[Jeb] Bush: Science comes before intelligent design [Jeb gets the message]

Miami Herald ^ | 26 December 2005 | Daniel A. Ricker

[longshadow]

Your Spectator article is not evidence. It's a vague mumble that some "scientists" somewhere, mostly at the un-Discovery Institute in Seattle, think they see evidence in complexity.

Until they get cross-examined under oath; then the truth comes out, as is reflected in the this quote from the Dover decision regarding the teastimony of Prof. Behe:

On cross-examination, Professor Behe admitted that: "There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred." (22:22-23 (Behe)).

[emphasis added]

There you have it, sports fans; Prof. Behe admitted under oath that there are no, nada, zero "....peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred." Dover will, in time be seen as ID's Waterloo.

[101st-Eagle]

What it means is that science is self correcting.

So science is both self-correcting yet ever changing? I know, we will have completely correct answers someday. Unified field law anyone?

[highball]

There you have it, sports fans; Prof. Behe admitted under oath that there are no, nada, zero "....peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred."

That was after he claimed that there was. He's no more honest than the board members - a pack of liars, the lot of them.

Dover will, in time be seen as ID's Waterloo.

We can only hope. PC in any form must be destroyed.

[HitmanLV]

Why do some folks consider this a conservative issue?

[PatrickHenry]

Why do some folks consider this a conservative issue?

Some people seem to think that conservatism is all about establishing a theocracy.

[HitmanLV]

I don't even see the theocracy thingy here - that is, rule by religious leaders. This is only peripheral to that at best. It's not conservative. It's not theocratic. I don't know what it is.

[PatrickHenry]

I don't even see the theocracy thingy here - that is, rule by religious leaders.

Well, that's true. The term "theocracy" isn't technically right. I've never seen any of them actually call for that. But they do want government to operate by religious principles -- their religious principles. Banishing evolution is just the first step. Were they actually in power, it's hard to imagine how far they'd carry things. They'd probably revert to the way they used to be in many places -- Sunday closing laws, that kind of thing. Probably few of them have thought it through.