Try reading the transcript of the trial. I did. The ID'ers lied over and over and it was proven in court that they did. The judge had no choice
lol- Yeah- that’s why judges and lawyers all over hte country were stunned at the judges bias- Don’t give me that crap- I’ve read it as well and MANY sites have the LIES that were perpetrated by the evos well documented- so go preach to someone who will beleive your crap- The Judge himself even made many critical lies abotu hte case, AND he even copied word for word the ACLU’s complete claptrap- spelling errors and factual misrepresentations and all.
The whole issue where ID supposedly lied abotu the book of pandas and people was a COMPLETE LIE itself- the ID side requested that they be able to present evidence that they werre NOT lying, but hte judge DISSALLOWED it while allowing your side to rail on and on about FALSE ACCUSATIONS that had NO basis in reality- ID got railroaded! But again- you only care abotu hte false accusatiosn and hte judgement, so you don’t bother to conentrate your investigation on the ACTUAL FACTS
Beleive what you want- but the FACTS do NOT support your accusations
And just for the record- the following PROVES that the judge LIED abotu what Behe said, LIED abotu what Behe infered, LIED about ID, and just goes to prove the judge was nothign but an ignorant agendist who was compeltewly CLUELESS abotu what ID is or even what Behe meant-
Behe goes down htrough every one of the Judges LIES and exposes just how ignorant the activist judge really was- Behe exposes the judge’s ignroance point by point!
(4) ID is predicated on supernatural causation, as we previously explained and as various expert testimony revealed. ... (21:96-100 (Behe); P-718 at 696, 700 (“implausible that the designer is a natural entity”).
Again, repeatedly, the Court’s opinion ignores the distinction between an implication of a theory and the theory itself. If I think it is implausible that the cause of the Big Bang was natural, as I do, that does not make the Big Bang Theory a religious one, because the theory is based on physical, observable data and logical inferences. The same is true for ID
(10) Professor Behe has applied the concept of irreducible complexity to only a few selectsystems: (1) the bacterial flagellum; (2) the blood-clotting cascade; and (3) the immune system. Contrary to Professor Behe’s assertions with respect to these few biochemical systems among the myriad existing in nature, however, Dr. Miller presented evidence, based upon peer-reviewed studies, that they are not in fact irreducibly complex.
In this section, despite my protestations the Court simply accepts Miller’s adulterated definition of irreducible complexity in which a system is not irreducible if you can use one or more of its parts for another purpose, and disregards careful distinctions I made in Darwin’s Black Box. The distinctions can be read in my Court testimony. In short, the Court uncritically accepts strawman arguments
(13) As a further example, the test for ID proposed by both Professors Behe and Minnich is to grow the bacterial flagellum in the laboratory; however, no-one inside or outside of the IDM, including those who propose the test, has conducted it. (P-718; 18:125-27 (Behe); 22:102-06 (Behe)).
If I conducted such an experiment and no flagellum were evolved, what Darwinist would believe me? What Darwinist would take that as evidence for my claims that Darwinism is wrong
Whether Intelligent Design is Science: Behe’s Response to Kitzmiller -8- and ID is right? As I testified to the Court, Kenneth Miller claimed there was experimental evidence showing that complex biochemical systems could evolve by random mutation and natural selection, and he pointed to the work of Barry Hall on the lac operon. I explained in great detail to the Court why Miller was exaggerating, was incorrect, and made claims that Barry Hall himself never did. However, no Darwinist I am aware of subsequently took Hall’s experiments as evidence against Darwinism. Neither did the Court mention it in its opinion. The flagellum experiment the Court described above is one that, if successful, would strongly affirm Darwinian claims, and so should have been attempted long ago by one or more of the many, many adherents of Darwinism in the scientific community. That none of them has tried such an experiment, and that similar experiments that were tried on other molecular systems have failed, should count heavily against their theory
(14) We will now consider the purportedly “positive argument” for design encompassed in the phrase used numerous times by Professors Behe and Minnich throughout their expert testimony, which is the “purposeful arrangement of parts.” ... As previously indicated, this argument is merely a restatement of the Reverend William Paley’s argument applied at the cell level. Minnich, Behe, and Paley reach the same conclusion, that complex organisms must have been designed using the same reasoning, except that Professors Behe and Minnich refuse to identify the designer, whereas Paley inferred from the presence of design that it was God.
Again, repeatedly, the Court confuses extra-scientific implications of a scientific theorywith the theory itself. William Paley would likely think that the Big Bang was a creative act by God, but that does not make the Big Bang theory unscientific. In fact I myself suspect that the Big Bang may have been a supernatural act, but I would not say that science has determined the universe was begun by God — just that science has determined the universe had a beginning. To reach to a conclusion of God or the supernatural requires philosophical and other arguments beyond science. Scholarly diligence in making proper distinctions should not be impugned as craftiness. I do not “refuse to identify the designer” as the Court accuses. Starting in Darwin’s Black Box and continuing up through my testimony at trial, I have repeatedly affirmed that I think the designer is God, and repeatedly pointed out that that personal affirmation goes beyond the scientific evidence, and is not part of my scientific program
(16) Indeed, the assertion that design of biological systems can be inferred from the“purposeful arrangement of parts” is based upon an analogy to human design. ... Professor Behe testified that the strength of the analogy depends upon the degree of similarity entailed inthe two propositions; however, if this is the test, ID completely fails.
The Court has switched in the space of a paragraph from calling the argument for ID an “inductive argument” to calling it an “analogy”. That is a critical confusion. As I testified, the ID argument is an induction, not an analogy. Inductions do not depend on the degree of similarity of examples within the induction. Examples only have to share one or a subset of relevant properties. For example, the induction that, ceteris paribus, black objects become warm in the sunlight holds for a wide range of dissimilar objects. A black automobile and a black rock become warm in the sunlight, even though they have many dissimilarities. The induction holds because they share a similar relevant property, their blackness. The induction that many fragments rushing away fromeach other indicates a past explosion holds for both firecrackers and the universe (in the Big Bang theory), even though firecrackers and the universe have many, many dissimilarities. Cellular machines and machines in our everyday world share a relevant property — their functional complexity, born of a purposeful arrangement of parts — and so inductive conclusions to design can be drawn on the basis of that shared property. To call an induction into doubt one has to show that dissimilarities make a relevant difference to the property one wishes to explain. Neither the judge nor the Darwinists he uncritically embraces have done that in respect to intelligent design
It is clear hte judge can’t even keep his facts straight, nor is he apparently capable of honestly making claims abotu hte trial. It is also clear that he LIED many times- so don’t give me your petty little arguments agaisnt ID by claiming hte trial was ‘fair and balanced’- it was NOT! Period