quote:

Another stack of books would not make the books go away that Behe claimed did not exist. The first stack of books and papers, the ones that Behe said did not exist, were not nameless. Each and every one was authored by scientists. Each and every one showed Behe was not telling the truth.

That didn't answer the question of why there was no rebuttal.

quote:

They claimed that Behe's statement was false. The stack of books and research papers supported their claim. Behe and the other creationists had no rebuttal. Obviously, they were correct -- what Behe said was false.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Another stack of books would not make the books go away that Behe claimed did not exist. The first stack of books and papers, the ones that Behe said did not exist, were not nameless. Each and every one was authored by scientists. Each and every one showed Behe was not telling the truth.

That didn't answer the question of why there was no rebuttal.

Behe didn't claim anything 'didn't exist'. And he didn't need to make them go away - they were a legal stunt.

quote:

They claimed that Behe's statement was false. The stack of books and research papers supported their claim. Behe and the other creationists had no rebuttal. Obviously, they were correct -- what Behe said was false.

Now you are dissembling - you have no idea what was in those books and papers do you?

quote:

Behe said, "We can look high or we can look low in books or in journals, but the result is the same. The scientific literature has no answers to the question of the origin of the immune system." The lawyers found books and journals that address the question.

They couldn't make them go away, and they had no rebuttal.

I haven't read them, no. From the titles anyone can tell that they address various aspects of the origin of the immune system. Behe knew about them or should have know about them.

Behe's statement was false. There are many books and many research papers that address the question of the origin of the immune system. The lawyers proved that.

quote:

If Butteville district decides to introduce ID into their public schools, there will be a legal challenge. The result will be the same as Dover. -- Teaching ID is unconstitutional per Edwards v. Aguillard. Taxpayers monies will be wasted on an unnecessary trial with a forgone conclusion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Behe said, "We can look high or we can look low in books or in journals, but the result is the same. The scientific literature has no answers to the question of the origin of the immune system." The lawyers found books and journals that address the question.

They couldn't make them go away, and they had no rebuttal.

I haven't read them, no. From the titles anyone can tell that they address various aspects of the origin of the immune system. Behe knew about them or should have know about them.

Behe's statement was false. There are many books and many research papers that address the question of the origin of the immune system. The lawyers proved that.

As much faith as you place in that notion, and as religiously as you repeat that mantra, unless you actually know what was in those books and papers and can demonstrate they were more than a simple legal stunt, none of what you just asserted should be believed. All it demonstrates is you know little of legal maneuvers, and less of the actual biological research.

quote:

quote:

If Butteville district decides to introduce ID into their public schools, there will be a legal challenge. The result will be the same as Dover. -- Teaching ID is unconstitutional per Edwards v. Aguillard. Taxpayers monies will be wasted on an unnecessary trial with a forgone conclusion.

I welcome those challenges - Louisiana has also passed ID friendly legislation, so that challenge will also have to occur there. And if such challenges are lost, then the language and materials will change and efforts will be made again, all the while changing the nature of schools so that there is less of an argument that any one is imposing views on an unwilling audience.

quote:

You can call it a stunt, but it was an effective stunt. You could argue that presenting so many books and papers was overkill, and I would not argue that point. But it worked.

quote:

They have tried to introduce creationism in LA before. They failed. Calling creationism Intelligent Design will change nothing. Teaching ID creationism is wrong for two reasons: 1) ID creationism is not science, and 2) ID creationism is religion, and as religion teaching it in public schools violates the US Constitution.

There will be other trials. The result will be the same each and every time. ID creationism will lose.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

You can call it a stunt, but it was an effective stunt. You could argue that presenting so many books and papers was overkill, and I would not argue that point. But it worked.

I actually agree with you here, it did work - the judge bought it hook line and sinker.

And if science advanced by the way of such stunts, it might even make evolution more believable.

quote:

They have tried to introduce creationism in LA before. They failed. Calling creationism Intelligent Design will change nothing. Teaching ID creationism is wrong for two reasons: 1) ID creationism is not science, and 2) ID creationism is religion, and as religion teaching it in public schools violates the US Constitution.

There will be other trials. The result will be the same each and every time. ID creationism will lose.

Well, it's aready happening. Good luck keeping up; we are the ones who keep having the babies who grow into the teachers and politicians who make the law.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

I welcome those challenges - Louisiana has also passed ID friendly legislation, so that challenge will also have to occur there. And if such challenges are lost, then the language and materials will change and efforts will be made again, all the while changing the nature of schools so that there is less of an argument that any one is imposing views on an unwilling audience.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Molotor

In an early post in this thread jhud stated he didn't mind seeing his tax money go to defend lawsuits against teaching ID in science class.

That raised a question I think would be interesting to discuss here. Why don't ID proponents sue school boards to prohibit the teaching of Evolution? Betta and others say it is a religion. If it is a religion, then it doesn't belong in science class.

quote:

Maybe because that would require them to waste their own money, rather than taxpayer money.

quote:

It's why I asked the question.

Phillip Johnson one of the founding fathers of ID is a lawyer. Maybe he could file it.

He has been quoted as saying this is not a scientific fight but a religious and philosophical one. However, I have not yet been able to corroborate that outside of anti ID sites so I don't know if he actually said it or it has been attributed to him.

But there is no doubt he is a lawyer.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

It's why I asked the question.

Phillip Johnson one of the founding fathers of ID is a lawyer. Maybe he could file it.

He has been quoted as saying this is not a scientific fight but a religious and philosophical one. However, I have not yet been able to corroborate that outside of anti ID sites so I don't know if he actually said it or it has been attributed to him.

But there is no doubt he is a lawyer.

You have to have standing to file such a lawsuit, and Johnson doesn't - and IDists don't believe in advancing scientific ideas through courtrooms, evolutionists do.

quote:

He could offer to represent someone with standing, such as a parent. He could even offer to take the case pro bono.

Evolutionists do not advance scientific ideas through courtrooms and you know it.

The suit was not about evolution at all. It was about Intelligent Design and whether the teaching of it was a violation of the Constitution. The evidence showed that since ID was creationism, the teaching of it in public schools was a violation of the Establishment clause of the first amendment.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

He could offer to represent someone with standing, such as a parent. He could even offer to take the case pro bono.

Evolutionists do not advance scientific ideas through courtrooms and you know it.

The suit was not about evolution at all. It was about Intelligent Design and whether the teaching of it was a violation of the Constitution. The evidence showed that since ID was creationism, the teaching of it in public schools was a violation of the Establishment clause of the first amendment.

Again, IDists do not advance there ideas through courtrooms, evolutionists consistently seek court remedies whenever their theory is threatened; and you are an advocate of such a strategy, so your denials are laugable.

quote:

No. Unlike other sciences, ID creationists advance their ideas through legislation. They want to bypass the normal routine for scientific acceptance and legislate their religious ideas into public schools because they are unable to show that ID creationism is valid science through the normal channels.

But again, this isn't about evolution. Evolution was not the issue. ID creationism was the issue. This is about whether it is a violation of the Establishment Clause for the government to promote religion. ID creationism is religion and public schools are prohibited from promoting it, per Edwards. The proper venue for challenging the legality of teaching ID creationism in public schools IS the courts.

I recommend seeking legal remedy when the law is violated. Where do you suggest remedy be sought when the law is violated?

So... Why shouldn't Phillip Johnson offer his services to someone who want to challenge evolution, the way ID creationism has been challenged in courts?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

No. Unlike other sciences, ID creationists advance their ideas through legislation. They want to bypass the normal routine for scientific acceptance and legislate their religious ideas into public schools because they are unable to show that ID creationism is valid science through the normal channels.

But again, this isn't about evolution. Evolution was not the issue. ID creationism was the issue. This is about whether it is a violation of the Establishment Clause for the government to promote religion. ID creationism is religion and public schools are prohibited from promoting it, per Edwards. The proper venue for challenging the legality of teaching ID creationism in public schools IS the courts.

I recommend seeking legal remedy when the law is violated. Where do you suggest remedy be sought when the law is violated?

So... Why shouldn't Phillip Johnson offer his services to someone who want to challenge evolution, the way ID creationism has been challenged in courts?

Actually, IDists advocated freedom through legislation; the freedom to talk about, compare and criticize scientific issues in the spirit of free exchange - evolutionists fear this, and so attempt to prevent it via judicial means. But they will continue to fail to do so, because the vast majority of the parents in this country still don't agree with evolution as presented by evolutionists, and have no problem questioning it, which is why it keeps comingback - and always will.

quote:

No. ID creationists advocate bypassing the normal processes for acceptance. They want to go straight to legislating their "theories" before they're established. The only thing that should be taught in science classes is accepted science. Religion has no place in science classrooms of public schools.

What concerned citizens want to do is prevent is a violation of the Bill of Rights. Promoting religion by a government institution is a violation of our freedoms and should be stopped. The proper venue for this is the courts.

Each and every time the teaching of creationism in public schools has been challenged in the courts, it has been found to be illegal -- whether it's called creationism, scientific creationism, or intelligent design. The result will be the same in Butteville and it will be the same each and every time it comes up as long as the First Amendment stands.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

No. ID creationists advocate bypassing the normal processes for acceptance. They want to go straight to legislating their "theories" before they're established. The only thing that should be taught in science classes is accepted science. Religion has no place in science classrooms of public schools.

What concerned citizens want to do is prevent is a violation of the Bill of Rights. Promoting religion by a government institution is a violation of our freedoms and should be stopped. The proper venue for this is the courts.

Each and every time the teaching of creationism in public schools has been challenged in the courts, it has been found to be illegal -- whether it's called creationism, scientific creationism, or intelligent design. The result will be the same in Butteville and it will be the same each and every time it comes up as long as the First Amendment stands.

The normal 'process of acceptance' of a school curriculum doesn't require evolutionists to give ID the rubber stamp of approval; there is no official science committee or king, and parents are free to allow an issue to be discussed in a class however they choose. The Bill of rights addressed neither the particulars of science, the requirements of a school, nor guidelines for parenting.

Keep kicking you feet - it doesn't change the choices schools and teachers and parents are making.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

We know an arrowhead is designed BEFOREHAND. If ID can only be used to identify design in things we ALREADY KNOW are designed, I call it useless, and redundant.

No we don’t – some rocks look like arrowheads and aren’t, some are – determining which really are and aren’t requires looking for indicators of intelligent design.

quote:

quote:

Let me ask you this: In your own words, what does it mean for a theory to have a BETTER EXPLANATION of how life diversified than another?

It makes better predictions and gives a more robust basis for further exploration.

quote:

quote:

All your arguments rely on incredulity. How is this scientific? Can you provide me with support for ID that is NOT an argument from incedulity?

Sure – the positive statement that ID is a necessary factor in the production of complex information driven systems and structures is a readily explorable, reproducible, and falsifiable tenet – i.e., it’s scientifically amenable.

quote:

quote:

You are welcome to provide your arguments.

Why would I need to provide arguments to refute your unsupported assertions? They are self-refuting.

quote:

quote:

What I said was that if your theory requires the existance of entities, and you are unable to support the existance of these entities using evidence, it is not scientific. Hence, ID is not scientific.

Wrong. If I found a pyramid on Mars, complete with artwork and alien hieroglyphics, I wouldn’t have to support the existence of those entities because such a find is itself evidence of the existence of intelligent entities, in the same way as the complex information system driven nano-machinery is in our cells.

quote:

quote:

Example: The theory that the pyramids was built by the Egyptians, requires us to show that the Egyptians existed. The theory that life was created and diversified by a designer, requires YOU to support the existance of this designer. You are unable to do so.

No it doesn’t because the pyramids are themselves evidence the Egyptians existed.

quote:


Indeed, if we accept this statement, we would be forced to believe that unless we had Egyptian mummies, and a history of the Egyptians, we would be forced to conclude the pyramids arose through natural means – which is absurd.

quote:


Indeed, there are (and have been) many artifacts that have been found about which we know very little about their makers, but still assume that someone made them.

quote:

quote:

So Juhd, what do you think the ID supporters did wrong in that case? Do you think there is something they should have done differently in order to win the case? To be more specific, if another case like that one came up, what will they have to do differently, so that the result will not be identical?

Actually, yes, I think many on the school board confused ID with creationism and their own religious beliefs – and as much as school officials can avoid doing that, the stronger the case for teaching ID and criticizing evolution will be.

quote:

Really? What are these indicators?

quote:

In that case, can you give me a list of predictions ID has made?
Also, how does ID explain the nested hierarchy?

quote:

Give me an example of how ID can be falsified.

quote:

Pyramids are not imperfect replicators. Which means they cannot incrementally reach thier current shape. THAT is why we conclude that intelligence is needed. It is the same reason whe conclude that intelligence is needed to create a watch. Watches are not imperfect replicators.

Interestingly, all life on Earth ARE imperfect replicators. Which means thier complexity can be explained with evolution. Evolution cannot explain complexity in ANYTHING if that thing is not an imperfect replicator. Do you understand?

quote:

If we want to claim the Pyramids was built by the Egyptians, we have to show that the Egyptians actually existed. It's really that simple. If you want to claim that a designer diversified and created life on earth, you have to show that the designer exists.

quote:

Why would we conclude that the pyramids arose naturally?

quote:

Were they imperfect replicators?

quote:

ID is not going anywhere, before the designer is not identified and shown to exist.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Really? What are these indicators?

I believe the criterion used is called systematic flaking.