Re: In the News: Intelligent Design Group Identifies Failures

On Dec 28, 11:34 pm, Primary AL <aavery6...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Dec 28, 5:12 pm, "Steven L." <sdlit...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:





Ray Martinez wrote:
On Dec 21, 3:26 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Dec 21, 6:21 pm, Jason Spaceman <notrea...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

An intelligent design think tank has launched a new website recounting the
failures of Darwinism that were left unmentioned by study materials on a
PBS documentary covering the 2005 Dover trial.
That's nice.  Why, again, didn't they present it to the judge at the
trial . . .?

Too stupid . . . .?

Reminder to IDers:  That trial is over.  You, uh, lost.

Lost.

L-O-S-T.

Lost.

One million dollars.

Everyone lost re-election.

Lost.

In the annals of "losers", that one ranks pretty goddamn high on the
list.

IDiots.

================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"

Editor, Red and Black Publishershttp://www.RedAndBlackPublishers.com

Since the Judge is an evolutionist, and not a creationist or
designist, was any other outcome possible?

Of course the question is rhetorical.

Honest and objective persons know that a Judge who was already an
evolutionist could never and would never rule against evolution.

If the Judge had a personal bias against one side in the case, that
would represent a blatant conflict of interest.  And the legal team
representing that side should have issued a protest *at the trial* and
asked him to recuse himself from the trial on that basis.  If the judge
had a personal interest in the outcome and didn't reveal that at the
trial, you could have either filed criminal charges against him, or
attempted to get him disbarred from the American Bar Association, or both.

There have been legal cases in the past where a judge had been corrupt
or was too close to one side or the other.  But there are ways to deal
with that in the legal system--any good lawyer will cite precedents for you.

What you are doing here sounds more like sulking. You didn't file a
legal challenge to the judge at the time; instead now you're trying to
smear him after the fact.  If he is as corrupt as you say he is, put
your money where your mouth is and get him disbarred.

--
Steven L.
Email:  sdlit...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

PBS gleefully produces the prosecutions' case, successfully winning a
ban on  Intelligent Design Theory in public schools. PBS uses the
action as a shield for involvement in an anti Christian, anti-creator
anti- Intelligent Design documentary (carefully) accomplishing their
objective, selling it as "objective" documentary.

I think you mean plaintiff and not prosecution, but bogus rhetoric
can't be ruled out. There is no ban on "Intelligent Design Theory" in
the public schools. It can be taught in a comparative religion
class. It just cannot be taught in the science class because it isn't
a scientific theory, and was just a dishonest political scam to get
religious beliefs taught in the science class. Even an incompetent
wanker like you, should have enough on the ball to understand that
when the dishonest perps that ran the ID scam on you are running a
replacement scam that doesn't even mention that ID ever existed, that
ID doesn't have much going for it. They started work on the
replacement scam years ago, and only ran the bait and switch when they
were forced to put up or shut up in Ohio back in 2002-2003. Even the
ID perps knew that ID wasn't going to make the grade years before they
had to publically run the bait and switch scam on their own
supporters. How valid as science could ID possibly be?

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=58

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=589

These articles used to be free access, but now they make you pay to
see them, but the titles should be enough to tell you that the ID
perps were working up the replacement scam years before they had to
use it. It turned out that the replacement scam didn't even mention
that ID ever existed.

http://www.ohioscience.org/lesson-plans.shtml


The case at hand effectively banned from public schools the
terrifying, damaging theory: "Life's' Basic Origin might have original
purpose."

Just from the science class. It can be taught where it has to compete
against other religious notions, but the ID scam artists only want
their religious notions taught.


The prosecutor in this case effectively used his skills to manipulate
an overly honest, forthcoming scientist for the "ID" defense, to
include "astrology" as a science. (Using the "testability" definition
where science is a process testing a theory by gathering information
and attempting to refute or prove the theory.)

It was more than just testability. Minnich and Behe both had to admit
that neither themselves nor anyone that they knew had bothered to
verify the ID claptrap, and that not a single scientific paper existed
supporting the ID nonsense. Behe claimed that it wasn't up to him to
scientifically verify his IDiot claims. Minnich just took his lumps,
tried to claim that there were some aspects that could be tested, but
admitted that he hadn't even tried.


How childish and moronic can a court case become? Observe the attorney
for the prosecution's questioning:

Yes, you have to wonder why some IDiots even showed up to testify.
Most of them ran once the depositions started and they found out what
they were up against.


"Can "astrology" be science by your definition?" Answer: "Yes." The
attorney follows, "In your opinion, is Intelligent Design also a
science?" Unaware of the trap, the compliant scientist answers, "yes."
The attorney makes his move: "So you believe Astrology and Intelligent
Design are science?"  The scientist, intimidated and frozen replies:
"Yes.' The trap slams shut, and the Judge, becomes aroused at the
prosecutor's courtroom skills.  The prosecutor overwhelms the judge on
an unsound logical progression.

Not only that, but voodoo is science according to Behe's definition.
They can bring back vitalism too. The fact is that "intelligent
design theory" was considered to be scientific when we didn't know any
better, a time when astrology still held sway. The IDiots knew this
for a fact because the original name for their ID scam outfit was
Renewal of Science and Culture. They wanted to take science back to
the dark ages, and ignore the fact that things like astrology,
vitalism, and intelligent design never made the grade, and have
contributed nothing to our understanding of nature. Nothing in the
entire history of science. Anyone that doesn't believe this, just go
to the Discovery Institute and look for a list of ID scientific
successes. There are none. Not a single scientific success for the
notion spanning the entire history of science. So, what were they
going to teach?


Next on the agenda is the obscure, outdated writing......out of
context...microscopic, relative to the volumes of fervently researched
paper documents in an attempt to nail the Intelligent Design
scientists, We Hit PAYDIRT!!   ONE page containing the
word:.."creative." And, ON THAT NOTE---THE CASE IS WON!!! "CREATIVE"
IS OUTLAWED!! What an opportunity to add volume on Evolution Theory.
Volume is convincing. It is imperative in ET.

I think that this insane rant is about the book Pandas and People. It
was demonstrated from drafts of the book that the authors had swapped
out creationism for intelligent design. A lot of the book had been
written before the Supreme Court ruling against the teaching of
scientific creationism in the public schools back in the late 1980s.
Once the decision was handed down the later drafts of the book changed
the terms, but in many cases didn't bother to alter the surrounding
text. There was even a transistional fossil found "cdesign
proponentsist" where design proponents was substituted for
creationist. It was demonstrated that intelligent design had the same
meaning to the ID creationist scam artists as had the scientific
creationism that preceded it.

The book was a material part of the case because the Dover school
board wanted to use it to teach intelligent design, and it was
mentioned as the text for that purpose in the statement that they
required to be read to students. The analysis of the book and early
drafts were evidence that Intelligent design was just a bogus scam
perpetrated by some of the same guys that ran the older creationist
failure. Kenyon (a primary author of Pandas) is a fellow at the
Discovery Institute involved in perpetrating the ID scam.

This coupled with the fact that even the IDiots had to admit that they
were not bothering to do any science led the court to one conclusion.


The only teaching allowed in our deteriorating public schools, as an
answer to every child's question about life and matter and meaning, is
a scientifically vacuous, emotionally starved, romantically,
creatively dead, unfriendly, nihilistic, abusive and solidly dogmatic
one:    "Chaos and random activity over time, are the only primary
facilitators of all matter and intelligent organizational existence."

Once the IDiot/creationists bother to do any science they can teach it
in the science class. Until that day school kids will have to make do
with what science is.


I can see the court papers now;

"Any teaching of intelligent or creative solutions, or suggestions of
improvements, facilitated by any intelligence associated with the
universe or nature is strictly prohibited in public schools of The
United States of America. Any suggestion of organizational or adaptive
capacity remotely associated with any facilitation by intelligence or
creative solutions or having to do with organizational tendency
regarding any cosmic activity is strictly prohibited. Any teaching
regarding intelligence as primary in life's battle for sustenance and
or sustained existence is prohibited. Any observable or non observable
process suggesting intelligence as facilitator and/or having anything
to do whatsoever with provisions necessary for capacity to devise,
design, anticipate, articulate, adapt, remember,  adjust, build,
create or predict is strictly prohibited.  Forecasting, prediction,
prioritization capacity, or mathematic articulations are not to be
suggested or taught as essentially intelligence driven.  All
development comes from chaotic activity, accidents and mutation.

You don't need that statemnet. All you need is to require that
science get taught in the science class and that religious notions be
relegated to comparitive religion and mythology classes. There is
also no restriction on using ID as an example of bogus and dishonest
political ploys in social science class. Dover and Ohio can be used
as examples and the kids just have to read the news reports. They
also have the Court descision in the Dover case that they can read.
It tells of the stupidity and dishonesty of the Dover school board
members that ran the ID scam there. Lying in court, or admitting that
they didn't know what ID was, but just went along with the
ringleaders.

http://www2.ncseweb.org/wp/?page_id=5

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District_et_al.

Ron Okimoto

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions)
    ... In science one investigates by testing hypotheses. ... I know that the scientists investigating the subject are doing ... Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated) ... three papers in academic journals. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Uncommon Conceit
    ... Intelligent Design is not a theory, at this point, it's ... taught in a science class. ... Dembski attempts to do this. ... Scientists are now in a position to demonstrate ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Uncommon Conceit
    ... Intelligent Design is not a theory, at this point, it's ... taught in a science class. ... Dembski attempts to do this. ... Scientists are now in a position to demonstrate ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: My views on evolution
    ... > have good science but tend to overstate their case. ... Do not confuse information theory with intelligent design. ... > humans evolve from a common ancestor with monkeys/apes; ... How many scientists know anything about Michael Polanyi ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions)
    ... In science one investigates by testing hypotheses. ... I know that the scientists investigating the subject are doing ... Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated) ... three papers in academic journals. ...
    (talk.origins)