Answers for Judge Jones

_{Cornelius Hunter

June 19, 2009

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

In my previous post I posed two questions for Judge Jones. The answers to the second question are A, B and C. That is, (A) Evolutionary theory incorporates religious premises, (B) Proponents of evolutionary theory are religious people and (C) Evolutionary theory mandates certain types of solutions.

Continue reading here.

Comments

bornagain77 @37, are you sure that you present the position of Dr. Dembski correctly and that he agrees with the points you've made? Wasn't it rather Salvador Cordova who introduced the book here since 2006 and hasn't DaveScot been the other main supporter of "genetic entropy"? When you were bringing it up during the discussion of the presentation of the EIL in 2007 Dr. Dembski answered:
Bornagain77: Precisely what article are you referring to? I expect genetic entropy is fair game for the lab, though it’s not something I’ve discussed with Bob.
It would be interesting to know if EIL adapted the concept of "genetic entropy" in the meantime.sparc_{June 19, 2009
June
06
Jun
19
19
2009
10:05 PM
10
10
05
PM
PDT}

Wow, Gould thinks Neodarwinism is BS too.lamarck_{June 19, 2009
June
06
Jun
19
19
2009
08:08 PM
8
08
08
PM
PDT}

Oops---forgot to close a quote. The link: http://www.arn.org/ftissues/ft9801/opinion/johnson.htmlherb_{June 19, 2009
June
06
Jun
19
19
2009
07:43 PM
7
07
43
PM
PDT}

David Kellogg, It's not at all clear that Gould was a Darwinist.herb_{June 19, 2009
June
06
Jun
19
19
2009
07:41 PM
7
07
41
PM
PDT}

herb, that's not a refutation of Darwinian evolution at all. Gould's Wonderful Life was all about the "survival of the luckiest."David Kellogg_{June 19, 2009
June
06
Jun
19
19
2009
07:31 PM
7
07
31
PM
PDT}

bornagain77,
Here is the homology video
Thanks for the link! I was looking at the site for the producer of that video, and found a great quote concerning the Darwinian Law of "survival of the fittest":
Besides, while survival of the fittest is observed in nature, it is not absolute. We also observe survival of the weakest and survival of the luckiest. Every infant is the weakest of a species, and yet obviously, some of them survive or there would be no species at all.
That's about the most elegant refutation of Darwinism that I've ever seen---in order for a species to persist, the weakest (i.e., least fit) must survive.herb_{June 19, 2009
June
06
Jun
19
19
2009
07:28 PM
7
07
28
PM
PDT}

Well at least Genetic Entropy has a rigorous standard for falsification. Since I can see you will be unreasonable with anything presented, I will not waste my time.bornagain77_{June 19, 2009
June
06
Jun
19
19
2009
07:20 PM
7
07
20
PM
PDT}

RDK, 1. Not quite sure what you’re asking here; would you mind re-phrasing it? Are you asking if genomes lose or gain information (information that holds existing phenotypes together)? You got it. If a baby is born with full information it's a baby. If there's a 90% info loss, it's a ball of mush. 2. "In any case, a scientific theory cannot evade empirical evidence, and it must wield predictive power. ID came up with genetic entropy; eminently falsifiable. (sanford), the ongoing research on the flagellum between Behe and Miller. Only one side can win in any of these IC debates. Behe is doing lots of investigation. So is a dinosaur bones researcher for the DI, he went to china and observed an ID predicted inverse tree of life. ID predicts no large limbs or other large macro ev will result in increase of genetic information. There's a few right there. 3. "Are you saying that in your case it is a natural phenomenon (I.E., creatures far advanced beyond us, but also ultimately products of evolution)? In my case it's ultimately unknown but CSI is a worthwhile research path. I'm also interested in being proven right about alien intervention. 4. "This should be self-evident. If something cannot be explained by scientific investigation, then science has no use for it" Why would god not be able to be explained by science? Science is equally unknowing of a material orgin, yet research is still allowed. Even if abiogenesis was performed in a lab, does this mean god doesn't exist? No. But does it mean science should stop trying to find a naturalist orgin because the goal is so "far out"? No. In science you can have a large endgoal in mind that isn't readily testable. You have to work up to that in smaller stages. So science can be looking or a theist or atheist start ultimately and still remain science. If you want to continue feel free to drop the numbers and stick to quotes it gets unwieldy.lamarck_{June 19, 2009
June
06
Jun
19
19
2009
07:19 PM
7
07
19
PM
PDT}

So: two "foundational principles of science" which of which most scientists -- not just evolutionists -- are completely unaware. Your support for the "foundational" nature of those principles consists mainly of links to videos.David Kellogg_{June 19, 2009
June
06
Jun
19
19
2009
07:08 PM
7
07
08
PM
PDT}

Here is the homology video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMVBFJCqFXcbornagain77_{June 19, 2009
June
06
Jun
19
19
2009
07:00 PM
7
07
00
PM
PDT}

Yes. In addition to the formal proof of the Law of Conservation of Information by Dembski and Marks, which falsifies the theoretical foundation of unguided evolution, "pure transcendent information" is now shown to "eternally exist" by the controlled violation of the first law of thermodynamics in quantum teleportation experiments. (i.e. it is shown that all transcendent information that can possibly exist, for all physical events, past, present, and future, already does exist.) Conservation Of Transcendent Information - 2007 - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Hm4lh81r6M How Teleportation Will Work - In 1993, the idea of teleportation moved out of the realm of science fiction and into the world of theoretical possibility. It was then that physicist Charles Bennett and a team of researchers at IBM confirmed that quantum teleportation was possible, but only if the original object being teleported was destroyed. --- As predicted, the original photon no longer existed once the replica was made. As well, the following video shows that quantum teleportation breakthroughs have shed even more light on exactly what, or more precisely on exactly Whom, has created this universe: Scientific Evidence For God Creating The Universe - 2008 - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQhO906v0VM Explaining Information Transfer in Quantum Teleportation: Armond Duwell †‡ University of Pittsburgh excerpt: In contrast to a classical bit, the description of a qubit requires an infinite amount of information. The amount of information is infinite because two real numbers are required in the expansion of the state vector of a two state quantum system (Jozsa 1997, 1) -------- Concept 2. is used by Bennett, et al. Recall that they infer that since an infinite amount of information is required to specify a qubit, an infinite amount of information must be transferred to teleport. With LCI established, The principle of Genetic Entropy lays its foundation directly on the twin pillars of the second law and LCI. Besides mutation studies and the interwoven complexity of the genome, the fitness test provides a benchmark for Genetic Entropy to be falsified: For a broad outline of the "Fitness test", required to be passed to show a violation of the principle of Genetic Entropy, please see this following video and article: Is Antibiotic Resistance evidence for evolution? - "The Fitness Test" - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BwWpRSYgOE Testing the Biological Fitness of Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria - 2008 http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/darwin-at-drugstore It is also extremely interesting to note that the principle of Genetic Entropy lends itself very well to mathematical analysis by computer simulation: "No human investigation can be called true science without passing through mathematical tests." Leonardo Da Vinci Using Computer Simulation to Understand Mutation Accumulation Dynamics and Genetic Load: excerpt: We apply a biologically realistic forward-time population genetics program to study human mutation accumulation under a wide-range of circumstances. Using realistic estimates for the relevant biological parameters, we investigate the rate of mutation accumulation, the distribution of the fitness effects of the accumulating mutations, and the overall effect on mean genotypic fitness. Our numerical simulations consistently show that deleterious mutations accumulate linearly across a large portion of the relevant parameter space. http://bioinformatics.cau.edu.cn/lecture/chinaproof.pdf MENDEL’S ACCOUNTANT: J. SANFORD†, J. BAUMGARDNER‡, W. BREWER§, P. GIBSON¶, AND W. REMINE http://mendelsaccount.sourceforge.net http://www.scpe.org/vols/vol08/no2/SCPE_8_2_02.pdf Whereas, evolution has no rigorous mathematical foundation with which we can rigorously analyze it in any computer simulation: Accounting for Variations - Dr. David Berlinski: - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aW2GkDkimkE EV Ware: Dissection of a Digital Organism excerpt: Ev purports to show "how life gains information." Specifically "that biological information... can rapidly appear in genetic control systems subjected to replication, mutation and selection." (We show that) It is the active information introduced by the computer programmer and not the evolutionary program that reduced the difficulty of the problem to a manageable level. http://www.evoinfo.org/Resources/EvWare/index.html Thus yes LCI and Genetic Entropy are principles of science, whereas I kind find no principle for evolution to base its claims on other than the wishful (religious) speculations of materialists such as yourself.bornagain77_{June 19, 2009
June
06
Jun
19
19
2009
06:57 PM
6
06
57
PM
PDT}

Bornagain, good points.One other separate point which I've recently found is many of the homologous structures found between different species or classes or whatever, spring from entirely different genes. eg the abdomen of some insects. There's a youtube vid on this but I can't remember it.lamarck_{June 19, 2009
June
06
Jun
19
19
2009
06:51 PM
6
06
51
PM
PDT}

Hey Lamarck,
1. Do we observe genomes losing information holding existing phenotypes together or gaining? Does this counter Neodarwinism?
Not quite sure what you're asking here; would you mind re-phrasing it? Are you asking if genomes lose or gain information (information that holds existing phenotypes together)?
2. For you to say ID is a pseudoscience, you of course mean ID can’t write peer reviewed papers, make testable predictions, be falsifiable etc? Or if not those then how else do you see it as non-scientific?
If the designer is supernatural (a deity) then yes, ID is a pseudoscience. If it is completely natural, then you have to answer for where the designer came from. But that only works if you ignore the complete lack of evidence. We can reasonably assume that there was a time in the universe where there was no life (before the cooling of the first stars, for example). Life must have come from non-life. Unless you're also going to be a YEC. In any case, a scientific theory cannot evade empirical evidence, and it must wield predictive power. I don't see ID as passing either one of those criteria. Feel free to prove me wrong.
3. Does ID invoke a supernatural entity as you imply?
My apologies if I micharacterized your specific flavor of ID; I forgot that the designer does not necessarily have to be supernatural. Are you saying that in your case it is a natural phenomenon (I.E., creatures far advanced beyond us, but also ultimately products of evolution)?
4. Why would “nothing makes sense in the light of science when you bring a deity such as the purported designer into the mix.”? What’s unscientific or non-sensical about that?
This should be self-evident. If something cannot be explained by scientific investigation, then science has no use for it, and it is of no use in the scientific realm. Although I eagerly await your proposal as to how we should go about exploring the universe around us without scientific investigation.RDK_{June 19, 2009
June
06
Jun
19
19
2009
06:42 PM
6
06
42
PM
PDT}

Lamarck: 4. Why would “nothing makes sense in the light of science when you bring a deity such as the purported designer into the mix.”? What’s unscientific or non-sensical about that? Have you heard of the Omphalos hypothesis? It's a nineteenth century I.D. hypothesis involving a deity, and it's as good as any other. That should answer your question.iconofid_{June 19, 2009
June
06
Jun
19
19
2009
06:42 PM
6
06
42
PM
PDT}

BA77, genetic entropy and conservation of information are "foundational principles of science"?David Kellogg_{June 19, 2009
June
06
Jun
19
19
2009
06:34 PM
6
06
34
PM
PDT}

From what I can tell evolution is pure pseudo science. Evolutionists/Materialists blatantly ignore foundational principles of science (Genetic Entropy, Conservation Of Information)all the while clinging to mere suggestive similarities to try to make their case for evolution; For prime example of the flimsy "similarity evidence" used by materialists to try to make their case for evolution, most materialists are adamant that Darwinian evolution is proven true when we look at the supposed 98.8% genetic similarity between chimps and man. Though suggestive, the gene similarity, even if true, is not nearly good enough to be considered conclusive scientific proof. Primarily this "lack of conclusiveness" is due to concerns with the second law of thermodynamics and with the Law of Conservation of Information. But of more pressing concern, body plans are not even encoded in the DNA code in the first place. This inability of body plans to be reduced directly to the DNA code is clearly shown by Cortical Inheritance. Cortical Inheritance: The Crushing Critique Against Genetic Reductionism - Arthur Jones - video Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JzQ8ingdNY Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1bAX93zQ5o This inability for the DNA code to account for body plans is also clearly shown by extensive mutation studies to the DNA of different organisms which show "exceedingly rare" major morphological effects from mutations to the DNA. Hopeful monsters,' transposons, and the Metazoan radiation: Excerpt: Viable mutations with major morphological or physiological effects are exceedingly rare and usually infertile; the chance of two identical rare mutant individuals arising in sufficient propinquity to produce offspring seems too small to consider as a significant evolutionary event. These problems of viable "hopeful monsters" render these explanations untenable. Paleobiologists Douglas Erwin and James Valentine This includes the highly touted four-winged fruit fly mutations. ...Advantageous anatomical mutations are never observed. The four-winged fruit fly is a case in point: The second set of wings lacks flight muscles, so the useless appendages interfere with flying and mating, and the mutant fly cannot survive long outside the laboratory. Similar mutations in other genes also produce various anatomical deformations, but they are harmful, too. In 1963, Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote that the resulting mutants “are such evident freaks that these monsters can be designated only as ‘hopeless.’ They are so utterly unbalanced that they would not have the slightest chance of escaping elimination through natural selection." - Jonathan Wells http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/08/inherit_the_spin_the_ncse_answ.html#footnote19 Darwin's Theory - Fruit Flies and Morphology - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZJTIwRY0bs Thus the 98.8% similarity derived from the DNA code, to the body plans of chimps and man, is purely imaginary, since it is clearly shown that the overriding "architectural plan" of the body is not even encoded in the DNA in the first place. Of more clarity though, this "98.8% similarity evidence" is derived by materialists from a very biased methodology of presuming that the 1.5% of the genome, which directly codes for proteins, has complete precedence of consideration over the other remaining 98.5% of the genome which does not directly code for proteins. Yet even when considering just this 1.5% of the genome that codes for proteins, we find the proteins, which are directly coded by that 1.5% of the genome, are shown to differ by a huge 80% difference between chimps and man. On top of that 80% difference in proteins, the oft quoted 98.8% DNA similarity is not even true in the first place. Just considering this 1.5% of the genome, other recent comparisons of the protein coding genes, between chimps and man, have yielded a similarity of only 96%. Whereas, the December 2006 issue of PLoS ONE reported that human and chimpanzee gene copy numbers differ by 6.4%, which gives a similarity of only 93.6% (Hahn). Even more realistically, to how we actually should be looking at the genomes from a investigative starting point, Dr. Hugh Ross states the similarity is closer to 85% to 90% when taking into account the chimp genome is about 12% larger than the human genome. A recent, more accurate, human/chimp genome comparison study, by Richard Buggs in 2008, has found that when he rigorously compared the recently completed sequences in the genomes of chimpanzees to the genomes of humans side by side, the true genome similarity between chimps and man fell to slightly below 70%! Why is this study ignored since the ENCODE study has now implicated 100% high level functionality across the entire human genome? Finding compelling evidence that implicates 100% high level functionality across the entire genome clearly shows the similarity is not to be limited to the very biased "only 1.5% of the genome" studies of materialists. Chimpanzee? 10-10-2008 - Dr Richard Buggs - research geneticist at the University of Florida ...Therefore the total similarity of the genomes could be below 70%. http://www.refdag.nl/artikel/1366432/Chimpanzee.html This following paper reiterates the biased methodology used by materialists: The Unbearable Lightness of Chimp-Human Genome Similarity excerpt: One can seriously call into question the statement that human and chimp genomes are 99% identical. For one thing, it has been noted in the literature that the exact degree of identity between the two genomes is as yet unknown (Cohen, J., 2007. “Relative differences: The myth of 1%,” Science 316: 1836.). Part of the reason for this is if one decides to take into account the plethora of species-specific DNA insertions and deletions (“indels”) that are present along any segment compared between chimp and human, the percentage of identity drops. Another reason is that duplications, inversions, translocations, and transpositions at all scales uniquely characterize the two genome sequences — these have to be untangled before aligning the sequences in order to measure their similarity. Also, the 99% identity figure is often derived from protein-coding regions that only comprise about 1.5% of the two genomes. Many mammalian protein-coding regions are highly conserved, however. We also have to consider that a detailed comparison of certain “heterochromatic” chromosome regions between chimps and humans has yet to be made. In short, the figure of identity that one wants to use is dependent on various methodological factors.bornagain77_{June 19, 2009
June
06
Jun
19
19
2009
06:17 PM
6
06
17
PM
PDT}

RDK, "Once you invoke a supernatural entity you break the rules of causality. Nothing makes sense in the light of science when you bring a deity such as the purported designer into the mix." Problem is I don't see anything in the above paragraph that you could support empirically, so it is either an opinion or an assertion. How does invoking a "supernatural" entity break the rules of causality? "Making sense in the light of science" to me implies following rules of logic. Which rules of logic negate design in causality? Be careful, because if you say there is no design in causality, that would rule out all design, including the science of engineering.CannuckianYankee_{June 19, 2009
June
06
Jun
19
19
2009
06:14 PM
6
06
14
PM
PDT}

RDK, "But that’s the point; he didn’t ban a science, he banned a pseudoscience. Just like I would expect if someone tried to push astrology or tea-leaf reading into public school curriculum." I'll assume you're trying to be provocative or you're just misinformed. So I won't go into this much if you flat out state the opposite without elaborating. Here's some questions for you if you want: 1. Do we observe genomes losing information holding existing phenotypes together or gaining? Does this counter Neodarwinism? 2. For you to say ID is a pseudoscience, you of course mean ID can't write peer reviewed papers, make testable predictions, be falsifiable etc? Or if not those then how else do you see it as non-scientific? 3. Does ID invoke a supernatural entity as you imply? 4. Why would "nothing makes sense in the light of science when you bring a deity such as the purported designer into the mix."? What's unscientific or non-sensical about that?lamarck_{June 19, 2009
June
06
Jun
19
19
2009
06:10 PM
6
06
10
PM
PDT}

Hey Lamarck,
Judge Jones did more for ID than anyone else. To ban a science from school is akin to banning books, it’ll only blow up in your face.
But that's the point; he didn't ban a science, he banned a pseudoscience. Just like I would expect if someone tried to push astrology or tea-leaf reading into public school curriculum. Once you invoke a supernatural entity you break the rules of causality. Nothing makes sense in the light of science when you bring a deity such as the purported designer into the mix. P.S: Mr. Hunter, if you honestly believe the Theory of Evolution is fallacious because it rules out other alternatives in the process of being the best explanation to fit the data, then your knowledge of how scientific investigation works is lacking. If I've mischaracterized your view of the supposed religiosity of evolutionary theory in any way, shape, or form, feel free to explain further. Because I honestly can't see a logical argument from the page you just linked.RDK_{June 19, 2009
June
06
Jun
19
19
2009
05:51 PM
5
05
51
PM
PDT}

Sorry, I was quoting Mr. Nakashima in the italicized part above, if it's not clear.iconofid_{June 19, 2009
June
06
Jun
19
19
2009
05:50 PM
5
05
50
PM
PDT}

Dr Hunter, What are the specific religious premises of “heritable variation and selection lead to changes in a populations allele frequencies”? Yes, I'd like to know this too. I'd also like to know whether Dr. Hunter considers tectonic plate theory to be religious. It doesn't include the possibility of gods pushing the plates, for example, so should this be regarded as a theological position? And theories about weather patterns, highly complex phenomena, seem to neglect the role of the weather controlling gods our ancestors used to make sacrifices to, so these, presumably, should be regarded as having a religious stance. And should the supporters of germ theory be regarded as spiritual, as they exclude the evil spirits still thought to cause disease in parts of the world from their theory? There are many interesting questions raised by this thread.iconofid_{June 19, 2009
June
06
Jun
19
19
2009
05:48 PM
5
05
48
PM
PDT}

Dr Hunter, No worries then! I'm not an evolutionist, I'm a change in allele frequentist!Nakashima_{June 19, 2009
June
06
Jun
19
19
2009
05:45 PM
5
05
45
PM
PDT}

CannuckianYankee:
Mr. Hunter, I find your blog one of the most informative I have read. I think it has something to do with the fact that you explain things well, and for me as a non-scientist, this is very helpful. Thanks.
Thank you so much. RDK:
Jones is a Protestant Republican and, on top of that, a Bush appointee, and yet he still saw through the Intelligent Design facade.
That's no surprise. Evolution's religious foundation arose mainly from Protestants. Nakashima:
Dr Hunter, What are the specific religious premises of “heritable variation and selection lead to changes in a populations allele frequencies”?
There are none. I'm referring to evolution, not changes in allele frequencies. If you are an evolutionist then you are propagating religion within science -- the very sin you castigate others for. Evolutionists who genuinely would like to learn about the religious foundation of evolution can see a brief introduction here. They can also follow my blog.Cornelius Hunter_{June 19, 2009
June
06
Jun
19
19
2009
05:24 PM
5
05
24
PM
PDT}

RDK "Jones is a Protestant Republican and, on top of that, a Bush appointee, and yet he still saw through the Intelligent Design facade. However, you’re correct in saying that judges aren’t scientists, but that’s why they have scientific advisers in court cases such as Dover." So which is it then? He saw through the "facade" by his own scientific expertise? Or did he require the Darwin-colored glasses of his advisers to reach that conclusion? Are you saying then that it was appropriate for Judge Jones to state the opinion that he did, outside his scope and practice, because his opinion happens to support your views, and because he happened to have scientific advisers who share that view? I think no matter how you look at it, the courtroom is not an appropriate place for scientific validity to be determined. A few scientific advisers and a Judge can't determine the merits of ID on their own. Such a determination requires the reckoning of ID with the whole scientific community (including Biologists, but not limited to them)on both sides of the issue, and within the parameters of unbiased scientific inquiry.CannuckianYankee_{June 19, 2009
June
06
Jun
19
19
2009
05:01 PM
5
05
01
PM
PDT}

"Some posters on this site would have us believe Jones plumbed the depths of the debate and arrived at a watershed personal epiphany from Ken Miller’s overwhelming persuasiveness, hmm" I think he was persuaded by "Inherit The Wind."CannuckianYankee_{June 19, 2009
June
06
Jun
19
19
2009
04:45 PM
4
04
45
PM
PDT}

RDK:
Jones is a Protestant Republican and, on top of that, a Bush appointee, and yet he still saw through the Intelligent Design facade.
Translation: Judge Jones bought the anti-ID nonsense hook, line and sinker. Not only that he over-stepped his authority.Joseph_{June 19, 2009
June
06
Jun
19
19
2009
04:32 PM
4
04
32
PM
PDT}

Judge Jones did more for ID than anyone else. To ban a science from school is akin to banning books, it'll only blow up in your face. It just takes time. The second biggest contributor is Eugenie Scott. Simply stating "there is no controversy" is like the newspapers in North Korea when they reported Kim Jung Ill was just out playing golf and scored 18 holes in one. Make people wonder... Also Judge Jones had already made up his mind. In his summary he stated not one ID paper had undergone peer review, when papers were provided to him beforehand. Some posters on this site would have us believe Jones plumbed the depths of the debate and arrived at a watershed personal epiphany from Ken Miller's overwhelming persuasiveness, hmmlamarck_{June 19, 2009
June
06
Jun
19
19
2009
04:31 PM
4
04
31
PM
PDT}

Dr Hunter, What are the specific religious premises of "heritable variation and selection lead to changes in a populations allele frequencies"?Nakashima_{June 19, 2009
June
06
Jun
19
19
2009
04:11 PM
4
04
11
PM
PDT}

CannuckianYankee (#16) wrote: "The ruling in Dover was appropriate in one sense, and inappropriate in another. It was the Judge’s overall characterization of ID in that ruling that was the problem." Judge Jones' ruling was based on his judgment of what was presented to him by the two sides. One side's presentation was coherent, organized and internally consistent. The other side's presentation was incoherent, disorganized and blatantly less than fully truthful. Included in Judge Jones' decision was this comment: "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." One can hardly blame the judge for his characterization of ID, based as it was on what was presented to him. Buckingham, Bonsell, Buell and Behe are to blame for ID's characterization - not Jones.PaulBurnett_{June 19, 2009
June
06
Jun
19
19
2009
04:07 PM
4
04
07
PM
PDT}

Hey Yankee,
Judge’s [sic] are not scientists, and should make legal determinations only, not scientific ones. There are even atheists who recognized the problems with this ruling. An overly zealous religious judge could do the same thing in ruling Evolution not scientific. I’m certain too, that in such a case many Evangelical Christians and others would applaud such the, but such a judge would still be wrong.
Jones is a Protestant Republican and, on top of that, a Bush appointee, and yet he still saw through the Intelligent Design facade. However, you're correct in saying that judges aren't scientists, but that's why they have scientific advisers in court cases such as Dover.RDK_{June 19, 2009
June
06
Jun
19
19
2009
04:06 PM
4
04
06
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 23 24 25 26 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply