silverspoon
Posts: 123
Joined: May 2007
|
| Quote (Richard Simons @ Oct. 10 2007,00:02) | | Also, please give a citation to the part of Judge Jones' ruling where he said that ID was not science because of its religious implications. I think you are just making this up, which in my book comes very close to lying. |
I second this question for Ftk. I’d like a reference for Judge Jones stating that ID could be correct, but isn’t science due to its religious implications.
Jones said the only supposed evidence for ID given in the trial was (paraphrased) ID being something an agnostic or atheist would be less inclined to accept. He did say the positive argument for ID doesn’t meet scientific standards. Nowhere can I find in his ruling where he says ID could be correct.
In summary, he said ID doesn’t meet scientific standards, and he has no opinion on it being true other than being an interesting theological argument. That’s a far cry from Ftk’s caricature of what he wrote.
--------------
Grand Poobah of the nuclear mafia
|
