Shocking!
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
'Kitzmiller v Dover' Judge's comment
- Thread starter Hockeycowboy
- Start date
Skwim
Veteran Member
I know you're just trolling a bit here,
but I think it's relevant to point out the rest of the paragraph you've quoted (reformatted a bit for clarity).After a searching review of the record and applicable case law, 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 1980's; and
(3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. . . .
(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 1980's; and
(3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. . . .
In any case, thanks for giving all of us here the opportunity to show why ID is a bankrupt enterprise. Your service to the education of all is duly noted, and will no doubt get you one step closer to the pearly gates.
.
.
Last edited:
exchemist
Veteran Member
Judges are extremely good at deciding exactly what it is they have to decide, as opposed to what may be interesting to debate but is not relevant. This clarity of purpose is crucial, in view of the tangled nature of much testimony and argument the court has to hear.
So what Judge Jones did at the outset was to set aside the legally irrelevant issue of whether or not the claims of ID may be true. The legal question was whether ID is religion or not. If it is, it is illegal to teach it in a US state school. So that was his laser-like focus and that was what he decided.
What was also interesting about the case, however, was the deceitfulness and the bullying and manipulative conduct of the creationists. This comes through very clearly in the judgement. It was a scandalous performance by the creationists, for which they should have been thoroughly ashamed.
Last edited:
FlyingTeaPot
Irrational Rationalist. Educated Fool.
Parameters of Catholicism are btw established by.....................the Pope! Coincidence? Or Conspiracy? Dun dun duuuuuuun!
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
It's the supernatural part that's the key (something being invisible doesn't preclude it from being studied by science). Gods, by definition, can do absolutely everything and anything imaginable, including creating something one way but magically making it appear as it it came about by some other means......and we would have no way at all to tell.
Think of Last Thursday-ism....if God created everything last Thursday but magically made it appear as if everything is much older, including creating us with memories and histories of things that didn't actually happen, how would we tell?
(I EDITED the OP, but time constraints impelled me to create a new post.)::::
Interesting statement made by the judge:
“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.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...0d331ae/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.850079202b61
So, what may actually be truth, was not the important issue to the court; only that ID failed to meet the parameters of science, which btw are established by.....scientists.
So let’s go into this a little bit. The father of the Scientific Method is Sir Francis Bacon. Wikipedia quotes Bacon as writing, “Knowledge is the rich storehouse for the glory of the Creator and the relief of man's estate.” In his Essays, he affirms that "a little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion."
It seems the current edition of his method, is working at odds with his intended purpose.
The same article continues, ”Bacon stated that he had three goals: to uncover truth, to serve his country, and to serve his church.”
Do you think his Scientific Methodology was the instrument he wanted to use to accomplish his goal, to “uncover truth”?
Now it seems, the U.S. Court deems truth is not the goal for science.
Comments? Ad Homs?
Interesting statement made by the judge:
“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.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...0d331ae/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.850079202b61
So, what may actually be truth, was not the important issue to the court; only that ID failed to meet the parameters of science, which btw are established by.....scientists.
So let’s go into this a little bit. The father of the Scientific Method is Sir Francis Bacon. Wikipedia quotes Bacon as writing, “Knowledge is the rich storehouse for the glory of the Creator and the relief of man's estate.” In his Essays, he affirms that "a little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion."
It seems the current edition of his method, is working at odds with his intended purpose.
The same article continues, ”Bacon stated that he had three goals: to uncover truth, to serve his country, and to serve his church.”
Do you think his Scientific Methodology was the instrument he wanted to use to accomplish his goal, to “uncover truth”?
Now it seems, the U.S. Court deems truth is not the goal for science.
Comments? Ad Homs?
Last edited:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No ad homs needed, just an observation that you do not understand the scientific method and it does not depend on the religious views of those that were behind its formation.
The scientific method is not a method to find "the truth" since that can be a very misleading belief. People that think they have "the truth" tend to be wrong an amazing amount of time and since they are so heavily invested in that idea they are very slow to change their minds. Look at all of the creationists that still exist today as an example. The scientific method is now viewed as a way to solve problems. It approaches right answers but no answer given at any time is guaranteed to be "the truth".
exchemist
Veteran Member
However you dress it up, the court declined to take a position on the matter you want to discuss, as it was not relevant to the application of the law.
Judges are extremely good at deciding exactly what it is they have to decide, as opposed to what may be interesting to debate but is not relevant. This clarity of purpose is crucial, in view of the tangled nature of much testimony and argument the court has to hear.
So what Judge Jones did at the outset was to set aside the legally irrelevant issue of whether or not the claims of ID may be true. The legal question was whether ID is religion or not. If it is, it is illegal to teach it in a US state school. So that was his laser-like focus and that was what he decided.
What was also interesting about the case, however, was the deceitfulness and the bullying and manipulative conduct of the creationists. This comes through very clearly in the judgement. It was a scandalous performance by the creationists, for which they should have been thoroughly ashamed.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
You've had this addressed already. Are you copying your fellow Jehovah's Witness here and just ignoring most of what's posted to you?
Ponder This
Well-Known Member
Seems like the correct verdict.
I will, however, add that the argument that the concept of ID originates in religion is irrelevant. The issue is solely whether or not ID has some scientific basis...
According to the mainstream scientific community, nothing in religion that is supernatural in explanation, has any bearing in science...whether there's evidence or not, it all must be interpreted through natural / materialistic means.
You mean, similar to what Richard Sternberg's fellow scientists and peers did to him, so much so that a Government Agancy had to get involved?
Unfortunately, both sides have resorted to deceitful tactics.
During the court case, there were only 2 defendants who did that, maybe three.
Unfortunately, both sides have resorted to deceitful tactics.
During the court case, there were only 2 defendants who did that, maybe three.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Science does not say that. Show some reliable evidence for your religious beliefs and it will be accepted. The fact that drives some theists crazy is that there is no reliable evidence for their beliefs.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Christ on a bicycle! We have been over this countless times. Why bring up this old canard? The problem with Sternberg is that he abused his position, which he was not fired from, and avoided proper peer review. Why refer to a person that was caught being dishonest in support of your beliefs? Don't you realize that it makes all of your beliefs look dishonest when you do that?
And what dishonest tactics were used by those on the science side?
Audie
Veteran Member
The "scientific establishment"? That would be
the WWCOBSTSTT?
(World wide conspiracy of biased scientists to
suppress the truth)
You are clearly implying something.
But what?
This kind of vague but seeminly portentious
statement is a common rhetorical device
for people lacking substantive things to say- so let's
see you show if that is your case here.
What is it supposed to mean?
And what, if not the WWCOS etc, is this
so-called "Scientific Establishment"?
Enquiting minds seek enlightenment.
Here is your big chance to educate us.
Audie
Veteran Member
You keep asking for ad homs.
Here is one: your ideas are wrong because you are a christian.
Here is not one: your ideas are wrong because you do not
know what you are talking about.
Claiming falsely that you have have had "ad hom"
committed against you, and thus avoiding questions
you cannot answer, while attacking the integrity of the
other is a sort of ad hom-ad hom.
Quite common, really.
Last edited:
gnostic
The Lost One
That’s absurd.
By all intents and purposes, the tiny electrons cannot be directly seen by the naked eyes, so in essence, electrons are “invisible”, and yet we can test electrons with some instruments or devices. We can also what can happen to any atom, when it loses one or more of the electrons.
And when we looked up in the night sky, one of the most distant object we can see without the telescope or even binoculars, is the Triangulum Galaxy, which is about 3 million light years. Any galaxies further away than Triangulum, are essentially considered “invisible”. So the only way we can see more stars and galaxies, are one of the larger optical telescopes or radio telescopes from observatories or from space telescopes.
There are even smaller particle than electrons, and larger but more distant galaxies than Andromeda and Triangulum, but with a little technology here and there, we can see, detect or measure all of these that we are normally cannot observe by ordinary means.
And these are all natural and explainable.
As to your “invisible” and “supernatural” (eg God) that you believe in, they don’t exist because they are not real, except in your belief, which are either wishful thinking or delusion.
Paranormal events happen all the time.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
They do? I am unaware of any. I know that people believe that paranormal events happen, that does not mean that they actually do happen.
exchemist
Veteran Member
The scientific establishment would be delighted to announce a new field of study.....and claims for grants to research it would not be far behind!
What you need to realise is the science welcomes new and previously unknown things. People make careers that way. (Though peer review is pretty savage at weeding out claims that cannot be reproduced, so the discoverer would need to have done or her homework very thoroughly, to make sure of the findings.) Science is not like scripture, i.e. a fixed body of information. It is dynamic.