• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Dover Penn ID trial

Egads! I´m away for a couple of hours and it´s troll heaven! Oh how fun these internets are! However, natural selection keeps on being anything but random. Oh, and there are many mutational mechanisms, all of them not strictly random either...and of course, there is no known mechanism of ID, short of those guided by humans, apes, crows etc, i.e. living organisms of the natural world. Now, let´s get ourselves a couple of fresh Kitzmiller vs. Dover transcripts and laugh our collective guts out. And btw, Hammegk, why not join us? It´s great fun!
 
Last edited:
Dan Beaird said:
It's my understanding that Buckingham was called by the prosecution (hostile witness rules and all) out of turn becuase he was unavailable when they presented their case and allowances were made for just this sort of thing.
Click to expand...

That would explain a lot. Any idea where you heard that, Dan?

Also, can anyone explain to me why Buckingham can't get in trouble for perjury for this? I'm definitely not Mr. Law, but his false statements seem to be a little too convenient to not be deliberate.
 
bagtaggar said:
Hammy... can you please demonstrate how ID qualifies as science? Pwease?
Click to expand...
Of course not. I can offer some others' words regarding the ongoing debate, which as I see it, is not that specific question anyway.


Today, some read the evidence of nature and find no evidence for the existence of a Deity. Richard Dawkins, the contemporary biologist, notorious atheist, penned a book with the title "The Blind Watchmaker". He argues that "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference". In the context of the warfare between evolution and creationism in the United States, the problem is perhaps less with believers who read the Bible as a literal account of Creation and more with believers who read Richard Dawkins as a literal account of evolution.
Click to expand...

The history of the anti-evolution debates in the United States is less about biology and more about morality. Going back to the 1925 Scopes Trial, the progressive politician, William Jennings Bryan, got involved largely because of his objections to Social Darwinism and Eugenics, which at the time were widely used to justify any number of social injustices. Thirty states had eugenics laws. Indeed, the "science" most used to justify Nazism was first published in the peer-reviewed journals of the United States.

Today, the anti-evolution arguments are quite similar -- evolution equals materialism equals atheism equals nihilism equals immorality. The last Supreme Court case to examine this question, the 1987 case Edwards v. Aguillard ruled against Creation Science not on the basis of the science, but that it was a sectarian religion and thus could not be taught in the public schools. The anti-evolution forces regrouped, reorganized, and united around a "science-only" tactic - calling evolution "just a theory" and requesting equal time for Intelligent Design Theory. The old Creation Science arguments have been resurrected, but without mention of the Bible or officially naming the reputed designer.
Click to expand...

The problem, however, is not with the term "intelligent". The "intelligence" of nature is not in the eye of the scientific beholder, it is in the phenomena themselves. This "intelligibility" is the precondition for science. The metaphor of "design", however, is much more problematic.
Click to expand...
Besides, God is either everywhere present in all processes of creation or God might as well be nowhere.
Click to expand...

source http://www.metanexus.net/metanexus_online/show_article.asp?9284
 
Last edited:
bagtaggar said:
Hammy... can you please demonstrate how ID qualifies as science? Pwease?
Click to expand...
That was a "no".

Back on topic, does anyone know where I can find the latest transcripts on a normal webpage instead of this pesky .pdf?

I'm getting serious withdrawal symptoms.
 
hammegk said:
Of course not. I can offer some others' words regarding the ongoing debate, which as I see it, is not that specific question anyway.


the problem is perhaps less with believers who read the Bible as a literal account of Creation and more with believers who read Richard Dawkins as a literal account of evolution.
Click to expand...

The difference is that one is completely justified in saying to Dawkins "prove it" and he would have to comply or retire. I would love believers in absolute truths and omnipotant beings to be as self assured and not have to resort to verbal legerdermain.
 
I see. And you find that Dawkins has proved "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."?

And more to the point, you also find it so, provably?
 
Behe plays it dumb, loses:
Q: And that's not what the Darwinian theory suggests, correct? It does not project that the sequence is in that order, liner, tuna, frog, turtle, chicken, horse, correct? That's not what Darwinian evolution states, correct?
A: You'll have to help me and tell me what Darwinian evolution does state.

... (agonising minutes later) ...

Q: But when Pandas says: "to use the classic Darwinian scenario amphibians are intermediate between fish and the other land dwelling vertebrates", that's not a correct characterization of the theory of evolution, is it?
A: No, that isn't, no.
Click to expand...
I like this bit:
Q: But archeologists are involved in human design, so...
A: So he would have to conclude it had a human designer, correct?
Q: Not necessarily.
Mr Muise: Object. I believe counsel just testified.
Q: It seemed like so much fun I wanted to.
Click to expand...
:dl:
 
You'll have to help me and tell me what Darwinian evolution does state.
Click to expand...

Behe didn't say that. He did not say that.

Show me where he said that.

My head is exploding....
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
Any such non-DNA inheritance is still under the influence of natural selection, of course.

~~ Paul
Click to expand...
Damn. I'd just been taken to task elsewhere for mentioning rna & mutation, too. delphi_ote: Interesting, huh?


So 'natural selection' is what is occurring even when higher powers (here, homosap) are messing about? ;)
 
More from Geesey:
“You can teach creationism without its being Christianity,” the Dover Area school board member wrote in a letter to the editor in the June 27, 2004, York Sunday News.
Click to expand...
The judge seems to be on the ball:
Geesey testified that she recalled Buckingham and fellow board member Alan Bonsell discussing intelligent design at the June 2004 meetings. That contradicted her sworn deposition, in which she said board members hadn’t named what alternatives should be presented to balance evolutionary theory.

When Walczak questioned the discrepancy, Geesey said her letter to the editor, along with Eveland’s, had jogged her memory.

At the end of cross-examination, Jones was not satisfied and he began to question the witness himself.

Saying he was confused, Jones asked her to explain specifically how the letters triggered her memory. “I ask you because intelligent design is not mentioned in either letter,” he said.
Click to expand...
http://ydr.com/story/doverbiology/92176/
 
Just out of curiosity, but has anyone noticed any howlers from the Evolutionist side?

It can't merely be the Creationists who mess up...
 
CFLarsen said:
Just out of curiosity, but has anyone noticed any howlers from the Evolutionist side?

It can't merely be the Creationists who mess up...
Click to expand...

Always tell the truth. That way, you don't have to remember what you said.
Click to expand...

The Evolutionist science side isn't trying to cover up facts, so they probably have it easier.
 
http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day8AMSession.pdf, p. 15:

A. He had asked us more than once if we teach man comes from a monkey. In response to that in utter frustration I looked at Mr. Buckingham and I said, "If you say man and monkey one more time in the same sentence, I'm going to scream." He did not do that, and I didn't have to.

Q. And that's because you're Italian, Mrs. Spahr, is that right?

A. Sicilian.

Q. I'll remember that.

A. Let's clarify that.
Click to expand...
 
Hammegk said:
So 'natural selection' is what is occurring even when higher powers (here, homosap) are messing about?
Click to expand...
That would depend entirely upon whether you are counting human effects as selection pressure. We are part of nature, after all.

Now you guys are starting to make this transcript stuff up. There is no way that it's really this absurd. We're through the looking glass for sure.

~~ Paul
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom