Judge in Dover case still fighting

You may want to note that I have presented the arguments of ID tentatively, not dogmatically. The two are not mutually exclusive, as your presentation of arguments demonstrates. There IS a third, albeit pesky, adverb, "scientifically"...

I do not believe in using judges to give special status to the idea that organized matter performing specific functions might be best explained by intelligent design.

That's fine. If only there were scientific research and evidence to support ID, you wouldn't need judges. Of course, creationists were more than happy to use judges back when evidence was irrelevant.

Not so for you and your cheerlears who by law wish to see your peculiar philosophy of history elevated to the status of science and kept there as if it is beyond question.

Greetings, Ms. Characterization. It is precisely this kind of deception that lost Dover for your side, not some grand conspiracy. First, the ToE already IS science, so it needs no further "elevation". Second, it is not beyond question. Quite the contrary. It's just not subject to theological revision and mandate, much to the dismay of you and your cheerleaders.

It is you and your cheerleaders who have not "earned" the right to have your philosophy presented as science,

And I'm sure that there are plenty of welfare moms who can "argue" that all the bad, bad rich people don't "earn" their money either. I'll cite the widespread acceptance of the ToE as evidence that its place has been earned.

yet push for an exclusive hearing in any case where an alternative explanation is suggested.

I find it interesting that you wish the jury, in your "hearing", to be students who are ignorant about biology, geology, etc. (by virtue of their status as "students") rather than scientists, who are experts, and capable of rendering an informed verdict. In your courtroom, evidence and information are liabilities.

There is plenty of evidence for organized matter that performs specific functions, and thus good reason to infer intelligent design. ID stands on much more solid ground in terms of evidence than does the ToE, which is, in effect, a philosophy of history and not science. It does not belong in classes dedicated to empirical science such as genetics, biology, physics, astronomy, and the like.

As you and your pet judges continue to confuse theories with their implications, and facts with explanations, education and science continue to suffer the burden of having a peculiar philosophy palmed off as science. We don't teach astrology in public schools. We shouldn't be teaching evolution either, except as a conjectural agglomeration of data points which may or may not represent true history.

There is plenty of evidence for organized matter that performs specific functions, and thus good reason to infer intelligent design.

That and a dollar will buy you a soda. There may be evidence for micro design, but not yet for macro design.

It does not belong in classes dedicated to empirical science such as genetics, biology, physics, astronomy, and the like.

Some disagree with you. Like, 99% of geneticists, physicists, biologists, astronomers, and the like.

Science has been doing quite nicely since, well, since it managed to free itself (nearly) from the control of religious dogmatists.

We don't teach astrology in public schools.

Because it is unsupported by evidence. I'm sure that, if its proponents were as motivated, and its movement as well-funded, as creationism, we'd be hearing "teach the controversy!" from their corner as well.

Science has been doing quite nicely since, well, since it managed to free itself (nearly) from the control of religious dogmatists.

It is been the general practice of science to seek and explain order, not chaos. Order is a fundamental product of intelligent design. It does not take a religious dogmatist to see as much, Albert Einstein being a case in point. To the extent your philosophy of history departs from scientific method, direct observation, and the like, it is no less lacking foundation than astrology.

It has been the general practice of science to seek and explain, whether it be order or chaos. With regards to intelligent design, science is not atheistic, but agnostic. Science, and scientists, are willing to admit "we don't know" when it comes to the question of an intelligent designer. The religious dogmatists, with their unfounded certainty, are unwilling or unable to "not know", or at least to admit to such. The incredible arrogance it takes for someone who knows nothing about a subject to tell someone who has spent a good portion of their life and energy devoted to understanding that subject, that they don't what they're talking about, is undermining any credibility an actual scientific endeavor to prove intelligent design might otherwise have. I'm afraid, however, that there's not much hope in an actual, scientifically motivated and operated endeavor to prove ID, since its advocates have no interest in science. They are not interested in "knowing more", which lies at the heart of science, but instead in making others believe what they already DO "know".

The religious dogmatists, with their unfounded certainty, are unwilling or unable to "not know", or at least to admit to such.

On the contrary, they are generally willing to fore go absolute truth when it comes to science because they understand science is only capable of relative truth. Hence they should be free to express and discuss intelligent design not only in a scientific context, but also in public school science classes. The dogmatism rears its head on the part of evolutionists who think there is only one legitimate way to connect the data points. Long live king Jones!

On the contrary, they are generally willing to fore go absolute truth when it comes to science

This one gets a chuckle out of me. I've been on these threads long enough to read the certainty of ALL of the creationists with regards to their interpretation of the bible. Funny thing, that: evolution does NOT exclude an intelligent designer, but the creationists and their interpretation leave NO room for evolution being the mechanism by which the designer designed. It's not only "God did it", but "God did it this way, and no other".

The dogmatism rears its head on the part of evolutionists who think there is only one legitimate way to connect the data points.

You're wrong about that. Scientists argue amongst themselves all the time about the gaps between the data points. The more they do that in a structured way, the more the whole field moves forward.

Long live king Jones!

If, by "king", you mean "judge who rightly determined that lying your religion into school is unacceptable", then I share your sentiment! A toast is in order...something hoppy...an IPA, perhaps?

It is not completely unreasonable to believe that evolution is a means by which a designer could design and implement a purposeful, organized, functioning entity of any kind. Evolution may also be one of the tools by which an entity functions, but it would be difficult to maintain logically, let alone scientifically, that evolution itself is an active agent of design.

You are incorrect in asserting that creationists claim to have answers specifically as to the manner in which the universe is organized and functional ("God did it this way, and no other"). They often depend upon the writings and observations of those who have no regard for the accuracy and authority of the biblical texts, knowing that most scientists are not engaged in a game of willful deceit. At the same time, they are not so dull as to accept unobserved, unrecorded renditions of history as anything more than reasonable conjecture.

You are correct that creationists operate under a dual standard for truth. On the one hand they accept the biblical texts as authoritative and accurate. On the other hand they realize those same truths cannot be apprehended by science alone. Science can only provide an imperfect glimpse into objective reality.

That said, there is no reason to dismiss intelligent design as unscientific unless one happens to be biased against it for personal or philosophical reasons. Examples of intelligent design can be factually, and repeatedly demonstrated. In cases where the intelligent designer of a specific functioning system is not directly manifest, such a designer may be reasonably inferred, completely without the need to resort to a biblical text as "proof."

Some scientists may argue about gaps between data points, but dogmatic evolutionists insist it is beyond acceptable practice in public schools to attribute either the data points themselves, or their patterns, or their specific functions, to intelligent design. Their objections are not scientific, but personal.

But go ahead and drink to a judge to prefers to see your personal views enforced by law. Something "hoppy" would be perfect, since you seem wholly capable of hopping from one unsubstantiated claim to the next.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.