way nature works is the way God intended to ensure the outcomes we have. Otherwise if you take the materialistic position which is what DI was talking about then the way nature works has no guarantee of outcome. The environment dictates the outcomes. If earth did not have the specific environments it has there would be no life. But if it is subject to chance events through the expansion of the universe it may have ended up like any other planet that has no life. Would God take such a risk without installing some laws and codes that directed things.

Fair enough, I am not that familiar with the court case. It seems they went into that court case unprepared. Unprepared by legal advice which probably would have shown that they had a contradictory position. That is probably why some did not take part. But still isn't this only about semantics because the actual application that DI and ID uses is based on science. How can an organisation or ID make a scientific case for design by using supernatural means such as creationism. It defeats their purpose and existence. Sure they may in secrecy be trying to show that God is the designer/creator but they cannot make a case based on super-naturalism. I thought their aim was to show this through science.

Above it was said:

"DI position would be no different to theistic evolution. Theistic evolution though supporting evolution takes the position that the evolutionary process is a mechanism used by God. " -steve

But this isn't actually true. Much of the sciences are denied by cdesign proponentsists.

For example, transitional fossils of paleontology.

While some (though few) may accept common descent, by in large, they actually outright reject evolution and the idea that mankind descended from apes.

 

[stevevw]

Above it was said:

"DI position would be no different to theistic evolution. Theistic evolution though supporting evolution takes the position that the evolutionary process is a mechanism used by God. " -steve

But this isn't actually true. Much of the sciences are denied by design proponents.

For example, transitional fossils of paleontology.

While some (though few) may accept common descent, by in large, they actually outright reject evolution and the idea that mankind descended from apes.

There are varying views for theistic evolution. All include Gods involvement somewhere along the way which is anti-scientific as well and contradicts the purely scientific position. This is their attempt to weld the two together. DI and/or ID supporters may reject evolution mechanisms but not completely. They may as you say accept common decent and micro-evolution. They are merely disagreeing with an aspect of evolution and saying this can be better explained by design. But they don' present this by supernatural explanations but try at least to support it by science such as the many peer reviewed articles they produce or cite. So to say they are creationists is not correct as creationists only support supernatural creation as similar to a literal interpretation of Genesis.

The problem I see is that when a person tries to support theistic evolution and believe in a creator God who had to have performed some sort of supernatural act at some stage either the universal common ancestor which gives a leg up for evolution as it installed the codes of life to tap into in the first place and this may include anything from leg ups to multi-celled life to leg ups to everything depending on how you view what the common ancestor contained. It may be that there were latent codes that were initiated through evolutionary processes.

But the point is there was help from God which was supernatural. So in that sense this is also a form of ID. Either God is intelligent and a creator/designer of life or he isn't. He did that through nature and it is just to what degree that people are debating. If you are a believer in a creator God you cannot deny his supernatural ability as a creator whether that is through the standard theory of evolution, ID, creationism or some other process. .

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
ID's self-proclaimed "Governing Goal" of establishing religion was the key evidence. That demonstrated that it's religion, not science.
Well, let's see what they say when they think no one else is listening...
Governing Goals:

• "To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies"
• "To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God"

Discovery Institute's "Wedge Document"
Pretty much settled that issue, didn't it?

Except you have left out the other governing goals

There were only two. I showed them to you. Other goals were merely steps toward their religious objectives.

From what I understand the goal of defeating scientific materialism and replacing this with a theistic understanding that nature and humans are created by God does not imply the creationism that the bible supports such as a supernatural act around 6,000 years ago.

Since members of the Discovery Institute include a devotee of the Rev. Myung Sun Moon, (often called the Moonies) at least one deist, and so on, their objective was to advance religion generally, not any specific religion. This is why the founders specifically banned government interference or support of religion generally, not any specific religion.

DI position would be no different to theistic evolution.

Indeed. Michael Denton is a deistic evolutionist, and Michael Behe is a theistic evolutionist. Those religions are included in the ban on Government interference with religion. It's also unconstitutional to teach those religious ideas.

Theistic evolution though supporting evolution takes the position that the evolutionary process is a mechanism used by God. If ID was only about creationism

It's not. It's a big tent with all sorts of religions in it. They only want to impose religion generally on public schools.

This position is not to different to Francis Collins and the Biologos
We embrace the historical Christian faith, upholding the authority and inspiration of the Bible. We affirm evolutionary creation, recognizing God as Creator of all life over billions of years.
About BioLogos
Among the aims of the Foundation, is to present a credible synthesis between creation and evolution.
What is the BioLogos Project | Inters.org

True. But of course, biologos is also advocating religion, and therefore cannot be presented in public schools.

What it means by defeating scientific materialism is not about religion.

Very clearly, it is:

• "To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies"
• "To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God"

No point in denying it.

So if God is called a Creator God in the bible what role did he play in creation. Didn't God use evolution as a means to allow life to exist. Isn't that what theistic evolution is about. Are you saying there is a positive case for creation.

Of course. God isn't the "maybe a space alien" designer the IDers think He is. He's the Creator, not some mere "designer." They chose "design", because that would bring Him down to the level of science, which is their objective.

Fair enough, I am not that familiar with the court case. It seems they went into that court case unprepared. Unprepared by legal advice which probably would have shown that they had a contradictory position.

They didn't want that case to go to court. They tried to talk the school board out of it, knowing what was going to happen. They did the best they could, but the obvious problems with their approach and the inadvertent release of a document making clear their religious objectives, pretty much doomed their case.

That is probably why some did not take part. But still isn't this only about semantics because the actual application that DI and ID uses is based on science.

That's the practical problem they have. It doesn't work. If it worked, scientists would use it, regardless of who objected. But it doesn't work. And if it doesn't work, scientists aren't going to use it. A presupposition of some unspecified "designer" does nothing toward an increase knowledge about the world.

How can an organisation or ID make a scientific case for design by using supernatural means such as creationism.

Philip Johnson was a creationist, apparently agnostic about how old the Earth is. He claimed science was inherently atheistic, so he was looking to take down more than just biology.

Sure they may in secrecy be trying to show that God is the designer/creator but they cannot make a case based on super-naturalism.

That's why they failed. When it became clear the goal was establishment of religion, there was no path to success for them.

 

[Job 33:6]

"So to say they are creationists is not correct as creationists only support supernatural creation as similar to a literal interpretation of Genesis."-Steve

As per of pandas and people, the DI/ID movement indeed promotes the belief in supernatural creation.

"already intact fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc". These are not my words, they're words of cdesign proponentsists. If God could have used Darwinian Evolution, then the ID/DI movement wouldn't be so staunchly opposed to it.

Biologos doesn't seek to discredit the fossil succession. Biologos also doesn't seek to discredit descent with modification via darwinian evolution.

 

[Roderick Spode]

Creationist actually refers to ANYONE who believes in a creator deity. In the USA they usually refer to science denying and scientifically illiterate fundies who are usually Christian. I meet the first definition of a creationist . I’m decidedly not a member of the 2nd group. You nitpicking over a definition isn’t really relevant as it’s the science deniers who want to teach their religious beliefs instead of science

Wow. I see I have a lot of catching up to do in my absence.

You just confirmed my point (sort of) with your first statement.

Creationist actually refers to ANYONE who believes in a creator deity.

Except there's no particular reason to always attach deity to the reference.

Obviously it's a term with grey boundaries. What it usually refers to anywhere is irrelevant. The term creationist is often used in America now referring to biblical creationism, probably for one it's just a lot easier to say or write out. Secondly, the adversaries of ID, of which there are many in the public eye, are going to use it a lot more, as they pretty much want a stranglehold on this one little point because this is supposed to be smoking gun proof of a religious conspiracy.

No, I'm not the nit-picker. If there were no nit-pickers, this wouldn't be an issue. They would have inquired as to what the authors meant. Not what it means to you or I, or anyone else. And then after the explanation, move on. (Ohhh....that's what you meant? Good, now let's move on...)

But again, this is supposed to be smoking gun proof. I'm sure Barbara Forrest would have done multiple back-flips had she only found biblical scripture in the book. Instead she found a word changed to avoid impending misunderstanding (or accusations).

So again, this is about what the authors of the book meant when they used the term creationism. I'm sure the accusers are intelligent to know that the term is surrounded by grey.

So no, the authors of the book are not at fault as far as moral, ethical, or legal matters. If this whole thing was a game show, where making the wrong choice is not a moral, ethical, or legal affair, that would be the only grounds to suggest a penalty. Instead of choosing door#1 with the brand new Tesla, they choose door#2 with the booby prize. Instead of writing creation technology (science-fictiony sounding), they choose to write creationism.

And the term fundy of course refers to fundamentalism which simply accepting the entire bible as the literal Word of God.

How do you, or how do you think you avoid/are avoiding labeling yourself as a fundy?

 

[Roderick Spode]

"So to say they are creationists is not correct as creationists only support supernatural creation as similar to a literal interpretation of Genesis."-Steve

As per of pandas and people, the DI/ID movement indeed promotes the belief in supernatural creation.

"already intact fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc". These are not my words, they're words of cdesign proponentsists. If God could have used Darwinian Evolution, then the ID/DI movement wouldn't be so staunchly opposed to it.

Biologos doesn't seek to discredit the fossil succession. Biologos also doesn't seek to discredit descent with modification via darwinian evolution.

How do you think God created us? Was it supernatural, or natural?

 

[Roderick Spode]

As is often the case when the judge finds one side's arguments to be compelling. If he didn't agree with them, why would he have agreed with them?

As is often the case when the judge finds one side's arguments to be compelling. If he didn't agree with them, why would he have agreed with them?

ID will never get over Dover. As ID inventor Philip Johnson admitted, the trial was a "train wreck" for ID.

The kicker was the Wedge Document, showing that ID is actually a religious doctrine, and the "governing goal" of ID was to spread a particular religious POV. Didn't help that IDer Michael Behe, under oath, admitted that ID is science in the same sense that astrology is science. Or that Of Pandas and People, a supposedly ID "textbook" was actually creationist textbook with every reference to "creationist" removed and replaced with "design proponent."

The kicker was the Wedge Document, showing that ID is actually a religious doctrine, and the "governing goal" of ID was to spread a particular religious POV. Didn't help that IDer Michael Behe, under oath, admitted that ID is science in the same sense that astrology is science. Or that Of Pandas and People, a supposedly ID "textbook" was actually creationist textbook with every reference to "creationist" removed and replaced with "design proponent."

The Wedge Document is identical to the Humanist Manifesto1. A number of prominent evolutionists like Richard Dawkins are affiliates of the American Humanists. Both the WD, and the HM1 are outside sources displaying goals to influence society with their viewpoint. Richard Dawkins, and many atheist activists have set a goal to influence society away from religion. Another great example of this is the Freedom From Religion Foundation. They have a goal to see religion removed from society. Again, Richard Dawkins in the case of the FFR is a member. But, no public school in the U.S. is going to prohibit Dawkins' work in the classroom because he at least seems careful enough to keep the conversation of religion outside of schools. (Although I say that with a certain amount of hesitancy).

 

[Roderick Spode]

ID's self-proclaimed "Governing Goal" of establishing religion was the key evidence. That demonstrated that it's religion, not science.



Well, let's see what they say when they think no one else is listening...

Governing Goals:

• "To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies"
• "To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God"

Discovery Institute's "Wedge Document"

Pretty much settled that issue, didn't it?



There is no positive case for design in nature. Created, yes. Designed, no. Design is what creatures must do. And as the evidence shows, no designer would work the way nature does.



The real exposure there was the finding that the book had been written by a creationist, and altered only in removing "creationist" in every mention, replacing it with "design proponent." Unfortunately for the defendants, one typo exposed that particular hoax.

And I went back through my old copies of Science magazine and found the term used occasionally."[20] In a new draft of Pandas prepared shortly after the 1987 Supreme Court ruling, approximately 150 uses of the root word "creation", such as "creationism" and "creationist", were systematically changed to refer to intelligent design.[29] The definition remained essentially the same, with "intelligent design" substituted for "creation", and "intelligent creator" changed to "intelligent agency":

Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc.[21]


The term "creationists" was changed to "design proponents", but in one case the beginning and end of the original word "creationists" were accidentally retained, so that "creationists" became "cdesign proponentsists".

The basic metabolic pathways (reaction chains) of nearly all organisms are the same. Is this because of descent from a common ancestor, or because only these pathways (and their variations) can sustain life? Evolutionists think the former is correct, cdesign proponentsists accept the latter view.
Of Pandas and People - Wikipedia



When one of the witnesses for the defense (Michael Behe) admitted under oath that ID is science in the same sense that astrology is science, the decision was inevitable.



So if a judge were to rule that the Earth is round, that would be unconstitutional? Are you sure about that?



What was established was that ID is a religious doctrine (which it's advocates privately proclaimed to each other). As such, it can't be taught in a public school science class.

And that's the end of it.

Well, let's see what they say when they think no one else is listening...

Governing Goals:

• "To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies"
• "To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God"

Discovery Institute's "Wedge Document"

Pretty much settled that issue, didn't it?

I've quoted from the Humanist Manifesto1, but here's an excerpt from a write-up:

The 1933 manifesto issued a challenge in the name of naturalism to the supernaturalists whose beliefs were based upon revelation rather than reason and science. It was a bold move to them publicly that their religious views were out of date and that the time had come for a new faith and a new religion. Such a challenge is just as appropriate today in view of the influence of the radical religious right.

Chapter 1: A Humanist Manifesto - A Historic Document

Do you not think there's a certain religion related goal here?

When one of the witnesses for the defense (Michael Behe) admitted under oath that ID is science in the same sense that astrology is science, the decision was inevitable.

And did they give him a chance to explain what he meant? If astrology is any type of science at all, then there will inevitably be some similarities. I don't think ID is comparable to astrology though, just because it doesn't fall under the category of natural science.

Do you think the act of God creating the universe, even if he used evolution would be considered science?

What was established was that ID is a religious doctrine (which it's advocates privately proclaimed to each other). As such, it can't be taught in a public school science class.

And that's the end of it.

And what religious doctrine would that be?

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian, regarding the question of whether or not ID is a religious doctrine:
Well, let's see what they say when they think no one else is listening...

Governing Goals:

• 
  
  
  • "To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies"
  • "To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God"

Discovery Institute's "Wedge Document"

Pretty much settled that issue, didn't it?

I've quoted from the Humanist Manifesto1, but here's an excerpt from a write-up:

The 1933 manifesto issued a challenge in the name of naturalism to the supernaturalists whose beliefs were based upon revelation rather than reason and science. It was a bold move to them publicly that their religious views were out of date and that the time had come for a new faith and a new religion. Such a challenge is just as appropriate today in view of the influence of the radical religious right.

Chapter 1: A Humanist Manifesto - A Historic Document

Do you not think there's a certain religion related goal here?

Seems like it. So ontological naturalism shouldn't be taught in public schools, just as ID should not be taught in public schools.

When one of the witnesses for the defense (Michael Behe) admitted under oath that ID is science in the same sense that astrology is science, the decision was inevitable.

And did they give him a chance to explain what he meant?

I assume he said what he meant. But of the defense thought that he didn't, they could return him to the stand and ask him to clarify. I think they figured his honesty had done enough damage, and didn't want to return him for more of that.

If astrology is any type of science at all, then there will inevitably be some similarities. I don't think ID is comparable to astrology though, just because it doesn't fall under the category of natural science.

Behe does, and he's a scientist, after all.

Do you think the act of God creating the universe, even if he used evolution would be considered science?

The initial creation, as Christians have noted, was miraculous. God then used nature to bring forth other things, as He says in Genesis.

Barbarian observes:
What was established was that ID is a religious doctrine (which it's advocates privately proclaimed to each other). As such, it can't be taught in a public school science class.

And that's the end of it.

And what religious doctrine would that be?

"the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God"

 

[Job 33:6]

How do you think God created us? Was it supernatural, or natural?

Mankind evolved from primitive hominids through evolution, which is a natural process.

 

[The Barbarian]

The Wedge Document is identical to the Humanist Manifesto1. A number of prominent evolutionists like Richard Dawkins are affiliates of the American Humanists. Both the WD, and the HM1 are outside sources displaying goals to influence society with their viewpoint. Richard Dawkins, and many atheist activists have set a goal to influence society away from religion. Another great example of this is the Freedom From Religion Foundation. They have a goal to see religion removed from society. Again, Richard Dawkins in the case of the FFR is a member. But, no public school in the U.S. is going to prohibit Dawkins' work in the classroom because he at least seems careful enough to keep the conversation of religion outside of schools. (Although I say that with a certain amount of hesitancy).

Ontological naturalism should not be taught in public schools (and is not permitted in any public school I know about) for the same reason ID should not be taught in public schools.

Where Dawkins' work does not relate to his religious beliefs, it's permissible, just as Behe's work, where it doesn't related to his religious beliefs, is permissible.

 

[Roderick Spode]

Barbarian, regarding the question of whether or not ID is a religious doctrine:
Well, let's see what they say when they think no one else is listening...

Governing Goals:

• 
  
  
  • "To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies"
  • "To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God"

Discovery Institute's "Wedge Document"

Pretty much settled that issue, didn't it?


Seems like it. So ontological naturalism shouldn't be taught in public schools, just as ID should not be taught in public schools.

When one of the witnesses for the defense (Michael Behe) admitted under oath that ID is science in the same sense that astrology is science, the decision was inevitable.



I assume he said what he meant. But of the defense thought that he didn't, they could return him to the stand and ask him to clarify. I think they figured his honesty had done enough damage, and didn't want to return him for more of that.



Behe does, and he's a scientist, after all.



The initial creation, as Christians have noted, was miraculous. God then used nature to bring forth other things, as He says in Genesis.

Barbarian observes:
What was established was that ID is a religious doctrine (which it's advocates privately proclaimed to each other). As such, it can't be taught in a public school science class.

And that's the end of it.

"the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God"

Seems like it. So ontological naturalism shouldn't be taught in public schools, just as ID should not be taught in public schools.

You're missing the point. ID is not a personality. ID is an innocent bystander. It's individual humans that set personal goals and collective goals. ID has no agenda. It can't anymore than science which is also not a personality.

Is this all really about ID? Or is it about Michael Behe and the Discovery Institute? Do you think it would make any difference if another ID org came on the scene consisting mostly of deists?

I think what you mean to say is Michael Behe and/or the DI should not be allowed to teach in public schools.

When one of the witnesses for the defense (Michael Behe) admitted under oath that ID is science in the same sense that astrology is science, the decision was inevitable.

Well Mr. Behe didn't have the advantage of being on a discussion forum where he could avoid questions, or have time to think about a safe answer. Obviously he was dealing with a courtroom shark who smelled blood. But there's nothing commendable here in the actions of the accusers. Just another example of courtroom bias.

On the one hand ID (and I assume astrology) are labeled non-science. At other times pseudo-science. And then there's a gray line between whether or not theories like multiverses are pseudoscience or not. So there's been very little effort to break this down. It's more of a ahhhhhh he said.......

what more proof do we need?......burn the witch!

Since you're a Christian, do you think God used a science of sorts to create the universe?

I assume he said what he meant. But of the defense thought that he didn't, they could return him to the stand and ask him to clarify. I think they figured his honesty had done enough damage, and didn't want to return him for more of that.

The courtroom accusers were basically utilizing the Larry King interviewing method of asking questions not to get an answer, but to make a point. Sort of like a woman accusing her husband of seeing another woman. She asks him if he was with another woman today, he says yes, and then she claims he's cheating on her. But what she is avoiding is his explanation that the woman is a travel agent organizing a trip for her and her husband.

In other words, the woman is bent on proving her husband is unfaithful.

The initial creation, as Christians have noted, was miraculous. God then used nature to bring forth other things, as He says in Genesis.

Barbarian observes:
What was established was that ID is a religious doctrine (which it's advocates privately proclaimed to each other). As such, it can't be taught in a public school science class.

And that's the end of it.



How about teaching it in a public school Philosophy class? That would take care of the alleged science definition conflict.

(And I don't mean comparative religion class).

 

[Roderick Spode]

Mankind evolved from primitive hominids through evolution, which is a natural process.

Do you think God created the universe, or did the universe just evolve somehow?

 

[Roderick Spode]

Ontological naturalism should not be taught in public schools (and is not permitted in any public school I know about) for the same reason ID should not be taught in public schools.

Where Dawkins' work does not relate to his religious beliefs, it's permissible, just as Behe's work, where it doesn't related to his religious beliefs, is permissible.

Onteological naturalism would only be a part of ID.

What exactly is the difference then with Dawkins' work, and Behe's work? (Assuming there is one).

 

[The Barbarian]

Onteological naturalism would only be a part of ID.

Ontological naturalism is the belief that there is nothing other than the physical universe. Since ID is based on the notion of God,those are diametrically opposed.

What exactly is the difference then with Dawkins' work, and Behe's work?

Behe is a biochemist. Dawkins is a zoologist, specializing in ethology. Behe is a theist, and Dawkings is an atheist. (sort of) Their work in science is similar; their work in their religious beliefs differs a lot.