Different Opinions....Who is right?

[dad]

Selection pressures dictated by the environment.

The same can be said of pressures after the flood, and after migrating out from Eden. The main issue is not whether there was a need to adapt, of course, there was. The issue is when and how and in what nature that adapting took place.

This is why everything looks as if it was "meant" to live in the habitat it is in.

No. Creation, as well as adaptations before and after the flood era, contributed also. You cannot give credit for existence itself to the mere act of adapting alone.

Darwin's mistake was to imagine that the selection process that goes on today also went on in the past in the same nature! He also made the mistake of ignoring the role of creation. So, rather than being a genius, the pood sod was very short-sighted and ignorant!

 

[Hockeycowboy]

The theory and facts of evolution are not true out of anyone's need for them to be true.

The interpretations of those facts, are.....there is a definite need for some to discredit the Bible!

Aldous Huxley even stated that.....


“I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; and consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics. He is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do. For myself, as no doubt for most of my friends, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom. The supporters of this system claimed that it embodied the meaning - the Christian meaning, they insisted - of the world. There was one admirably simple method of confuting these people and justifying ourselves in our erotic revolt: we would deny that the world had any meaning whatever.”

Quote by Aldous Huxley: “I had motives for not wanting the world to have...”


So yes, there are ulterior motives for promoting an idea that tries to explain why there’s no need for a Creator.

Fortunately, with honest examination, one can see that the mechanisms behind evolution — natural selection, HGT, gene flow, etc. — do not have the evidential support to explain and account for the sheer diversity of life!

Do you not think that, while creating these varied “kinds”, i.e., family-level taxa probably, God couldn’t duplicate the genes that other “kinds” similarly have?

Because all life has DNA, then that means all life is related?
Well, all life is carbon-based, and many rocks are carbon-based. Are they all related? No, just created.

 

[Deeje]

I am impressed and give you credit for handling her long, drawn out, exhausting posts!

Poor Fox .....was there someone with a big stick forcing you to exhaust yourself by reading anything in my thread? The long replies address other long replies. It’s the nature of the subject matter.....do you expect believers to roll over and play dead when confronted with an equally unprovable belief system?
Don’t hold your breath....OK?

 

[Deeje]

That's because the undetectable and the non-existant look very much alike.

Out of all the things you’ve said on this thread....this is the quote of the year!

Read it again......then apply it from our perspective... Thank you!

 

[Bear Wild]

Poor Fox .....was there someone with a big stick forcing you to exhaust yourself by reading anything in my thread? The long replies address other long replies. It’s the nature of the subject matter.....do you expect believers to roll over and play dead when confronted with an equally unprovable belief system?
Don’t hold your breath....OK?

Much better length, Thanks. I just find the rambling posts you make going off on multiple topics to be counterproductive to addressing the individual problems and create more confusing posts than helpful. But look here you surprise me with a much more reasonable length. Have not seen anyone with a big stick but some of the opossums I know actually do roll over and play dead that but I would never think that was your style. The nature of the subject matter is complex and best if each aspect discussed rather than multiple topics at once. Focus on the important topic and give good evidence not imagination. I do like the pictures of all the animals but no matter how many lovely pictures you post they will never support what you say. All explained through evolution. Why even pelicans are on this planet due to evolution, that should give you some piece of mind. Remember focus on the important topic one at a time for good discussions.

 

[Nimos]

You mentioned this

"Variations of these patterns over many years.." You can't say much about years except for as long as science has been observing. Not very long.

Well we can see this in the fossil record. And as long as we can find them, it becomes more and more obvious.

 

[dad]

Well we can see this in the fossil record. And as long as we can find them, it becomes more and more obvious.

If we look for example at the picture of the colorful mantis in the post I responded to, you have no fossils. Nor could you tell us the colors of a creature (mantis like this) in the early fossil record years.

Of the few fossils that we do find of fish that could walk or whatever, you could not tell us if they were created that way or rapidly adapted from a fish migrating out from the sea of Eden, etc etc etc. Nor could you tell us if fish were alive as well at this same time and man also! The way science interprets the fossil record is wrong. It believes that nature in the past was the same as today. Therefore they assume that the record is a good cross-section of life at the time. Most likely, in that different former nature, man and MOST animals could not leave any fossil remains at all. THAT is why we do not see them there! So when we see a fish that sort of walks in the record, that does not mean man was not also alive at that very same time.

 

[Deeje]

This tells me you didn't read the articles.

I read them...but not with your indoctrination. It’s not my fault if you ignore the suggestions and treat them as facts.

Speciation

“Species” is a description that is grossly misrepresented, IMO. It ‘suggests’ that a new “species” is something other than a new variety of an organism in the same taxonomic family. As Darwin himself observed.....his finches were all varieties of finches.....the tortoises were still clearly tortoises and the iguanas were marine adapted iguanas. What are we missing here? "Species" did not mean a new 'kind' of animal or bird...only a different "species" of the same 'kind' of animal or bird. Real science as opposed to theoretical science 'knows' this.

So when did the taxonomy rankings begin? When did all creatures reach a point where science says that they belong to a certain family? It seems to me that anything before that point is all guesswork....but it must fit in with the beloved theory or it will be thrown out as invalid.

Except for all the genetic evidence that actually demonstrates common ancestry to be a genetic fact, off course.

If a construction company was contracted to build a number of structures in a city and they used different designs in their constructions but used the same architect and supplier for all their materials.... are the buildings related because they use the same designer and the same materials in different structures? Or is it that they have the same builder?

Under mammals

And here he is again...that phantom "common ancestor"...no mention of what it could have been...only that it has to have existed for that tree to be included in any science textbook. Without that trunk...there is no tree.....no branches...no nothing.

According to all I have read......everything on your tree here is assumed...not proven in any real way. Your tree is a construction of imagination, carried by suggestion and backed up by 'cooked' evidence to convince an audience all to willing to "believe".

All independend lines of evidence that all converge on the same conclusion of common ancestry.
There's no evidence contradicting any of this at all.

Oh but there is....you honestly believe that any lines of evidence supporting common ancestry are independent?
They are all supplied and backed by evolutionists who must of necessity all agree on the basics, even if they differ on the details (which they often do.) To disagree would see them laughed out of the hallowed halls of learning....you only have to listen to the likes of Dawkins or Coyne to see what I mean. Preaching to the converted doesn't really count.

Being incredibly intellectually honest again, I see.

Focussing on a couple pixels, misrepresenting those pixels and then lying about the whole thing.
Good job.

People like you make the job of people like me a lot easier.

I could probably say the same about you....if you read the article without the rose colored glasses, it is full of speculation and assumptions about what they want to believe is true about Tiktaalik. If it is what they predicted, when why the surprise at what they found? Do you not know the difference between guesses and facts? If they went looking for a creature that fitted their expectations, how could they not interpret what they found to fit the bill? Every time there is some grand announcement about another "find" that supports evolution, we see that the excitement does not match the actuality of the find...only the guesswork of what they imply....its just a clever illusion IMO.

I think you have a lot to learn about scientific "honesty".

 

[Deeje]

Well we can see this in the fossil record. And as long as we can find them, it becomes more and more obvious.

That is what they would have you believe.....listen to your video again and note the number of suggestions. Unless you are aware of them, they are not obvious.

Are you prepared to listen to a scientist with credible scientific credentials, why he believes in Intelligent Design?

 

[Bear Wild]

“Species” is a description that is grossly misrepresented, IMO. It ‘suggests’ that a new “species” is something other than a new variety of an organism in the same taxonomic family. As Darwin himself observed.....his finches were all varieties of finches.....the tortoises were still clearly tortoises and the iguanas were marine adapted iguanas. What are we missing here? "Species" did not mean a new 'kind' of animal or bird...only a different "species" of the same 'kind' of animal or bird. Real science as opposed to theoretical science 'knows' this

The term species is misunderstood not miss represented. Species is out best delineation between organisms that seem reproductively compatible and socially compatible. The system was designed before genetics was understood. Darwin was remarkably astute about this issue and argued well about the care in which we define it. Nice to see you are learning something. Despite that all the birds he observed could be all called finches he recognized that they were genetically changing to adapt to the individual niches. He saw in these wonderful observations the vehicle for evolution to progress - environmental diversity creates increased niches that drive variations of genetics in different directions separating the original organisms in behavior and phenotypic expression. All you need is change in environment and time and you have everything you need for enough change to occur to where the descendants no longer are similar enough to be considered the same species. What amazing observations Darwin made.

 

[Bear Wild]

So when did the taxonomy rankings begin? When did all creatures reach a point where science says that they belong to a certain family? It seems to me that anything before that point is all guesswork....but it must fit in with the beloved theory or it will be thrown out as invalid.

There are no rankings. taxonomy started with the 1700s with Linnaeus. At that time the decisions were anatomical and never just guesswork. But guess what there was no theory of evolution at that time. Sorry to relay this to you but yes it is true. The comparative anatomy alone make the connections without anyone thinking of evolution. Have you ever actually taken a comparative anatomy class or embryology class. The may help you to accept evolution.

 

[Bear Wild]

If a construction company was contracted to build a number of structures in a city and they used different designs in their constructions but used the same architect and supplier for all their materials.... are the buildings related because they use the same designer and the same materials in different structures? Or is it that they have the same builder?

This is totally meaningless anthropomorphism. You really need to get over this. These are human plans for non-reproducing structures that have nothing to do life. You have got to do better than this or else someone will compare your god to a computer and show that is nothing more than human invention.

 

[Bear Wild]

And here he is again...that phantom "common ancestor"...no mention of what it could have been...only that it has to have existed for that tree to be included in any science textbook. Without that trunk...there is no tree.....no branches...no nothing.

According to all I have read......everything on your tree here is assumed...not proven in any real way. Your tree is a construction of imagination, carried by suggestion and backed up by 'cooked' evidence to convince an audience all to willing to "believe".

There is nothing phantom about the common ancestor. The evidence leads the understanding of what would be expected and as evidence grows becomes found. The only thing on the stove at this time is your imagination trying to justify what cannot be justified.

 

[Bear Wild]

Every time there is some grand announcement about another "find" that supports evolution, we see that the excitement does not match the actuality of the find...only the guesswork of what they imply....its just a clever illusion

This is completely false without question and represents inadequate study on your part.

 

[Bear Wild]

That is what they would have you believe.....listen to your video again and note the number of suggestions. Unless you are aware of them, they are not obvious.

Are you prepared to listen to a scientist with credible scientific credentials, why he believes in Intelligent Design?

Oh my now you are using comedians to draw your knowledge from. The third objection he states about evolution is false and shows an ignorance to the genetic advancements in the field of evolution. Evolution is not just random mutation, this is only a part of evolution. As the complexity of the genetic code and the complexity of organismal behavior increased, non random and non god driven changes developed. The direction of evolution was directed by the environmental conditions where certain patterns flourished. TO INTERJECT SOME IMAGINARY GOD/INTELLIGENT DESIGNER IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANYTHING BUT ONES OWN IMAGINATION. Wow if have learned to make statements in bold letters. Why would you pick Stephen Meyer who is so clearly ignorant of evolutionary theory as we know today. He does not have credible scientific credentials. He makes false statements to misrepresent evolution and he evidently thinks he is funny. Maybe he should try out for Saturday night live and stay away from talking about science he has no understanding of. What a disappointing video.

 

[Deeje]

The term species is misunderstood not miss represented.

When you allow ignorance to play into your theory to add the support of the ignorant masses...its is deceptive misrepresentation. Science allows it because it serves their purpose. If most people think that a new species is a new 'kind' of creature in some kind of evolutionary chain....science does not correct them because it might make people wake up to how very unsupported evolution is by actual facts.

Species is out best delineation between organisms that seem reproductively compatible and socially compatible.

Read that again...you have the jargon down pat. "The best delineation"....that "SEEMS" reproductively compatible and socially compatible"...what on earth does that even mean? Things are not always what they "seem". Science uses these terms to insinuate facts that don't really exist.

All you need is change in environment and time and you have everything you need for enough change to occur to where the descendants no longer are similar enough to be considered the same species. What amazing observations Darwin made.

Darwin was musing on an idea.....and people ran away with it. Darwin saw adaptation....not organic evolution. Adaptation is not in dispute. To call it "evolution" in the same sense as "amoebas to dinosaurs" is very misleading.
Adaptation does not alter taxonomy no matter how many generations produce umteen varieties within a "Family" of organisms. Obviously, the Creator loves variety.

There are no rankings. taxonomy started with the 1700s with Linnaeus. At that time the decisions were anatomical and never just guesswork. But guess what there was no theory of evolution at that time. Sorry to relay this to you but yes it is true. The comparative anatomy alone make the connections without anyone thinking of evolution. Have you ever actually taken a comparative anatomy class or embryology class. The may help you to accept evolution.

Its not about when someone suggested taxonomic rank...its about claiming things that have no proof. To offer suggestion as fact is dishonest. Its a "belief" if it can't be proven and if you read the articles as they are written, you can see that they are full of suggestion..."maybe's" "perhaps", "might have", "could have"....seriously you've got nothing at the foundations of this belief. What happens to buildings with bad foundations?

This is totally meaningless anthropomorphism. You really need to get over this. These are human plans for non-reproducing structures that have nothing to do life. You have got to do better than this or else someone will compare your god to a computer and show that is nothing more than human invention.

I can compare the human brain to a computer....(because it is....though vastly superior to any human invention.) Did your computer just evolve or was someone with intelligence needed to design it and its components and assemble them in the correct sequence? I marvel at the gullibility of those who hold belief in millions of 'fortunate flukes' being responsible for complex mechanisms being successfully implemented many millions of times flawlessly. And these organisms replicate themselves generation after generation without alteration.

Please watch the video I posted...

Stephen Meyer is a very respected scientist....with impressive credentials....would you believe him?
Listen to him...you might actually learn something....

There is nothing phantom about the common ancestor.

Yes there is...have you not noticed that they are never identified? That makes them 'phantoms' in a concocted fairy story. Tell us who or what they are...please be specific. They play such a pivotal role so where are they? There must be thousands of them....

The evidence leads the understanding of what would be expected and as evidence grows becomes found. The only thing on the stove at this time is your imagination trying to justify what cannot be justified.

Ah yes..."expectations"....what "evidence" are we talking about here? The ones that depend on them being aligned with what scientists wanted to find....like Tiktaalik? Everything they said about Tiktaalik was an assumption. The only real evidence they had for evolution was in their imaginings....not in the actual fossil telling them anything about the process of evolution. They will hammer a square peg into a round hole just to make sure it 'fits'.

I can see which of us is pleading justification.....I have a belief system that is fully in line with the real evidence. Design is evident everywhere you look in nature. No fortunate flukes and random mutations....
You have a belief system based on what cannot be proven, but protesting that its not the same thing. Science is clearly a religion if it requires faith to believe what is unprovable.

This is completely false without question and represents inadequate study on your part.

Or it just requires reading what the articles actually say, not what you think they are saying....there is evidence for adaptation...not in question. There is NO evidence for organic evolution based on actual facts.....it is all based on assumptions which are presented as facts. Read your own literature....but take of the selective glasses off.

 

[Nimos]

Nor could you tell us if fish were alive as well at this same time and man also! The way science interprets the fossil record is wrong.

Sure you can as it is not only based on the type of fossils, but also where they are found in the sediment layers.

You will not find human fossils mixed up with dinosaur fossils for instant. If humans were living side by side with them we would expect to find fossils there as well, but we don't.

Furthermore the whole idea of science is to be able to predict and based on evolution theory it was predicted that if it were true, then we should be able to find a transitional species between non-tetrapod vertebrates (fish) and early tetrapods.

Tiktaalik roseae is the only species classified under the genus. Tiktaalik lived approximately 375 million years ago. It is representative of the transition between non-tetrapod vertebrates (fish) such as Panderichthys, known from fossils 380 million years old, and early tetrapods such as Acanthostega and Ichthyostega, known from fossils about 365 million years old. Its mixture of primitive fish and derived tetrapod characteristics led one of its discoverers, Neil Shubin, to characterize Tiktaalik as a "fishapod".[5][19]

Tiktaalik is a transitional fossil; it is to tetrapods what Archaeopteryx is to birds, troodonts and dromaeosaurids. While it may be that neither is ancestor to any living animal, they serve as evidence that intermediates between very different types of vertebrates did once exist. The mixture of both fish and tetrapod characteristics found in Tiktaalik include these traits:

• Fish
  • fish gills
  • fish scales
  • fish fins
• "Fishapod"
  • half-fish, half-tetrapod limb bones and joints, including a functional wrist joint and radiating, fish-like fins instead of toes
  • half-fish, half-tetrapod ear region
• Tetrapod
  • tetrapod rib bones
  • tetrapod mobile neck with separate pectoral girdle
  • tetrapod lungs

So all this is not based on just one type of evidence, there are many fields which backs this up. Im not an expert in how these people do all these things, but alternatively what you are implying is that these people that have spend years and years studying these things, are all wrong, that their whole education is basically non sense. I have a hard time believing that so many people got it wrong.

The way science interprets the fossil record is wrong. It believes that nature in the past was the same as today. Therefore they assume that the record is a good cross-section of life at the time. Most likely, in that different former nature, man and MOST animals could not leave any fossil remains at all.

What reason do they have to believe that its not the same? What in nature suggest that it have changed so dramatically that we are talking about something completely different?

Why could man and most animals not leave fossil remains?

 

[Deeje]

Oh my now you are using comedians to draw your knowledge from.

I like a good laugh...especially at the evolutionist's incredible assertions that everything is the product of undirected chance.

The third objection he states about evolution is false and shows an ignorance to the genetic advancements in the field of evolution. Evolution is not just random mutation, this is only a part of evolution. As the complexity of the genetic code and the complexity of organismal behavior increased, non random and non god driven changes developed. The direction of evolution was directed by the environmental conditions where certain patterns flourished. TO INTERJECT SOME IMAGINARY GOD/INTELLIGENT DESIGNER IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANYTHING BUT ONES OWN IMAGINATION.

Are you pitting your scientific credentials against a Professor? Seriously? Are you a Professor? What credentials do you bring to this table in order to make such accusations? Or are you merely a fan of the likes of Dawkins?

Why would you pick Stephen Meyer who is so clearly ignorant of evolutionary theory as we know today. He does not have credible scientific credentials. He makes false statements to misrepresent evolution and he evidently thinks he is funny. Maybe he should try out for Saturday night live and stay away from talking about science he has no understanding of. What a disappointing video.

Why would I pick Stephen Meyer? You've never listened to him or his explanations have you? He is a very intelligent and articulate man.....who knows what he's talking about.

Wiki tells us....
"Meyer graduated with B.S. degrees in physics and earth science in 1981 from the Christian Whitworth College, then worked as a geophysicist for the Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO) in Dallas from November 1981 to December 1985.[6][7] Meyer then took up a scholarship from the Rotary Club of Dallas to study History and Philosophy of Science at Cambridge University in England.[8] His 1990 dissertation was entitled "Of clues and causes: A methodological interpretation of origin of life studies."[9] Meyer received his Ph.D. from Cambridge in 1991.[8]

In Fall 1990 he became an assistant professor of philosophy at Whitworth, where he was promoted to Associate Professor in 1995,[10] and gained tenure in 1996. In Fall 2002 he moved to the position of professor, Conceptual Foundations of Science, at the Christian Palm Beach Atlantic University. He continued there to Spring 2005,[11][7] then ceased teaching to devote his time to the intelligent design movement.[12]"

Apparently, the first rule of defense in these arguments is character assassination....to cut down your opponent by maligning his character or discrediting his credentials.....like you just did. Rather pathetic IMO.

 

[Nimos]

That is what they would have you believe.....listen to your video again and note the number of suggestions. Unless you are aware of them, they are not obvious.

Are you prepared to listen to a scientist with credible scientific credentials, why he believes in Intelligent Design?

Don't worry I already know him, if Im not mistaken weren't he involved in the Dover trials as well? Intelligent Design vs Evolution? Which didn't go all to well.

On December 20, 2005, Jones found for the plaintiffs and issued a 139 page decision, in which he wrote:

• The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism.
• The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.
• After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980s; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. ... It is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research. Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena. (page 64) [for "contrived dualism", see false dilemma.]
• The one textbook [Pandas] to which the Dover ID Policy directs students contains outdated concepts and flawed science, as recognized by even the defense experts in this case.

In his Conclusion, he wrote:

• The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board's ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents. [...]
• The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy. With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.

And if Im not mistaken, Im pretty sure that the judge in this case John Edward Jones III is a believer himself.

 

[Deeje]

Don't worry I already know him, if Im not mistaken weren't he involved in the Dover trials as well? Intelligent Design vs Evolution? Which didn't go all to well.

On December 20, 2005, Jones found for the plaintiffs and issued a 139 page decision, in which he wrote:

• The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism.
• The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.
• After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980s; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. ... It is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research. Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena. (page 64) [for "contrived dualism", see false dilemma.]
• The one textbook [Pandas] to which the Dover ID Policy directs students contains outdated concepts and flawed science, as recognized by even the defense experts in this case.

In his Conclusion, he wrote:

• The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board's ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents. [...]
• The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy. With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.

And if Im not mistaken, Im pretty sure that the judge in this case John Edward Jones III is a believer himself.

LOL...there are two sides to every story.....
The Truth about the Dover Intelligent Design Trial

There are powerful groups in this world, intent on maintaining the push towards a godless society.
That's OK...not everyone is fooled or dazzled by the science.....some people would rather have an inconvenient truth than a convenient lie.