Intelligent Design == Human Design?

Hi Tesla. Still having trouble dealing with reality I see. Very few actual biologists gave testimony for the school board. But as you say, they failed to provide any scientific evidence for their "designer". The trial went against them. Where is the farce? The judge reached his decision based upon the evidence brought before him. If some vital piece of evidence for the ID side was omitted, that is not Judge Jones' fault, it is the ID movement's fault. To be fair to Professor Behe, his argument is slightly more sensible than that. Not much, I grant you, but even Behe isn't that bad.If the ID side didn't have the science that is their problem. They didn't have the science. The decision went against them. Where's the beef? No you're not Tesla, you're just raving borderline-insane, semi-literate gibberish at us. You are not behaving like a scientist, you are behaving like an internet nut case. If you want to make a contribution to science, go study for a degree. I think that any judge, any scientist or indeed, anyone who was scientifically literate, who read your output with an open mind would think the same thing; that you are nuts, that you can barely compose a comprehensible sentence in your own language and that you know too little about the science you presume to challenge to even deserve an opinion on the subject.I know that's not what you want to hear, but I'm not going to waste my time by lying to you. You are out of your depth here. Go back, read a biology textbook, try again. You haven't presented any data and the fact that you think you have is nothing more than a symptom of your detachment from reality. Give it up Tesla. You are never going to revolutionise evolutionary science or any other kind of science, because you are simply not knowledgeable or intelligent enough. You are wasting your time. Find a new hobby.I'm sorry to be such an asshole to you, but all you are displaying on this board is a delusion of grandeur and I'm not going to play along.Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

Dude, that wasn't what the trial was supposed to determine.The trial was intended to determine whether ID was science, fit for science classrooms, or whether it was a form of religious apologetics. The conclusion was that ID was not science and that it was religious. Now you seem to pretty much agree with that, yet you describe the trial as a farce. You seem confused. I wouldn't put it like that. If I wanted to belittle your intellect, I would say "You're stupid.". Y'know, with an apostrophe and everything. If you want to be taken seriously, it might help if you wrote in your own language at something resembling an adult level.For the record though, I don't think that the problem is that you are stupid. I think the problem is that you have over-estimated your own knowledge and intelligence as well as the contribution that you have to make to science. You talk as though you are an unrecognised genius, unjustly ignored because your views are too controversial. This is a delusion. You are not an unrecognised genius. You are not any kind of genius. You are being justly ignored because you have no valid contribution to make to science. This is because you don't know as much about science as you think you do.The solution though is at hand. Stop theorising, start learning. Crack open a textbook or two and start from scratch instead of arguing with things you clearly don't understand. Please could you remind me where you did this? I would love to see what you think constitutes "unrecognized empirical data". All I see through most of this thread is your usual brand of stream of consciousness gibberish. Crap. The fact that you seek to associate yourself with the "greatest scientists" only underlines how deluded and egotistical you have become. You haven't shown us any math. All you have done is waffle incoherently. Apparently, you can't tell the difference. that does not bode well for your being taken seriously any time soon. Do yourself a favour and stop trying to revolutionise things you don't understand.Mutate and SurviveEdited by Granny Magda, : Fell victim to Skitt's Law.

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

I sort of agree with you. ID is an attempt to crow-bar religion into science. It's main proponents would (dishonestly) argue against that of course.Just to be clear though; the decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover was that ID is religious in nature. You seem to agree with that, so perhaps the trial was not as farcical as you thought. No. That is completely wrong. The trial was about whether ID materials could be taught in classrooms. Since religious materials are excluded from science classes, the trial sought to establish whether ID was scientific or religious in nature. The result was that ID was religious, therefore could not be taught in schools.Here is Judge Jones' conclusion;

quote:

---

The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board's ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.

​

Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs' scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.

​

To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.

​

The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.

​

With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.

​

Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when consid ered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.

​

To preserve the separation of church and state mandated by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Art. I, 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, we will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID. We will also issue a declaratory judgment that Plaintiffs' rights under the Constitutions of the United States and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have been violated by Defendants' actions. Defendants' actions in violation of Plaintiffs' civil rights as guaranteed to them by the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. 1983 subject Defendants to liability with respect to injunctive and declaratory relief, but also for nominal damages and the reasonable value of Plaintiffs' attorneys' services and costs incurred in vindicating Plaintiffs' constitutional rights.

---

Source; Kitzmiller v. Dover: Decision of the Court, Part 3 The complexity of what exactly? What are you talking about? Would you like to borrow a noun? I never said I was smart. I am quite able to accept that scientists don't listen to me because I have nothing important or original to say. When you accept that this is also true of yourself, you will be better off. It's "you're too uneducated" or "you are too uneducated". Is this really so hard?Look, I'm not going to sit here and berate you all night. You'll either listen to my advice or you won't. But I promise you, this is the best advice you're going to get all week; stop expecting to be take seriously when you start theorising about subjects that you blatantly don't understand.Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod