[PatrickHenry]

As before, try to post all of today's news in this one thread.

[PatrickHenry]

EvolutionPing

A pro-evolution science list with over 310 names. See the list's explanation at my freeper homepage. Then FReepmail to be added or dropped. See what's new in The List-O-Links.

[blowfish]

Correct: ID is *not* creationism.

It's creationism wearing a borrowed labcoat, hoping to masquerade as science.

[shuckmaster]

Behe testified that intelligent design doesn't require a supernatural creator, but an intelligent designer: it does not name the designer.

It's amazing that some feeble minded people are falling hook, line, and sinker for such an obvious load of crap.

[facedown]

Behe testified that intelligent designdoesn't require a supernatural creator, but an intelligent designer:...

A distinction in search of a difference.

[Ichneumon]

Professor [Behe]: Design not creationism

[connectthedots]

One of the parents' attorneys made mention of the in-depth subject matter, causing Muise to draw reference to Miller's earlier testimony. He said the courtroom went from "Biology 101" to "Advanced Biology." "This is what you get," Muise said.

It appears that Behe is being a very effective witness when one of the plaintiffs' attorneys mentions the in-depth nature of Behe's testimony. Muise's response was great.

As I said earlier on a few occasions, one needs to wait for the defense to present their case before getting too excited about the plaintiff case.

[tallhappy]

Biologist and Brown University professor Kenneth Miller testified for the parents about two weeks ago. He showed the courtroom diagrams on a large screen, detailing how the bacterial flagellum could be reduced and still work.

This is what we are wasting our time and tax dollars on?

Truly representative of a society that has lost perspective.

[DoctorMichael]

Did you mean '18' in the title instead of '10'?

Has anyone ever noticed how much the Creationist wackos have in common with Screwy Louis Farakhan and the Nation of Islam? Both believe that a Scientist, at some distinct point in the near past, made mankind. Maybe the Creationists should merge with Louis? They are very similar ideologies.

[Joe Republc]

Just read 'Darwin's Black Box' by Behe. Very compelling book. At the LEAST it leaves a lot of hard questions about the explanatory power of evolution.

-- Joe

[<1/1,000,000th%]

He said the courtroom went from "Biology 101" to "Advanced Biology."

It's ironic how this court case mirrors our discussions on FR.

We've had this argument that you can't teach ID in high school because a bunch of kids reading at a 4th grade level aren't prepared to cope with graduate level material in biology.

[Physicist]

One of the parents' attorneys made mention of the in-depth subject matter, causing Muise to draw reference to Miller's earlier testimony. He said the courtroom went from "Biology 101" to "Advanced Biology." "This is what you get," Muise said.

“Whoever knows he is deep, strives for clarity; whoever would like to appear deep to the crowd, strives for obscurity. For the crowd considers anything deep if only it cannot see to the bottom: the crowd is so timid and afraid of going into the water.” — Friedrich Nietzsche

[Trimegistus]

"Intelligent Design is _entirely_ different from Creationism. ID is spelled with a capital I and a capital D, while Creationism has a big C at the beginning. No similarity at all."

[Liberal Classic]

Behe testified that intelligent designdoesn't require a supernatural creator, but an intelligent designer: it does not name the designer.

Somewhere, over the rainbow, the Raelians are cheering.

[ml1954]

If Behe was asked if the ID'er could be a space alien, I assume he would say we don't know. The followup would be that ID admits that possibility, doesn't it? He'd have to say yes. And then the question would be....should we be teaching our children they may be manufactured by space aliens?

[ml1954]

If ID asserts that things are designed by an ID'er, isn't ID required to give examples of things that are beyond doubt not designed by the ID'er, and prove it?

[F16Fighter]

"There is evidence that some living things were purposefully arranged by a designer," Behe claimed in his testimony.

Lol, "some"??

Behe comically trying to compromise on an issue that can't be compromised on...

Don't know why he's hedging -- his "friends" in the scientific community already regard him as a heretic.

[VadeRetro]

Tomasacci's friend, Lynn Appleman, said he supports Dover's school board. He said he thought Behe was "doing a good job" during testimony, but "it can get over my head pretty quick."

Tomasacci knows his lines. Having it all fly over your head is actually the idea, and the best way to support the school board. Thus, there must really be a controvery in science after all.

The article doesn't mention any cross by the plaintiffs yet. I assume that's coming.

[GreenOgre]

It is constantly stated that ID requires a designer. So here is my question....

When is the designer going to testify?

What is the designer's mailing address?
Nuff said...

[JudgemAll]

1. The majority of the Bible has to do with sin, disrepair, exposure and forced repair. The creation part is a tiny part of it. It is fact that sin would cause mnakind to be extinct by now because no one wants to admit weaknesses and all cheat. This is something sorely missing on all evolution and ID discussions.

2. ID is explainable in through chaos theory and strange attractors. Evolution does not even go there and acknowledge strange attractors in nature. Every evolving creature follows a strange attractor pattern. for illustration, a fir tree will grow in symmetrical like macroscopic order within microscopic disorder like growth, but also change branch direction for maximum sunlight exposure. Small chaotic evolutionary steps cannot get anywhere without some strange attractor making the macroscopic evolution itself orderly and survivable. The example of the flagele working on the cell in this article is typical exposition of the need and existence of strange attractors in nature.

Scientists supposedly follow science and not guilt, but this is a lie. If evolution worked on them "scientificaly" and someone somehow did not cheat for them when being raised, they would have never become scientists.

The only reason for evolutionists' bashing religious, ethical and morality looks into science is to expound on themselves and make themselves worshiped beyond what they are. Scientific untidiness is nothing compared to moral untidiness.