Another anti-evolution bill, Missouri 2012

How many peer reviewed scientific research papers would it take? ID has a few, but is deemed not enough by the scientific community. How many does the SETI Institute have? I’m sure it has some, but how many did it have when it won its court battle to become science? (uh-oh, maybe it didn't - Dr Adequate couldn't provide me with evidence of its existence)If the scientific community claims to have a criteria for something to become science, shouldn’t that criteria be precisely defined?

The list of books that I provided you with in message #56 is clear proof that it can. You aren't worth any more of my time. Edited by marc9000, : No reason given.

No, students should be expected to make that decision for themselves.

I was working on Adequate's trolling. Often when I make a good point he trolls it. I pointed out in an earlier post that ID was the only scientific discipline that had to face an entrance exam (court case). He called that "bizarre". So I asked him to specify any other scientific discipline that won a court case, and of course he melted down. It was fun.

It is practiced by imperfect humans, just as religion is. Science does, but the imperfect humans that practice it rely on dogma, revelation, faith and belief just the same as religious people. They make just as questionable political decisions as anybody else. Seems like I remember you to be a conservative. Surely you should know how imperfect liberal evolutionists political opinions are.

Encourage the scientific community (often through education) to use its respected position to promote liberal political policies, like morally troubling medical experimentation, global warming hysteria, irresponsible government spending, and of course, downgrading religion in science classes. There's nothing in science that promotes financial responsibility. The book of Proverbs does, but what does it matter? If Genesis is false, Proverbs must be too, right? We're seeing that attitude in government today.

It tells atheists what is true. Just ask them. Goodnight.

MESSAGE 119 Then you should be smart enough to specify the other scientific disciplines that had to face that entrance exam (court case), complete with dates and court case names. If you can’t, then my statement is 100% true. And I know you can't, so that's that.MESSAGE 120 I haven’t admitted that at all, you build straw men. I’ve only said that religious people started and promoted the study of ID. Just like atheists started and promoted evolution. Atheists were prompted to do that because of the book Origin of Species. Religious people were prompted to what they did because of recent discoveries of the complexities of the simplest forms of life. Here’s one that hasn’t really fit into the barrage I’m facing, until now. The assertion that ID is completely religiously inspired is false. The truth is that ID began in the mid 1980’s, at exactly the same time that more and more complexity was being discovered in the simplest forms of life. Yet atheism was remaining in science, there was no open inquiry being conducted into how so much specified order, complexity and purposive results were present in the cell. In Behe’s words;

quote:

---

As biochemists have begun to examine apparently simple structures like cilia and flagella, they have discovered staggering complexity, with dozens or even hundreds of precisely tailored parts. It is very likely that many of the parts we have not considered here are required for any cilium to function in a cell. As the number of required parts increases, the difficulty of gradually putting the system together skyrockets, and the likelihood of indirect scenarios plummets.

---

The following is a part of what Bradley Monton puts forward in his book, the fine tuning argument.

quote:

---

The actual mass of the neutron is 938 MeV. It the mass of the neutron were increased by just 1.4 MeV, then (as a result of some complicated physics) hydrogen couldn’t be converted into helium, and life couldn’t exist. If it were decreased by 0.8 MeV, then protons would be converted into neutrons. All neutrons..life couldn’t exist.

---

These things and more really began coming to light at exactly the same time ID began taking shape. More and more complexity is being discovered to this day, and yet the mantra goes on exactly the same in the enraged scientific community. It doesn’t matter how ordered it is, it fell together gradually, by happenstance processes. And that mindset closes more exploration than it opens. I notice, I read Kenneth Miller’s Finding Darwin’s God about 5 years ago. He showed no knowledge of Christianity whatsoever. I never used the word that you put in quotes. Just trying to mislead lurkers, aren't you? Not evolution, its definition is too slippery. It’s only change over time whenever its atheism and assumptions are questioned. Abiogenesis, the PAH world hypothesis would be something easier to expose for what it is, but it would still take millions of dollars and a court case. The money isn’t there. (yet) Or it’s the sign that I don’t have the money to haul abiogenesis into court, like the ACLU and scientific community did to ID at Dover.MESSAGE 123 I see evolutionists expressions of paranoia and ignorance of ID that way too. I found that out, as Trixie continues to believe that science isn’t, and can’t, be used as a weapon against religion. It’s politically correct to state that it’s not, and it looks good on news reports, scientific papers, evolution forums, but that doesn’t stop it from being false. I don’t either. My views could pose a threat to publicly established atheism, but not science education. As more and more complexity is discovered in biology, and the scientific community remains closed-minded, everyone else is going to increasingly question the political action of the scientific community. In the coming ID bills, there are going to be more and more questions about things like why the scientific community constantly demands more peer-reviewed papers from ID proponents, yet never specifies how many it would take for ID to become science. There’s going to be more and more questions about science’s failure to address new biological discoveries in an atheistic way. Mistakes that were made by ID proponents at Dover won’t be made again. Chances are, a jury, or multiple judges, will be involved next time. The scientific community’s current lofty political position is not guaranteed to stand forever.MESSAGE 127 There could possibly be some lurkers who buy into the politically correct narrative gloss nonsense that science can’t be done without evolution, but that’s false.

quote:

---

As National Academy of Sciences member Philip Skell has written, the hyping of neo-Darwinism's importance to science goes well beyond reality:

​

I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No. ... Darwinian evolution -- whatever its other virtues -- does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology. ... the claim that it is the cornerstone of modern experimental biology will be met with quiet skepticism from a growing number of scientists in fields where theories actually do serve as cornerstones for tangible breakthroughs.
(Philip Skell, "Why Do We Invoke Darwin? Evolutionary theory contributes little to experimental biology," The Scientist (August 29, 2005).)

​

In another essay, Dr. Skell added that he had
queried biologists working in areas where one might have thought the Darwinian paradigm could guide research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I learned that the theory had provided no discernible guidance in choosing the experimental designs but was brought in, after the breakthrough discoveries, as an interesting narrative gloss.
(Philip Skell, Politics and the Life Sciences, Vol. 27(2):47-49 (October 9, 2008).

​

Evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne likewise admitted in Nature that "if truth be told, evolution hasn't yielded many practical or commercial benefits. Yes, bacteria evolve drug resistance, and yes, we must take countermeasures, but beyond that there is not much to say."

​

When testifying before the Texas State Board of Education this past March, Dr. Ray Bohlin said the following when asked about the utility of evolution for biological research. He answered:
I'd be willing to say that virtually 90, 95% of all molecular and cell biology, which is where my Ph.D. is in, does not require evolution whatsoever.

​

Similarly, Don Ewert, who holds a Ph.D. in microbiology and has been a biology researcher for over 30 years (including 20 years at the Wistar Institute), was asked to "address the notion that very little in biology is testable except for in the light of evolution." Ewert answered:
If you look at scientific textbooks and ask the question, if the theory of evolution were not in that textbook, what material would not make sense? And I would say that very little, if any, would not make sense. In fact, I think that anybody who learned the material apart from Darwin in those textbooks could go on to be successful scientists, veterinarians, and medical doctors. ... I would say that there is very little that you cannot fully understand apart from the theory of evolution.

​

Clearly evolution is important to some research, but Collins' claim that "[t]rying to do biology without evolution would be like trying to do physics without mathematics" says more about Collins' hardline devotion to neo-Darwinism than it says about modern evolutionary biology itself. Fortunately, there remain highly credible scientists who do not feel the need to uphold Darwinism as the alpha and omega of biology.

---

Francis Collins and the Overselling of Evolution | Evolution News

To repeat the question from the opening message; I knew when I joined this thread in an attempt to answer the questions in the opening message, that my answers would be met with opposition. Yet no matter how much evolutionists disagree with the reasons people have for introducing ID bills, the reasons are what they are.Many people see the scientific community’s opposition to ID as a jealous guarding of the status quo, and there’s plenty of common sense evidence that makes that clear. The cartoon that I’ve been shown..what, three times in this thread, supposedly shows an orderly, well defined process that an idea must follow to be included in science education. The problem is, that process is governed by imperfect humans, and no, that’s not a projection of the fall from the Bible or anything like that, it’s a simple, secular fact that humans are imperfect, and I don’t’ think any serious evolutionist is going to point to any human organization that’s ever existed and claim that it’s perfect. Organizations are often ‘special interests’, and the scientific community is a special interest.I and many others don’t believe that defined process is evenly applied. For example, I’ve never been shown that the SETI Institute (considered science, and taught in science classes according to its website) has ever had to go through that line, or show any of its accomplishments as testable, repeatable, or observable.I and many others believe that recent discoveries of the complexities of the simplest forms of life are far more profound than the scientific community will admit, as they attempt to protect the status quo. Those discoveries are troubling to atheists, pure and simple. Claims by evolutionists that we’d all be living in caves without constant thought and application of evolution is blown out of proportion by a special interest, as common sense and verification by some non-politically correct scientists shows. Many actions by the scientific community, refusal to publicly re-evaluate fragmented hypothesis of naturalistic origins of life in light of recent scientific discoveries, and the arrogant behavior, the superior attitude that the scientific community and those who represent it often show towards non-scientists are what convince many people that the Dover decision — a decision made by ONE judge — deserves a second look. If that makes evolutionists angry, it doesn’t change the fact that that’s how things are. Science isn’t the only source of knowledge, and it doesn’t have special rights to make political decisions in the U.S.Thanks for the few good messages that there were, particularly from Percy and Bluegenes. This is my last message in this thread.