The whole truth
Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012
|
| Quote (midwifetoad @ July 18 2012,18:05) | | Quote (OgreMkV @ July 18 2012,19:42) | | Quote (Ptaylor @ July 18 2012,15:33) | | (Thinking) Hmm, I've had my sig line (welcoming arrogant idiots to UD) for over a year now; maybe time for a new one. What's on offer over at UD? Oh here's one. |
Ah yes, the famous argument that prevents juries from functioning. |
Let's give ID proponents credit. They are lawyers, and they do know the law. They know that it is impossible for mere physical or material evidence to support a conclusion beyond reasonable doubt.
They would never ask a jury to convict a person or deprive a person of liberty, life or money based on materialistic, forensic reasoning.
Edited for syntax. |
Excellent points, and to expand on them a bit, I offer this:
Let's say that an IDiot or any other science denying/bashing religious zealot has a young daughter, and one day she tells her parent (the IDiot) that she was raped by someone. She's crying and freaking out as most rape victims would justifiably do and the IDiot, like most parents, runs to the phone and frantically calls the cops. The cops show up, and so does an ambulance which takes the girl to a hospital. The hospital does a rape kit to collect evidence and the cops question the girl for more information but she cannot identify the rapist.
In this situation there's no video, no photos, no witnesses, no fingerprints, and the girl does not know who the alleged rapist is, but there is medical/biological/scientific evidence of a rape. There is some vaginal bruising/abrasions and a single pubic hair but no semen because the rapist used a condom. The cops eventually match a guy to the DNA of the hair and charge him with rape and the case goes to court. The DNA of the hair matches the DNA of the suspect with an accuracy of 98% and the suspect has no alibi or any other evidence to show that he didn't do it.
Now, would the IDiot parent argue that the suspect cannot be guilty because the DNA doesn't match 100%? Would the IDiot argue that there are 'gaps' in the case because there is no video, no photos, no description of the rapist, no fingerprints, and no eye witnesses? Would the IDiot argue that since the cops and prosecutor and science can't account for every single nanosecond of the suspect's actions and whereabouts that day and for the history of his entire life that there are 'gaps' and therefor no case against him? Would the IDiot argue that biological/forensic/medical/DNA science can't be trusted and is nothing but a corrupt, materialistic, atheistic, amoral, evil, "Darwinian" agenda?
Would the IDiot devote his/her life, recruit others, publish books, create websites, bash material evidence, bash science, join or create organizations that spend millions, and do all the other things that IDiots do in their 'war' against materialism, in order to vehemently campaign for the release and freedom of the suspected rapist, or would the IDiot want to see the rapist swiftly convicted on the material evidence, imprisoned for a very lengthy time (or worse) and burn in hell for all eternity for raping the IDiot's daughter?
And what if the suspected rapist used a defense based on supernatural, immaterial woo? Would the IDiot parent of the raped girl be swayed by that?
I think that the answers to the questions are obvious. The IDiot, like most parents, would want to see the rapist hung by his balls in the town square and would be totally convinced by the 98% match (and likely a much less convincing match) of the DNA from a single hair. No other evidence would be necessary and no 'gaps' would even be considered. If something like the rape described above were to happen to an IDiot or someone they care about they would suddenly be totally concerned with only the material evidence and would expect and demand that the cops, prosecutor, jury, and judge take only the material evidence into consideration and convict the suspect. Suddenly science would be completely trustworthy. The SAME science the IDiots fight against every day.
And who do you think the IDiot would want to see testifying about the DNA evidence that would convict his/her daughter's rapist? behe, wells, dembski, luskin, klinghoffer, joe g, gordo 'liar' mullings, arrington, o'leary, ba77, corny hunter, axe, wl 'genocide' craig, uptightbiped, torley, freshwater, or any of the other IDiots? Would an IDiot trust one of their ilk in such a case or would they want a real scientist who's an expert on DNA to testify for the prosecution?
--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34
But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27
|
