Why aren't the creationists being charged?

[Drolefille]

Sure, I think that such proof would be easily established.

The catastrophic loss at the KD trial was an example where deception was proven.

Do you think perhaps the fact that no one has prosecuted is more demonstrative of the lack of evidence than your belief and your thought?

On one side - you believe they're liars and you think the proof is easily established.

On the other side - they're not charged nor convicted with fraud.

You asked why they're not being charged? The simplest answer is that there's no evidence that they're liars.

 

[Bunyip]

Do you think perhaps the fact that no one has prosecuted is more demonstrative of the lack of evidence than your belief and your thought?

On one side - you believe they're liars and you think the proof is easily established.

On the other side - they're not charged nor convicted with fraud.

You asked why they're not being charged? The simplest answer is that there's no evidence that they're liars.

Not at all. The Wedge doctrine manifesto was easily enough to press charges. The reason why no charges have been prosecuted is because of the degree of influence the religious right enjoy in the US.

 

[Drolefille]

Not at all. The Wedge doctrine manifesto was easily enough to press charges. The reason why no charges have been prosecuted is because of the degree of influence the religious right enjoy in the US.

If you can't bother to provide a Link to or explain your terms, you'll get nowhere.

But go ahead, tilt at windmills there Don.

 

[Bunyip]

If you can't bother to provide a Link to or explain your terms, you'll get nowhere.

But go ahead, tilt at windmills there Don.

I can't seem to be able to cut and paste from this tablet, but the transcript of the KD trial is online as is plenty of info about the Wedge.

Kitzmiller Dover trial transcript

The Wedge strategy

 

[Riverwolf]

I can't seem to be able to cut and paste from this tablet, but the transcript of the KD trial is online as is plenty of info about the Wedge.

Kitzmiller Dover trial transcript

The Wedge strategy

Just because it was found in one case doesn't mean it would be found in another case.

 

[Gordian Knot]

Have not seen this thread before. The reason the Discovery Institute has not been charged with lying should be obvious. There's this darn clause in the Constitution called Freedom of Speech!

Except for some very narrow exceptions, freedom of speech allows most anyone to say most anything - even when they know they are lying - their speech is still protected under the law.

The sad part of this particular situation is not that the DI is knowingly running a scam (my opinion). The sad part is that people have become so ignorant and so content in their ignorance, that instead of running this group figuratively out of town, they accept it blindly.

People have always had the right to say what they want, whether it be true or false. A few decades ago, the fringe crazies were ignored for the rabble rousers they were, and they were kept on the fringes. Today the fringe has become the establishment!

 

[rusra02]

I believe evolution is the fraud, the big lie. I am not talking about mere change. I am talking about the unproven assertion that all living creatures evolved from a simple cell. It is not surprising that evolutionists seek to still the voice of dissent, from fellow scientists who reject the ToE or seriously question it, to the academics who have the courage to point out it's many flaws and fallacies. Such propaganda and fraud will ultimately fail, as the Bible assures. (Romans 1:18-21)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's an interesting question. Certain fundraising efforts that solicit donations on the basis of false or misleading information probably could be prosecuted as fraud, but the constitutional right to free speech and free religion would supersede fraud legislation. So it's the kind of battle one could hypothetically win in a lower court, but it would inevitably be overturned by a higher one.

I don't see how it's fraud. They solicit donations with claims that they'll advocate for creationism, and they follow through. They deliver what they sell.

There may be individual fraudsters in the creationist movement (for instance, Ken Ham's "Ark Encounter" project stinks to high heaven, IMO), but I don't think that creationism is inherently fraudulent.

 

[Gordian Knot]

And please note my comment about creationism being a scam was clarified as my opinion. I do believe creationism is fraudulent to the core. I don't have the proof so it remains my belief, not a fact.

That is, to my understanding, how beliefs and facts should always be offered in an honest and open debate.

Rusra, your comments would hold more validity if the dissenting view of evolution was actually coming from other scientists. Creationists are not scientists though. That is not an opinion. Compare the scientific process which all legitimate science uses and compare to what processes creationism uses. No matter how hard one tries, one cannot call something it is not and expect any validity to be associated with your statements.

 

[Bunyip]

I believe evolution is the fraud, the big lie. I am not talking about mere change. I am talking about the unproven assertion that all living creatures evolved from a simple cell. It is not surprising that evolutionists seek to still the voice of dissent, from fellow scientists who reject the ToE or seriously question it, to the academics who have the courage to point out it's many flaws and fallacies. Such propaganda and fraud will ultimately fail, as the Bible assures. (Romans 1:18-21)

Sadly whenever evolution deniers point out what they imagine the 'flaws and fallacies' of ToE they are simply reading from the creation apologetics play book from a short list of deliberate misconceptions.

Like your misconception that macroevolution is not observable, or that macroevolution means something other than speciation.

 

[Curious George]

I can't seem to be able to cut and paste from this tablet, but the transcript of the KD trial is online as is plenty of info about the Wedge.

Kitzmiller Dover trial transcript

The Wedge strategy

Kitzmiller v. Dover was not about pressing charges, it was requesting legal relief from a violation of the establishment clause. Kitzmiller is about whether a schools favorable treatment of ID, a religious view, is a violation of the establishment clause. the answer: yes.

This is not prosecution for lying or fraud or anything of the sort. Drole was on point. In fact, there is a famous case-I cannot recall the name-wherein the government tried pressing charges for a person telling people he had received military medals, when he had not. They were unsuccessful because lying is not nor can be a crime or tort when their is not gain or loss based on reliance.

On topic, any gain or loss represented by reliance on creationist claims is most likely too attenuated to constitute legal relief. But, if you can find a financier, I am sure there are like-minded lawyers around who will find a test case and argue your POV in court.

 

[Bunyip]

Kitzmiller v. Dover was not about pressing charges, it was requesting legal relief from a violation of the establishment clause. Kitzmiller is about whether a schools favorable treatment of ID, a religious view, is a violation of the establishment clause. the answer: yes.

This is not prosecution for lying or fraud or anything of the sort. Drole was on point. In fact, there is a famous case-I cannot recall the name-wherein the government tried pressing charges for a person telling people he had received military medals, when he had not. They were unsuccessful because lying is not nor can be a crime or tort when their is not gain or loss based on reliance.

On topic, any gain or loss represented by reliance on creationist claims is most likely too attenuated to constitute legal relief. But, if you can find a financier, I am sure there are like-minded lawyers around who will find a test case and argue your POV in court.

Thanks. In the example of the KD trial a deliberate attempt to defraud the education curriculum was established, that would be an example of an offence that the state could nave taken action upon.

 

[Curious George]

Thanks. In the example of the KD trial a deliberate attempt to defraud the education curriculum was established, that would be an example of an offence that the state could nave taken action upon.

No; in the Kitzmiller, the parents sued the school district, and the school district was enjoined from teaching ID curriculum, based on the establishment clause. This had nothing to do with lying or fraud.

 

[Bunyip]

No; in the Kitzmiller, the parents sued the school district, and the school district was enjoined from teaching ID curriculum, based on the establishment clause. This had nothing to do with lying or fraud.

The DI's claim that ID was not simply a new name for creationism was shown to have been a deception. What was revealed was that the DI was trying to subvert the establishment clause.

Given that the DI is a political lobby group with a broader agenda, such activities would in my opinion have warranted further investigation.

What I would like to see are creationist claims being evaluated in a more public fashion than just debates with atheists and so on. A public enquiry into the DI and the anti-science movement would parhaps effect more change.

 

[Curious George]

The DI's claim that ID was not simply a new name for creationism was shown to have been a deception. What was revealed was that the DI was trying to subvert the establishment clause.

Given that the DI is a political lobby group with a broader agenda, such activities would in my opinion have warranted further investigation.

What I would like to see are creationist claims being evaluated in a more public fashion than just debates with atheists and so on. A public enquiry into the DI and the anti-science movement would parhaps effect more change.

I agree that ID claims should be evaluated in a more public fashion. However, clinging to ID is not illegal. lying is not something for which one can pursue legal remedy, because there is no legal remedy. Further, clinging to religious fallacy is protected under the other half of the freedom of religion, the free exercise clause.

So, one can lie under freedom of speech as long as another does not rely on this lie to their detriment and one can cling to religious fallacy as long as that one is not a governmententity.

 

[rusra02]

Sadly whenever evolution deniers point out what they imagine the 'flaws and fallacies' of ToE they are simply reading from the creation apologetics play book from a short list of deliberate misconceptions.

Like your misconception that macroevolution is not observable, or that macroevolution means something other than speciation.

Your assertions of what my "misconceptions" may be aside, the claims about evolution are well-known. Claiming that scientists and millions of people who reject evolution just 'don't understand us' is fallacious and, IMO, an unsuccessful attempt to draw attention from the failings of the ToE. As Michael Behe said in an interview: "Many scientists disagree with my conclusions because they see that the idea of intelligent design has extrascientific implications—that it seems to point strongly beyond nature. This conclusion makes many people nervous. However, I was always taught that science is supposed to follow the evidence wherever it leads. In my view it is a failure of nerve to back away from something that is so strongly indicated by the evidence simply because you think the conclusion has unwelcome philosophical implications."

 

[viole]

Your assertions of what my "misconceptions" may be aside, the claims about evolution are well-known. Claiming that scientists and millions of people who reject evolution just 'don't understand us' is fallacious and, IMO, an unsuccessful attempt to draw attention from the failings of the ToE. As Michael Behe said in an interview: "Many scientists disagree with my conclusions because they see that the idea of intelligent design has extrascientific implications—that it seems to point strongly beyond nature. This conclusion makes many people nervous. However, I was always taught that science is supposed to follow the evidence wherever it leads. In my view it is a failure of nerve to back away from something that is so strongly indicated by the evidence simply because you think the conclusion has unwelcome philosophical implications."

And what makes you think that the philosophical implications would be unwelcome, if they had a shred of evidence?

Many things in science had "unpleasant" philosophical implications, which had to be accepted because of the overwhelming evidence. Relativity and quantum mechanics are typical examples.

The problem here is that intelligent design has no evidence whatsoever. In a sense the theory of intelligent design is so inconsistent as a scientific theory that it would be a compliment to even call it wrong.

And even if it had evidence, it could not be possibly called "intelligent", I am afraid.


Ciao

- viole

 

[rusra02]

And what makes you think that the philosophical implications would be unwelcome, if they had a shred of evidence?

Many things in science had "unpleasant" philosophical implications, which had to be accepted because of the overwhelming evidence. Relativity and quantum mechanics are typical examples.

The problem here is that intelligent design has no evidence whatsoever. In a sense the theory of intelligent design is so inconsistent as a scientific theory that it would be a compliment to even call it wrong.

And even if it had evidence, it could not be possibly called "intelligent", I am afraid.


Ciao

- viole

I think that the philosophical implications are unwelcome, because scientists have admitted such. Richard Lewontin, himself an evolutionist, wrote that many scientists are willing to accept unproven scientific claims because they “have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.” Many scientists refuse even to consider the possibility of an intelligent Designer because “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door", according to Lewontin.
Also, the Bible lays bare this motivation. (Romans 1:18-23,).
As to whether the evidence is intelligent or not, each person can decide that for themselves. Eminent scientists believe the evidence for ID compelling, as do I.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As to whether the evidence is intelligent or not, each person can decide that for themselves. Eminent scientists believe the evidence for ID compelling, as do I.

What would undesigned life look like?

 

[Bunyip]

Your assertions of what my "misconceptions" may be aside, the claims about evolution are well-known. Claiming that scientists and millions of people who reject evolution just 'don't understand us' is fallacious and, IMO, an unsuccessful attempt to draw attention from the failings of the ToE. As Michael Behe said in an interview: "Many scientists disagree with my conclusions because they see that the idea of intelligent design has extrascientific implications—that it seems to point strongly beyond nature. This conclusion makes many people nervous. However, I was always taught that science is supposed to follow the evidence wherever it leads. In my view it is a failure of nerve to back away from something that is so strongly indicated by the evidence simply because you think the conclusion has unwelcome philosophical implications."

You keep mentioning the 'failings of the ToE' and yet whenever you identify such a failing, it is just a misconception drawn from your ignorance of what the ToE actually is.

Sadly there is a perfect correlation between those who claim ToE is flawed and those who do not know what the ToE is.

As to your claim of bias, the fact is that most Christians accept the ToE, it has nothing to do with disbelief in god.