Discovery's Creation [The rise & fall of the Discovery Institute]

Seattle Weekly ^ | 01 February 2006 | Roger Downey

[Lurking Libertarian]

If the evos would admit to/show the problems with evolution their sites would appear more scientific.

Which "problems" do you have in mind?

[connectthedots]

I thought, after reading the transcript, the Behe did do quite well. Jones' opinion was different, but there have been lots of district Court judges who have been reversed in unanimous decisions. Too bad there wasn't an appeal of that case.

[longshadow]

>>>>>We can show you postings from FR creationists who stated that they would not read links, because they wanted the facts presented right here.<<<<<

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1568474/posts?page=658#658

[connectthedots]

I think the lemon test is history the next time it comes before the USSC.

[jwalsh07]

It's already history, Jones just didn't get the memo I guess. There were 5 votes to kill Lemon once and for all before Roberts and Alito and there are certainly 5 now.

[VadeRetro]

I thought, after reading the transcript, the Behe did do quite well. Jones' opinion was different...

You were pre-ordained to feel vindicated. However, Jones is hardly the only one who disagrees.

[Senator Bedfellow]

Killing Lemon is easy. Finding something to replace it is a much taller order.

[furball4paws]

Pah. When the DI morphs into its new form "Intelligent Evolution" or some other blather, he'll change his tune in lock step with all the others.

Don't the ID crowd realize that ID demeans God?

[longshadow]

Here's but one example of Behe "doing well" in his testimony in the Dover case:

Behe Cross-X Day 12 http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day12AM.pdf

p22 line 25
Q. And in fact 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, is that correct?

A. That is correct, yes.

[emphasis added for the the brain dead]

[jwalsh07]

Killing Lemon is easy. Finding something to replace it is a much taller order

Truer words never spoken. It is my fervent wish that they draw a bright line and then stay out of it. I know that won't be easy but it is certainly desirable. The state of establishment clause jurisprudence is Hale Bopp stuff.

[connectthedots]

You were pre-ordained to feel vindicated. However, Jones is hardly the only one who disagrees.

And there are many who disagree with Jones. Were this case to ever get to the USSC, and it won't, roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito would vote to reverse Jones. Would just need one other and the lemon test would be history. Once the Lemon test is cast on the ash heap of history, the underpinnings of Jones' decision would be absent.

[connectthedots]

If the same question had been asked concerning evolution, the answer would have also been "Yes'.

[furball4paws]

Diary of a wishful thinker.

[microgood]

Which "problems" do you have in mind?

Macroevolution has many issues like how some of the more complex features could have evolved from a single celled creature given an random unguided process. Even the statement of universal common descent as a theory is problematic since there is no way to ever know if it is true or not.

For example, one could even believe that we all descended from a chimp like creature, but when you get past that to evolving from a creature with no eyes,brain, arms, or legs, you just can't get there with gradualism. And yet you need gradualism to support the increasing complexity.

It really depends on how far you take the theory. If you assume we all started out from the same single celled life form, evolution has tons of problems in the evidence department.

And saying something could have happened some way is not evidence in any sense of the word.

There are also the mechanisms. To say the siafu ants from Africa, with their highly complex society and language were the product of random mutation and natural selection will never be known, yet it is stated. In this case, however, I have seen evos like Gould state that this is an area that is not totally resolved.

If evolutionists even stated that because we do not know everything that happened in the past, some parts of the theory will never be known for sure would at least be a start.

[VadeRetro]

... but one example ...

I remember being very unimpressed by the constant Behe drumbeat of [paraphrase] "You know Design by the purposeful arrangement of parts." That sounds promising, until he fails to deliver on how you know a purposeful arrangement of parts. It turns out Behe just knows one when he sees one.

[PatrickHenry]

Jones didn't rely only on the Lemon test:

After a searching review of Supreme Court and Third Circuit Court of Appeals precedent, it is apparent to this Court that both the endorsement test and the Lemon test should be employed in this case to analyze the constitutionality of the ID Policy under the Establishment Clause, for the reasons that follow.

[snip]

Our next task is to determine how to apply both the endorsement test and the Lemon test to the ID Policy. We are in agreement with Plaintiffs that the better practice is to treat the endorsement inquiry as a distinct test to be applied separately from, and prior to, the Lemon test. In recent Third Circuit cases, specifically, Freethought Society v. Chester County, 334 F.3d 247, 261 (3d Cir. 2003), Modrovich, 385 F.3d at 401-04, 406-13, and Child Evangelism, 386 F.3d at 530- 35, the court adopted the practice of applying both tests. The Third Circuit conducted the endorsement inquiry first and subsequently measured the challenged conduct against Lemon's "purpose" and "effect" standards.⁴

[Text of footnote 4]: We do note that because of the evolving caselaw regarding which tests to apply, the "belt and suspenders" approach of utilizing both tests makes good sense. That said, it regrettably tasks us to make this narrative far longer than we would have preferred. [Bold added by PH]

[PatrickHenry]

I neglected to provide a link: Kitzmiller et al. v Dover Area School District et al..

[longshadow]

That sounds promising, until he fails to deliver on how you know a purposeful arrangement of parts.

It's worse than that: almost nothing is more random than a bunch of gas molecules flying around randomly smashing into each other and the sides of the container, yet who can deny the claim that it is a "purposeful arrangement of parts": the molecules are in the exact configuration that allows them to fit the container in which they reside!

What are the odds of that happening EVERY TIME A GAS IS PUT IN A CONTAINER without a designer being behind it!

< /lunatic ID is everywhere-mode>

[microgood]

Evolution on the other hand is obvious on it's face, and is supported in many cross correlating manners. So why should evolutionists "admit to/show the problems" where there aren't any?

Just stating that it is really impossible to know what happened 100 million years ago on this planet is a good start. All historical sciences (evolution, big bang, continental drift, etc.) should have a big disclaimer on them since their results cannot be directly tested or verified.

And it is not the fault of the science. It is just the reality of the situation. If we have a theory about gravity we can test it today. If we state we all evolved from a single celled organism, we cannot test that.

[PatrickHenry]

200