Joined: Oct. 2005
|Quote (evopeach @ Oct. 20 2005,14:10)|
You want me to read a propaganda piece written in part by Barbara Forrester , the lead witness, against Dover as an objective convincing analysis.
Most people would agree that the way you know when a trial is decided is when its over and the verdict is rendered.
I see it as a separation of church and state issue and since the supreme court has agreed that the teaching of altenative scientific theories is acceptable the burden is on the plaintiff to prove that ID is not scientific.
The detection of design like Mt. Rushmore or the monoliths on Easter Island are pretty comprehensible by average people.
The question seems to be is there any impact on science by the detection of design or is it ... so what.
In ETSI the entire idea was to detect the difference between random white or colored noise and a correlated signal, a code, a message. If such a message was detected and decoded would it have an impact on science in the USA?
1) We would act on the message because it would likely be some universally important scientific information.
2) We would approach additional messages with a scientifically schooled filtering scheme to enhance further understanding, tightly focused.
So the detection of design would be a scientific endeaver
which would very likely have impact on science itself.
If the messages were repeated over and over and when decoded was universally agreed to say......."In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.." would that make all of the work performed to get to that point a waste of time and unscientific?
Yeah, I know, that article is does poke some fun at ID, but it also has some very careful analysis about the Lemon and Edwards cases.
As for your assertion that the burden of proof lies with the plaintiffs isn't not EXACTLY correct. One thing we learned from Edwards is that ideas like creationism, even beyond their religion implications, aren't worthy of special protection in a science class. The court ruled that the science community is very robust and anything worthy of being taught would have risen on it's own out of the free marketplace of ideas.
With ONE scientist for ID, and thousands against, the court is unlikely to find that the defense passes the first prong of the Lemon test: that ID has a secular benefit. Clearly it does not, or it would have succeeded in the peer-reviewed science community.
And I agree with you 100% when you say that you know the trial is decided when it's over. I know I won't change your mind, and I'm really not trying to. I'm just writing this so that when Dover is shot full of holes, you'll think to yourself: "####, maybe those evolutionists aren't as dumb as I think they are!". And for just ONE second, your delusions will vanish, a beam of light will shine down from the heavens, and God's voice will say with a booming reverberating echo: "He Told You So!"