Defense Attorney's Closing Argument in Dover Evolution Trial

National Center for Science Education ^ | 16 November 2005 | Patrick Gillen, Esq.

[js1138]

Seem to my that ID is more aboput origins than change. If that is the case, why do evolutionists attack ID?

I didn't realize ID advocates were engaged in research into biogenesis. The folks at the Discovery Institute said ID hasn't done any research.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Sorry if I made it look like your quote. I didn't mean it that way. However this is a stated definition of evolution and it appears that it has hit a hard spot with you since it upset you so bad that you couldn't respond to it."

That's a creationist definition (from a piece by Lloyd W. Cary:http://www.giveshare.org/evolution/evolution-fact-or-fallacy.html) of *evolution* and as such it throws together the Big Bang, Abiogenesis, evolution (which it calls 'micro-evolution and 'macro-evolution') This definition is crap. I didn't respond because you made it look like it was *my* quote. No scientist would agree to this definition.

"Tell me, was slavery a product of evolution?"

If it was then evolution must be in the Bible, because that's where you got your defense of slavery in that earlier thread.

[doc30]

He may claim that I.D. is science and not religion all day, but that doesn't change the fact that I.D. IS religion and it is NOT science, and as such it has no place in a science classroom.

The main point of his closing argumenets is that the definition od science is not sufficuiently inclusive of supernatural explanations, and, therefore, needs intellectual affermative action to get sciecne to accept fairy tales as scientifically credible theories. He is advocating that sciecne is wrong not to include religion. His statement below proves my point.

As Fuller has explained, it is merely a philosophical commitment to so-called methodological naturalism, adopted as a convention by the bulk of the scientific community, which bars reference to the possibility of supernatural causation, again, at least so far as such causation is currently regarded as supernatural. Even Pennock agrees that philosophers of science, those who have examined these matters in detail, do not agree as to the viability or benefits of this so-called methodological commitment.

[doc30]

Because you say it is so we are to bow to your opinion. But sir, you have no credibility here. How are we to believe what you say when your opinion has no value? Amos, spinestein has credibilty here because he knows the definition of science. I would value the comments of someone who is knowledgeable of the field over someone who is igorant of the field.

[Gumlegs]

WTF? Admitting supernatural causation into science is like admitting forged documents into the historical record.

You have a problem with See BS News and Dan Ra^ther?

[doc30]

The newly elected board members do no take office until after a ruling from the judge is expected.

[airborne]

You don't think the judge will (whether he admits it or not) take the election into consideration?

[PatrickHenry]

Me:
You're overlooking the contribution to Western Civilization made by the invention of the chastity belt.

You:
The invention of the skeleton key?

No, dunderhead Oral sex!

[dread78645]

Go stand next to an irradiated fuel cell and tell me if you will grow or die.

As opposed to what? An irradiated corn cob?

"That 'creature' has stolen my Illudium PU-36 Space Modulator"

[js1138]

[Quark2005]

Darwinian evolutiuon certainly did address the origin of life when I was in school; the whole primordial soup thing. Problem is advancement in the sciences clearly established the impossibility of such a claim, so much so that evolutionists had to simply drop all references or inferences about the origin of life.

Care to cite any peer-reviewed literature/science texts to back this (absurd) claim?

[longshadow]

toolkit placemarker

[King Prout]

eh? what? which?

has this lawyer been reading the same trial transcripts as I have?

[Louis Foxwell]

Spinestein's definition of science is obviously a closed box. Science must never be a closed box.

[doc30]

Spinestein's definition of science is obviously a closed box. Science must never be a closed box.

Science is a closed box to the supernatural. That's part of the foundation of science and part of it's fundamental philosophy. Science seeks naturalistic explanations, not supernatural ones. Science has no business probing the supernatural or philosophical. It can't do it. Just like religious dogma has no place in science. Religion is biased and is choked full of preconceptions and superstitions.

That's why the Dover case is important. The defense seeks to CHANGE the definition and practice of science to include the possibility of supernatural intervention. At that point, it ceases being science because 'goddidit' becomes an acceptable explanation that serves to generate no new knowledge.

[Louis Foxwell]

Science is a closed box to the supernatural.

Absolutely incorrect. The definition of supernatural you choose to use distinguishes it from the universe. Your distinction that the supernatural is philosophical and theological similarly fails to acknowledge that the spiritual is an aspect of natural phenomenon. You have defined your terms to fit your bias. That is not science. It is dogma.

[longshadow]

eh? what? which?

has this lawyer been reading the same trial transcripts as I have?

Hence my earlier comment that it sounded like this summation was written months before the trial...... it has no connection to the reality of what took place in the courtroom. It's apropos, in a macabre sort of way: delusional lawyers for delusional clients.

[King Prout]

it makes more "sense" after reading PH's Lemon Test explanation

it still makes no SENSE-sense, but it becomes comprehensible as a legal gambit

[King Prout]

actually it is a simple matter of linguistics and definition: super(above or beyond) + natural = that which is beyond the natural.

the natural sciences cannot study that which may exist beyond the natural.

[taxesareforever]

That's a creationist definition

Typical liberal argument. If it doesn't agree with their propective they cast it out as having an agenda. Barf.