abiogenesis

Hi Briterican. Of course the courts would. Why? Because of the extent of ToE and BB scientific bias prevailing in America, to which marc0009 aludes. Perhaps if those subjects were addressed in academia, the supportive evidence of a designer would be addressed.Sudden design leaves no scientific data for progressive design, whereas ToE and BB theory must expend all of what can be mustered up so as to lend support to mainline peer reviewed bully pulpit science. Thus the impotus for design relies on evidence of a superhuman dimension of intelligence in the universe. One must be studied on the fulfilled Biblical prophecies, Biblically interpreted archeology and world history relative to these and other evidences which factor in here. Forthright admission appreciated. The peer reviewed majority bully pulpet has the luxury of defining science. LoL, Briterican. Unless such evidence meets the criteria of the biased scientific elitist POV, it is not admissable in the science fora, in the peer journals or in mainstream academia. Thus the prevalent prevailing peered PoV prevails.