Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?

[orogenicman]

Why was just this one planet in our solar system formed differently from the rest ?

Formed differently? The mechanism of formation was different how, exactly?

Why is this planet bursting with life and no other in the solar system ?

Liquid water, ozone layer, magnetic field.
And we have the 2nd Law on our side.

I remember once in an oceanography class, a person made the argument that conditions on Earth are perfect for life, therefore the Earth must have been created to to support life.

Of course I countered that life adapts. It isn't that Earth has perfect conditions, it is that life has adapted to the conditions of the Earth. If conditions were different, life would have adapted differently.

What neither Daws nor YWC can grasp, both embroiled in their competing dogma, is that life and the mechanisms of adaptation, are the real magic. It's constant, it's all around us, at the microbial level, life is in a constant stat of flux, evolving and adapting. At the macro-level it is less obvious, but no less true, changes in environment spur changes in the flora and fauna.

This is why I find the warmists and their projections of doom to be laughable, and why I find the promoters of the cosmic goat herder equally laughable. Life adapts.

Micheal Crichton wrote that evolution isn't really slow, but rather it's small. We are evolving constantly, it doesn't take millions of years, but the changes are small, and only with the advent of modern medicine were we able to detect these changes. The accumulation of change needed to become recognizable may take long periods, but change itself is constant.

Microadaptations do happen but you can't provide an example of it resulting in what would be considered macroevolution. They extrapolate from microadaptations as support for all organisms evolving from one cell.

Scroll down and watch this video,this is a major problem for anyone who believe life came in to existence naturally and then for macroevolution to happen.

LiveLeak.com - Former evolutionist scientist rejects evolution.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

Cheers,

 

[daws101]

You are falling in the category with daws.

Don't you just hate it when I bring you back to reality by comparing other planets and exposing the many flaws in your Ideological science.

Reality? Your claim that the 2nd Law makes evolution impossible?
The claim that the older the Earth is, the more difficult evolution is, because an older Earth is more disordered?

I prefer the real reality, not your scientifically confused "reality".

Your side has it backwards. Your side believes we started with chaos went to order. Really how it was ,we started with perfection and went slowly to disorder and we continue on that road til judgment day.

false based on a false premise

Argument from false premises
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
An argument from false premises is a line of reasoning which can lead to wrong results.[1] A false premise is an untrue proposition that forms the basis of a logical syllogism. Since the premise (proposition, or assumption) is not correct, the conclusion drawn may be in error. However, the logical validity of an argument is a function of its internal consistency, not the truth value of its premises.
For example, consider this syllogism, which involves an obvious false premise:
If the streets are wet, it has rained recently. (premise)
The streets are wet. (premise)
Therefore it has rained recently. (conclusion)
This argument is logically valid, but quite demonstrably unsound, because its first premise is false – one could hose down the streets, a street cleaner could have passed, or the local river could have flooded, etc. A simple logical analysis will not reveal the error in this argument, since that analysis must accept the truth of the argument's premises. For this reason, an argument based on false premises can be much more difficult to refute, or even discuss, than one featuring a normal logical error, as the truth of its premises must be established to the satisfaction of all parties.
Another feature of an argument based on false premises that can bedevil critics, is that its conclusion can in fact be true. Consider the above example again. It may well be that it has recently rained, and that the streets are wet. This of course does nothing to prove the first premise, but can make its claims more difficult to refute. This underlies the basic epistemological problem of establishing causal relationships. The adage warns, "Correlated does not necessarily mean causally related".
A false premise can also be a premise that is poorly, or incompletely, defined so as to make the conclusion questionable. The following joke from Plato and a Platypus Walk Into a Bar illustrates the point:
"An old cowboy goes into a bar and orders a drink. As he sits there sipping his whiskey, a young lady sits down next to him. ... She says, 'I'm a lesbian. I spend my whole day thinking about women. ...' A little while later, a couple sits down next to the old cowboy and asks him, 'Are you a real cowboy?' He replies, 'I always thought I was, but I just found out I'm a lesbian'." [2]
The mistake the cowboy makes is that he assumes that the definition of a lesbian is somebody who spends the "whole day thinking about women." The reason the joke works is because in a certain way that definition could apply to lesbians, but it fails to address the point that a lesbian is a homosexual female. The cowboy is neither homosexual nor female; therefore, he is not a lesbian.
Argument from false premises - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I chose the simple wiki because you have trouble with multisyllabic words.

 

[orogenicman]

Proof is not completely needed as the creator says my ways are not your ways and you can go mad trying to figure out the intelligence of God. God mentions faith there is plenty of evidence to confirm he is out there just many reject the thought for their own personal reasons. Many of us our faith does not get shaken because we were warned of these days.

And we all know what faith is - a belief in something not in evidence. Which is why creationism is nothing more than a religious belief.

you have a belief in a theory..

No more so than I have a 'belief' in gravity.

 

[daws101]

If this world (created by your god) is imperfect, it implies one of two things or both:

1) Your god is not perfect, not omnipotent; and/or
2) Your god has malevolent intent, and is not a benevolent, loving god.

In which case, why would you worship such a malevolent deity?

maybe he's just impotent ..( rimshot)

Really ? I have 8 children.

wow! that exchange was not about you.
however you thinking it was is proof of your egotism.
8 kids, how sad for them, can you remember all their names.?

 

[eots]

claims of "irrefutable proof" do not mean anything at all, if one does not specify what such a proof is

One of the hallmarks of scientific theories is that they can be falsified (shown to not be true). One obvious way to refute evolution is to find a bunny rabbit in Cambrian sediments. Got ANYTHING like that?

another is observable evidenced do you have any observable evidenced of one kind of creature turning into another kind ?

 

[daws101]

I say that they are one out of millions. I'd say they are irrelevant. Look. Here's how it works. Who has to prove what to whom? The person making the extraordinary claim has the burden of proving to the experts and to the community at large that his or her belief has more validity than the one almost everyone else accepts. You have to lobby for your opinion to be heard. Then you have to marshal experts on your side so you can convince the majority to support your claim over the one they have always supported. Finally, when you are in the majority, the burden of proof switches to the outsider who wants to challenge you with his or her unusual claim. Evolutionists had the burden of proof for half a century after Darwin, but now the burden of proof is on creationists. It is up to creationists to show why the theory of evolution is wrong and why creationism is right, and it is not up to the evolutionists to defend evolution. The burden of proof is on the Holocaust deniers to prove the Holocaust did not happen, not on Holocaust historians to prove that it did. The rationale for this is that mountains of evidence prove that both evolution and the Holocaust are facts. In other words, it is not enough to have the evidence. You must convince others of the validity of your evidence. And when you are an outsider this is the price you pay, regardless of whether you are right or wrong.

The creationists have done a good job pointing out all the conjecture and problems with the theory,that is why there are over 700 scientists that have openly rejected macro evolution and the modern day theory of Neo Darwinism. That is roughly 5% of scientists. Then 44% are theists and have not come out of the closet. The numbers are continuing to rise.

At least you have admitted creationist have become the outsiders. It's not the evidence that convinced people to believe darwins theory, so what was it that was convincing?

Showing that Darwin was wrong still doesn't help prove creationism. Creationism has to be proven on its own. So far, no proof whatsoever, and you'd think after all this time of arguing, that creationist could come up with something better than because it's written in a book. Which is ludicrous.

[ame=http://youtu.be/AYBRbCLI4zU]Evolution - What Darwin Never Knew - NOVA PBS Documentary - YouTube[/ame]

 

[orogenicman]

Soup of Life - YouTube

Origin of life experiments revisited

Modern analysis of forgotten samples has given chemists in the US additional insights into the origins of life on Earth.

Stanley Miller became famous with a single experiment carried out during his PhD thesis with Harold Urey. The experiment simulated conditions in a sealed apparatus, which according to Urey's previous work were believed to have predominated on the primeval Earth, including an ocean, a reducing atmosphere, and a spark discharge meant to simulate lightning. After only a few days, this experiment produced a rich mixture of organic molecules including some of the amino acids found in proteins today.

Over the next half-century, Miller continued to study prebiotic chemistry and possible origins of life in many variations but he never reached a definitive explanation of the origin of life.

Following Miller's death in May 2007, his former student Jeffrey Bada, a geochemist at the University of California at San Diego, inherited the contents of Miller's lab and office and discovered samples from 1958. The samples were clearly labelled and referenced in Miller's lab notebook but never reported. Bada's group has now analysed these samples using modern HPLC and mass spectrometry to gain two independent descriptions of their chemical composition.

The unreported (until now) 1958 experiment again involved a spark but the gas mixture included both reduced and oxidised substances and was the first experiment to contain hydrogen sulphide (H2S). Bada's team found that the unreported samples contained a greater abundance and variety of biologically relevant molecules than Miller had reported in his 1950s studies. The samples also contained oxidation products of the sulfur-containing amino acids cysteine and methionine, which Miller didn't report making until the 1970s.

While a gas mixture like the one Miller used in 1958 may not be representative of the Earth's early atmosphere overall, Bada and coworkers believe that it may well mimic the complex chemical conditions near volcanic sites (particularly near black smokers on the ocean floor).

The study 'demonstrates how the addition of hydrogen sulphide may have been important in producing a richer assortment of key building block such as amino acids,' says Bada. 'It seems increasingly apparent that volcanic plume chemistry may have played an important role in the synthesis of organic compounds on the early Earth.'

Bemused by the new findings from old samples, biochemist Kevin Plaxco from the University of California at Santa Barbara comments: 'Miller was such a pioneer that even now, four years after his death and more than 50 years after the experiments in question, his work is still yielding surprises.'
*******************
What this also shows is that the ability to perform high performance biochemical analysis of samples 50 years ago didn't exist, which is why Miller didn't detect these compounds back then. Modern HPLC (high performance liquid chromatography) can detect organic compounds down to parts per trillion.

so in short its a belief..and may or may not be true...intresting

A belief is something not in evidence that is held to be true (you know, like a belief in god). Macroevolution is not one of those, since there is an abundance of evidence to demonstrate that it is true.

 

[daws101]

The creationists have done a good job pointing out all the conjecture and problems with the theory,that is why there are over 700 scientists that have openly rejected macro evolution and the modern day theory of Neo Darwinism. That is roughly 5% of scientists. Then 44% are theists and have not come out of the closet. The numbers are continuing to rise.

At least you have admitted creationist have become the outsiders. It's not the evidence that convinced people to believe darwins theory, so what was it that was convincing?

You may want to actually address reality and review the Dover trial. Creationism was once again exposed as a fraud. The drubbing taken by the christian fundies was humiliating.

You don't really have any response to common sense questions so you resort to changing the subject and divide and conquer. We both know that no court is gonna stand up for God because the perverting of the constitution. One simple letter written by Jefferson gave the secularists the ammunition they needed to pervert the constitution and what our forefathers really wanted.

The forefathers did not want God removed from the public and schools. They just did not want Christianity as a state sponsored religion like it once was in England, and to allow others to openly practice their religions. something you would not get in a theocracy such as middle eastern countries.

 

[eots]

Origin of life experiments revisited

Modern analysis of forgotten samples has given chemists in the US additional insights into the origins of life on Earth.

Stanley Miller became famous with a single experiment carried out during his PhD thesis with Harold Urey. The experiment simulated conditions in a sealed apparatus, which according to Urey's previous work were believed to have predominated on the primeval Earth, including an ocean, a reducing atmosphere, and a spark discharge meant to simulate lightning. After only a few days, this experiment produced a rich mixture of organic molecules including some of the amino acids found in proteins today.

Over the next half-century, Miller continued to study prebiotic chemistry and possible origins of life in many variations but he never reached a definitive explanation of the origin of life.

Following Miller's death in May 2007, his former student Jeffrey Bada, a geochemist at the University of California at San Diego, inherited the contents of Miller's lab and office and discovered samples from 1958. The samples were clearly labelled and referenced in Miller's lab notebook but never reported. Bada's group has now analysed these samples using modern HPLC and mass spectrometry to gain two independent descriptions of their chemical composition.

The unreported (until now) 1958 experiment again involved a spark but the gas mixture included both reduced and oxidised substances and was the first experiment to contain hydrogen sulphide (H2S). Bada's team found that the unreported samples contained a greater abundance and variety of biologically relevant molecules than Miller had reported in his 1950s studies. The samples also contained oxidation products of the sulfur-containing amino acids cysteine and methionine, which Miller didn't report making until the 1970s.

While a gas mixture like the one Miller used in 1958 may not be representative of the Earth's early atmosphere overall, Bada and coworkers believe that it may well mimic the complex chemical conditions near volcanic sites (particularly near black smokers on the ocean floor).

The study 'demonstrates how the addition of hydrogen sulphide may have been important in producing a richer assortment of key building block such as amino acids,' says Bada. 'It seems increasingly apparent that volcanic plume chemistry may have played an important role in the synthesis of organic compounds on the early Earth.'

Bemused by the new findings from old samples, biochemist Kevin Plaxco from the University of California at Santa Barbara comments: 'Miller was such a pioneer that even now, four years after his death and more than 50 years after the experiments in question, his work is still yielding surprises.'
*******************
What this also shows is that the ability to perform high performance biochemical analysis of samples 50 years ago didn't exist, which is why Miller didn't detect these compounds back then. Modern HPLC (high performance liquid chromatography) can detect organic compounds down to parts per trillion.

so in short its a belief..and may or may not be true...intresting

A belief is something not in evidence that is held to be true (you know, like a belief in god). Macroevolution is not one of those, since there is an abundance of evidence to demonstrate that it is true.

such as..have you observed this ?

 

[daws101]

I knew Darwin wrote a book but I never heard of the book of creationist ?

Ever heard of the fucking bible?

Easy now!

fucking bible, fucking, bible fucking bible..now what?

 

[daws101]

You don't really have any response to common sense questions so you resort to changing the subject and divide and conquer. We both know that no court is gonna stand up for God because the perverting of the constitution. One simple letter written by Jefferson gave the secularists the ammunition they needed to pervert the constitution and what our forefathers really wanted.

The forefathers did not want God removed from the public and schools. They just did not want Christianity as a state sponsored religion like it once was in England, and to allow others to openly practice their religions. something you would not get in a theocracy such as middle eastern countries.

You're hoping weak excuses will supplant yet another failure on the part of religious extremists to impose their fundamentalist beliefs upon the public school system.

The arguments made at the Dover trial by the religious lobby were appeals to partisan gawds and supernaturalism. As usual, you confuse proselytizing and your need to impose your religious beliefs on others with a coherent argument supported with facts.

A natural process arising such as spontaneous generation would in fact be considered supernaturalism.

odd how only creationists use the term spontaneous generation
Spontaneous generation is an obsolete body of thought on the ordinary formation of living organisms without descent from similar organisms. Typically, the idea was that certain forms such as fleas could arise from inanimate matter such as dust, or that maggots could arise from dead flesh. A variant idea was that of equivocal generation, in which species such as tapeworms arose from unrelated living organisms, now understood to be their hosts. Doctrines supporting such processes of generation held that these processes are commonplace and regular. Such ideas are in contradiction to that of univocal generation: effectively exclusive reproduction from genetically related parent(s), generally of the same species.
The doctrine of spontaneous generation was coherently synthesized by Aristotle,[1] who compiled and expanded the work of prior natural philosophers and the various ancient explanations of the appearance of organisms; it held sway for two millennia. Today it is generally accepted to have been decisively dispelled during the 19th century by the experiments of Louis Pasteur. He expanded upon the investigations of predecessors (such as Francesco Redi who, in the 17th century, had performed experiments based on the same principles). However, the experimental difficulties are greater than people might think, and objections from persons holding the traditional views persisted. Many of these residual objections were routed by the work of John Tyndall, succeeding the work of Pasteur.[2] Ultimately, the ideas of spontaneous generation were displaced by advances in germ theory and cell theory.
Disproof of the traditional ideas of spontaneous generation is no longer controversial among professional biologists. Objections and doubts have been dispelled by studies and documentation of the life cycles of various life forms. However, the principles of the very different matter of the original abiogenesis on this planet — of living from non-living material — still are under investigation.

Spontaneous generation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Youwerecreated]

You don't really have any response to common sense questions so you resort to changing the subject and divide and conquer. We both know that no court is gonna stand up for God because the perverting of the constitution. One simple letter written by Jefferson gave the secularists the ammunition they needed to pervert the constitution and what our forefathers really wanted.

The forefathers did not want God removed from the public and schools. They just did not want Christianity as a state sponsored religion like it once was in England, and to allow others to openly practice their religions. something you would not get in a theocracy such as middle eastern countries.

The public schools are state-sponsored. As such, religion has no place in it. Look, there are over 400,000 churches in the United States. Take your pick, and go pray in one. No one is stopping you.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0u3-2CGOMQ]Evolution Vs. God - YouTube[/ame]

That is one of the best videos I have seen.

Reminds me of some of these threads on here.

 

[daws101]

yes the "magic soup' theory.. That can not be replicated in laboratory conditons

you obviously have no indication of what you're hoping to convey.

You need to stick with your space alien conspiracy theories.

they are not my theories it is the testimony of the men who walked on the moon ..but clearly thats too much for you to handle so you need to pretend its my theory to comfort yourself

 

[orogenicman]

Evolution Vs. God - YouTube

Erm, your video is not a response to my post. Try again, in your own words.

intelligent design is no more faith based than evolution

Of course, that is the lie that you folks tried to present to the judge of the Dover trial. Want to read what he said about that?

Kitzmiller v. Dover: Decision of the Court

Next, and as stated, religious opponents of evolution began cloaking religious beliefs in scientific sounding language and then mandating that schools teach the resulting "creation science" or "scientific creationism" as an alternative to evolution. However, this tactic was likewise unsuccessful under the First Amendment. "Fundamentalist organizations were formed to promote the idea that the Book of Genesis was supported by scientific data. The terms 'creation science' and 'scientific creationism' have been adopted by these Fundamentalists as descriptive of their study of creation and the origins of man." McLean, 529 F. Supp. at 1259. In 1982, the district court in McLean reviewed Arkansas's balanced-treatment law and evaluated creation science in light of Scopes, Epperson, and the long history of Fundamentalism's attack on the scientific theory of evolution, as well as the statute's legisl ative history and historical context. The court found that creation science organizations were fundamentalist religious entities that "consider[ed] the introduction of creation science into the public schools part of their ministry." Id. at 1260. The court in McLean stated that creation science rested on a "contrived dualism" that recognized only two possible explanations for life, the scientific theory of evolution and biblical creationism, treated the two as mutually exclusive such that "one must either accept the literal interpretation of Genesis or else believe in the godless system of evolution," and accordingly viewed any critiques of evolution as evidence that necessarily supported biblical creationism. Id. at 1266. The court concluded that creation science "is simply not science" because it depends upon "supernatural intervention," which cannot be explained by natural causes, or be proven through empirical investigation, and is therefore neither testable nor falsifiable. Id. at 1267.

Accordingly, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas deemed creation science as merely biblical creationism in a new guise and held that Arkansas' balanced-treatment statute coul d have no valid secular purpose or effect, served only to advance religion, and violated the First Amendment. Id. at 1264, 1272-74.

Five years after McLean was decided, in 1987, the Supreme Court struck down Louisiana's balanced-treatment law in Edwards for similar reasons. After a thorough analysis of the history of fundamentalist attacks against evolution, as well as the applicable legislative history including statements made by the statute's sponsor, and taking the character of organizations advocating for creation science into consideration, the Supreme Court held that the state violated the Establishment Clause by "restructur[ing] the science curriculum to conform with a particular religious viewpoint." Edwards, 482 U.S. at 593.

Among other reasons, the Supreme Court in Edwards concluded that the challenged statute did not serve the legislature's professed purposes of encouraging academic freedom and making the science curriculum more comprehensive by "teaching all of the evidence" regarding origins of life because: the state law already allowed schools to teach any scientific theory, which responded to the alleged purpose of academic freedom; and if the legislature really had intended to make science education more comprehensive, "it would have encouraged the teaching of all scientific theories about the origins of humankind" rather than permitting schools to forego teaching evolution, but mandating that schools that teach evolution must also teach creation science, an inherently religious view. Id. at 586, 588-89. The Supreme Court further held that the belief that a supernatural creator was responsible for the creation of human kind is a religious viewpoint and that the Act at issue "advances a religious doctrine by requiring either the banishment of the theory of evolution from public school classrooms or the presentation of a religious viewpoint that rejects evolution in its entirety." Id. at 591, 596. Therefore, as noted, the import of Edwards is that the Supreme Court made national the prohibition against teaching creation science in the public school system.

The concept of intelligent design (hereinafter "ID"), in its current form, came into existence after the Edwards case was decided in 1987. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child.

We initially note that John Haught, a theologian who testified as an expert witness for Plaintiffs and who has written extensively on the subject of evolution and religion, succinctly explained to the Court that the argument for ID is not a new scientific argument, but is rather an old religious argument for the existence of God. He traced this argument back to at least Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century, who framed the argument as a syllogism: Wherever complex design exists, there must have been a designer; nature is complex; therefore nature must have had an intelligent designer. (Trial Tr. vol. 9, Haught Test., 7-8, Sept. 30, 2005). Dr. Haught testified that Aquinas was explicit that this intelligent designer "everyone understands to be God." Id. The syllogism described by Dr. Haught is essentially the same argument for ID as presented by defense expert witnesses Professors Behe and Minnich who employ the phrase "purposeful arrangement of parts."

Dr. Haught testified that this argument for the existence of God was advanced early in the 19th century by Reverend Paley and defense expert witnesses Behe and Minnich admitted that their argument for ID based on the "purposeful arrangement of parts" is the same one that Paley made for design. (9:7-8 (Haught); Trial Tr. vol. 23, Behe Test., 55-57, Oct. 19, 2005; Trial Tr. vol. 38, Minnich Test., 44, Nov. 4, 2005). The only apparent difference between the argument made by Paley and the argument for ID, as expressed by defense expert witnesses Behe and Minnich, is that ID's "official position" does not acknowledge that the designer is God. However, as Dr. Haught testified, anyone familiar with Western religious thought would immediately make the association that the tactically unnamed designer is God, as the description of the designer in Of Pandas and People (hereinafter "Pandas") is a "master intellect," strongly suggesting a supernatural deity as opposed to any intelligent actor known to exist in the natural world. (P-11 at 85). Moreover, it is notable that both Professors Behe and Minnich admitted their personal view is that the designer is God and Professor Minnich testified that he understands many leading advocates of ID to believe the designer to be God. (21:90 (Behe); 38:36-38 (Minnich)).

Although proponents of the IDM occasionally suggest that the designer could be a space alien or a time-traveling cell biologist, no serious alternative to God as the designer has been proposed by members of the IDM, including Defendants' expert witnesses. (20:102-03 (Behe)). In fact, an explicit concession that the intelligent designer works outside the laws of nature and science and a direct reference to religion is Pandas' rhetorical statement, "what kind of intelligent agent was it [the designer]" and answer: "On its own science cannot answer this question. It must leave it to religion and philosophy." (P-11 at 7; 9:13-14 (Haught)).

A significant aspect of the IDM is that despite Defendants' protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity. Dr. Barbara Forrest, one of Plaintiffs' expert witnesses, is the author of the book Creationism's Trojan Horse. She has thoroughly and exhaustively chronicled the history of ID in her book and other writings for her testimony in this case. Her testimony, and the exhibits which were admitted with it, provide a wealth of statements by ID leaders that reveal ID's religious, philosophical, and cultural content. The following is a representative grouping of such statements made by prominent ID proponents.5

Phillip Johnson, considered to be the father of the IDM, developer of ID's "Wedge Strategy," which will be discussed below, and author of the 1991 book entitled Darwin on Trial, has written that "theistic realism" or "mere creation" are defining concepts of the IDM. This means "that God is objectively real as Creator and recorded in the biological evidence . . ." (Trial Tr. vol. 10, Forrest Test., 80-81, Oct. 5, 2005; P-328). In addition, Phillip Johnson states that the "Darwinian theory of evolution contradicts not just the Book of Genesis, but every word in the Bible from beginning to end. It contradicts the idea that we are here because a creator brought about our existence for a purpose." (11:16-17 (Forrest); P-524 at 1). ID proponents Johnson, William Dembski, and Charles Thaxton, one of the editors of Pandas, situate ID in the Book of John in the New Testament of the Bible, which begins, "In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was God." (11:18-20, 54-55 (Forrest); P-524; P-355; P-357). Dembski has written that ID is a "ground clearing operation" to allow Christianity to receive serious consideration, and "Christ is never an addendum to a scientific theory but always a completion." (11:50-53 (Forrest); P-386; P-390). Moreover, in turning to Defendants' lead expert, Professor Behe, his testimony at trial indicated that ID is only a scientific, as opposed to a religious, project for him; however, considerable evidence was introduced to refute this claim. Consider, to illustrate, that Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God. (P-718 at 705) (emphasis added). As no evidence in the record indicates that any other scientific proposition's validity rests on belief in God, nor is the Court aware of any such scientific propositions, Professor Behe's assertion constitutes substantial evidence that in his view, as is commensurate with other prominent ID leaders, ID is a religious and not a scientific proposition.

Dramatic evidence of ID's religious nature and aspirations is found in what is referred to as the "Wedge Document." The Wedge Document, developed by the Discovery Institute's Center for Renewal of Science and Culture (hereinafter "CRSC"), represents from an institutional standpoint, the IDM's goals and objectives, much as writings from the Institute for Creation Research did for the earlier creation-science movement, as discussed in McLean. (11:26-28 (Forrest)); McLean, 529 F. Supp. at 1255. The Wedge Document states in its "Five Year Strategic Plan Summary" that the IDM's goal is to replace science as currently practiced with "theistic and Christian science." (P-140 at 6). As posited in the Wedge Document, the IDM's "Governing Goals" are to "defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies" and "to replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God." Id. at 4. The CSRC expressly announces, in the Wedge Document, a program of Christian apologetics to promote ID. A careful review of the Wedge Document's goals and language throughout the document reveals cultural and religious goals, as opposed to scientific ones. (11:26-48 (Forrest); P-140). ID aspires to change the ground rules of science to make room for religion, specifically, beliefs consonant with a particular version of Christianity.

In addition to the IDM itself describing ID as a religious argument, ID's religious nature is evident because it involves a supernatural designer. The courts in Edwards and McLean expressly found that this characteristic removed creationism from the realm of science and made it a religious proposition. Edwards, 482 U.S. at 591-92; McLean, 529 F. Supp. at 1265-66. Prominent ID proponents have made abundantly clear that the designer is supernatural.

Defendants' expert witness ID proponents confirmed that the existence of a supernatural designer is a hallmark of ID. First, Professor Behe has written that by ID he means "not designed by the laws of nature," and that it is "implausible that the designer is a natural entity." (P-647 at 193; P-718 at 696, 700). Second, Professor Minnich testified that for ID to be considered science, the ground rules of science have to be broadened so that supernatural forces can be considered. (38:97 (Minnich)). Third, Professor Steven William Fuller testified that it is ID's project to change the ground rules of science to include the supernatural. (Trial Tr. vol. 28, Fuller Test., 20-24, Oct. 24, 2005). Turning from defense expert witnesses to leading ID proponents, Johnson has concluded that science must be redefined to include the supernatural if religious challenges to evolution are to get a hearing. (11:8-15 (Forrest); P-429). Additionally, Dembski agrees that science is ruled by methodological naturalism and argues that this rule must be overturned if ID is to prosper. (Trial Tr. vol. 5, Pennock Test., 32-34, Sept. 28, 2005).

Further support for the proposition that ID requires supernatural creation is found in the book Pandas, to which students in Dover's ninth grade biology class are directed. Pandas indicates that there are two kinds of causes, natural and intelligent, which demonstrate that intelligent causes are beyond nature. (P-11 at 6). Professor Haught, who as noted was the only theologian to testify in this case, explained that in Western intellectual tradition, non-natural causes occupy a space reserved for ultimate religious explanations. (9:13-14 (Haught)). Robert Pennock, Plaintiffs' expert in the philosophy of science, concurred with Professor Haught and concluded that because its basic proposition is that the features of the natural world are produced by a transcendent, immaterial, non-natural being, ID is a religious proposition regardless of whether that religious proposition is given a recognized religious label. (5:55-56 (Pennock)). It is notable that not one defense expert was able to explain how the supernatural action suggested by ID could be anything other than an inherently religious proposition. Accordingly, we find that ID's religious nature would be further evident to our objective observer because it directly involves a supernatural designer.

A "hypothetical reasonable observer," adult or child, who is "aware of the history and context of the community and forum" is also presumed to know that ID is a form of creationism. Child Evangelism, 386 F.3d at 531 (citations omitted); Allegheny, 492 U.S. at 624-25. The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism. What is likely the strongest evidence supporting the finding of ID's creationist nature is the history and historical pedigree of the book to which students in Dover's ninth grade biology class are referred, Pandas. Pandas is published by an organization called FTE, as noted, whose articles of incorporation and filings with the Internal Revenue Service describe it as a religious, Christian organization. (P-461; P-28; P-566; P-633; Buell Dep. 1:13, July 8, 2005). Pandas was written by Dean Kenyon and Percival Davis, both acknowledged creationists, and Nancy Pearcey, a Young Earth Creationist, contributed to the work. (10:102-08 (Forrest)).

As Plaintiffs meticulously and effectively presented to the Court, Pandas went through many drafts, several of which were completed prior to and some after the Supreme Court's decision in Edwards , which held that the Constitution forbids teaching creationism as science. By comparing the pre and post Edwards drafts of Pandas, three astonishing points emerge: (1) the definition for creation science in early drafts is identical to the definition of ID; (2) cognates of the word creation (creationism and creationist), which appeared approximately 150 times were deliberately and systematically replaced with the phrase ID; and (3) the changes occurred shortly after the Supreme Court held that creation science is religious and cannot be taught in public school science classes in Edwards. This word substitution is telling, significant, and reveals that a purposeful change of words was effected without any corresponding change in content, which directly refutes FTE's argument that by merely disregarding the words "creation" and "creationism," FTE expressly rejected creationism in Pandas. In early pre-Edwards drafts of Pandas, the term "creation" was defined as "various forms of life that began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive features intact – fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc," the very same way in which ID is defined in the subsequent published versions. (P-560 at 210; P-1 at 2-13; P-562 at 2-14, P-652 at 2-15; P-6 at 99-100; P-11 at 99-100; P-856.2.). This definition was described by many witnesses for both parties, notably including defense experts Minnich and Fuller, as "special creation" of kinds of animals, an inherently religious and creationist concept. (28:85-86 (Fuller); Minnich Dep. at 34, May 26, 2005; Trial Tr. vol. 1, Miller Test., 141-42, Sept. 26, 2005; 9:10 (Haught); Trial Tr. vol. 33, Bonsell Test., 54-56, Oct. 31, 2005). Professor Behe's assertion that this passage was merely a description of appearances in the fossil record is illogical and defies the weight of the evidence that the passage is a conclusion about how life began based upon an interpretation of the fossil record, which is reinforced by the content of drafts of Pandas.

The weight of the evidence clearly demonstrates, as noted, that the systemic change from "creation" to "intelligent design" occurred sometime in 1987, after the Supreme Court's important Edwards decision. This compelling evidence strongly supports Plaintiffs' assertion that ID is creationism re-labeled. Importantly, the objective observer, whether adult or child, would conclude from the fact that Pandas posits a master intellect that the intelligent designer is God.

Further evidence in support of the conclusion that a reasonable observer, adult or child, who is "aware of the history and context of the community and forum" is presumed to know that ID is a form of creationism concerns the fact that ID uses the same, or exceedingly similar arguments as were posited in support of creationism. One significant difference is that the words "God," "creationism," and "Genesis" have been systematically purged from ID explanations, and replaced by an unnamed "designer." Dr. Forrest testified and sponsored exhibits showing six arguments common to creationists. (10:140-48 (Forrest); P-856.5-856.10). Demonstrative charts introduced through Dr. Forrest show parallel arguments relating to the rejection of naturalism, evolution's threat to culture and society, "abrupt appearance" implying divine creation, the exploitation of the same alleged gaps in the fossil record, the alleged inability of science to explain complex biological information like DNA, as well as the theme that proponents of each version of creationism merely aim to teach a scientific alternative to evolution to show its "strengths and weaknesses," and to alert students to a supposed "controversy" in the scientific community. (10:140-48 (Forrest)). In addition, creationists made the same argument that the complexity of the bacterial flagellum supported creationism as Professors Behe and Minnich now make for ID. (P-853; P-845; 37:155-56 (Minnich)). The IDM openly welcomes adherents to creationism into its "Big Tent," urging them to postpone biblical disputes like the age of the earth. (11:3-15 (Forrest); P-429). Moreover and as previously stated, there is hardly better evidence of ID's relations hip with creationism than an explicit statement by defense expert Fuller that ID is a form of creationism. (Fuller Dep. at 67, June 21, 2005) (indicated that ID is a modern view of creationism).

Although contrary to Fuller, defense experts Professors Behe and Minnich testified that ID is not creationism, their testimony was primarily by way of bare assertion and it failed to directly rebut the creationist history of Pandas or other evidence presented by Plaintiffs showing the commonality between creationism and ID. The sole argument Defendants made to distinguish creationism from ID was their assertion that the term "creationism" applies only to arguments based on the Book of Genesis, a young earth, and a catastrophic Noaich flood; however, substantial evidence established that this is only one form of creationism, including the chart that was distributed to the Board Curriculum Committee, as will be described below. (P-149 at 2; 10:129-32 (Forrest); P-555 at 22-24).

 

[eots]

you obviously have no indication of what you're hoping to convey.

You need to stick with your space alien conspiracy theories.

they are not my theories it is the testimony of the men who walked on the moon ..but clearly thats too much for you to handle so you need to pretend its my theory to comfort yourself

Is this some childish attempt to refute these facts or is this your opinion of the Apollo crew ?

 

[Uncensored2008]

"Quotes posted by Daws are almost always lies" - Benjamin Franklin.

 

[daws101]

it is isn't it.. interesting watching how you simple can not address directly where the information came from and have to attributive it to me or make corny one liners to maintain the avoidance...wind her up and watch her go

It is, isn't it. It's comical to watch your sweaty, feverish rants in desperate attempts to defend your space alien / hybrids / gubment' conspiracy theories.

lol see...you attributed it to me and ignored the Apollo crew elephant in the room again...because that brings you little mind some comfort and fits your belief system...lol...its classic...I could watch it all day

way to dodge responsibility there eot's.
it's attributed to you because you brought it....the apollo crew did not.
also since you believe it ,it's just as much your's as the astronauts ..

 

[orogenicman]

claims of "irrefutable proof" do not mean anything at all, if one does not specify what such a proof is

One of the hallmarks of scientific theories is that they can be falsified (shown to not be true). One obvious way to refute evolution is to find a bunny rabbit in Cambrian sediments. Got ANYTHING like that?

another is observable evidenced do you have any observable evidenced of one kind of creature turning into another kind ?

No, and if I did, that would be evidence AGAINST evolution. The problem here, as usual, is that you truly do not understand the theory, what it is and what it is not. There are no "Kinds". That is an expression made up by creationists because they don't believe in the concept of species. Try again.

 

[daws101]

"Quotes posted by Daws are almost always lies" - Benjamin Franklin.

wow another desperate attempt at who gives a fuck.
besides ben franklin would have laughed in your face...on principle alone.

 

[eots]

Erm, your video is not a response to my post. Try again, in your own words.

intelligent design is no more faith based than evolution

Of course, that is the lie that you folks tried to present to the judge of the Dover trial. Want to read what he said about that?

Kitzmiller v. Dover: Decision of the Court

Next, and as stated, religious opponents of evolution began cloaking religious beliefs in scientific sounding language and then mandating that schools teach the resulting "creation science" or "scientific creationism" as an alternative to evolution. However, this tactic was likewise unsuccessful under the First Amendment. "Fundamentalist organizations were formed to promote the idea that the Book of Genesis was supported by scientific data. The terms 'creation science' and 'scientific creationism' have been adopted by these Fundamentalists as descriptive of their study of creation and the origins of man." McLean, 529 F. Supp. at 1259. In 1982, the district court in McLean reviewed Arkansas's balanced-treatment law and evaluated creation science in light of Scopes, Epperson, and the long history of Fundamentalism's attack on the scientific theory of evolution, as well as the statute's legisl ative history and historical context. The court found that creation science organizations were fundamentalist religious entities that "consider[ed] the introduction of creation science into the public schools part of their ministry." Id. at 1260. The court in McLean stated that creation science rested on a "contrived dualism" that recognized only two possible explanations for life, the scientific theory of evolution and biblical creationism, treated the two as mutually exclusive such that "one must either accept the literal interpretation of Genesis or else believe in the godless system of evolution," and accordingly viewed any critiques of evolution as evidence that necessarily supported biblical creationism. Id. at 1266. The court concluded that creation science "is simply not science" because it depends upon "supernatural intervention," which cannot be explained by natural causes, or be proven through empirical investigation, and is therefore neither testable nor falsifiable. Id. at 1267.

Accordingly, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas deemed creation science as merely biblical creationism in a new guise and held that Arkansas' balanced-treatment statute coul d have no valid secular purpose or effect, served only to advance religion, and violated the First Amendment. Id. at 1264, 1272-74.

Five years after McLean was decided, in 1987, the Supreme Court struck down Louisiana's balanced-treatment law in Edwards for similar reasons. After a thorough analysis of the history of fundamentalist attacks against evolution, as well as the applicable legislative history including statements made by the statute's sponsor, and taking the character of organizations advocating for creation science into consideration, the Supreme Court held that the state violated the Establishment Clause by "restructur[ing] the science curriculum to conform with a particular religious viewpoint." Edwards, 482 U.S. at 593.

Among other reasons, the Supreme Court in Edwards concluded that the challenged statute did not serve the legislature's professed purposes of encouraging academic freedom and making the science curriculum more comprehensive by "teaching all of the evidence" regarding origins of life because: the state law already allowed schools to teach any scientific theory, which responded to the alleged purpose of academic freedom; and if the legislature really had intended to make science education more comprehensive, "it would have encouraged the teaching of all scientific theories about the origins of humankind" rather than permitting schools to forego teaching evolution, but mandating that schools that teach evolution must also teach creation science, an inherently religious view. Id. at 586, 588-89. The Supreme Court further held that the belief that a supernatural creator was responsible for the creation of human kind is a religious viewpoint and that the Act at issue "advances a religious doctrine by requiring either the banishment of the theory of evolution from public school classrooms or the presentation of a religious viewpoint that rejects evolution in its entirety." Id. at 591, 596. Therefore, as noted, the import of Edwards is that the Supreme Court made national the prohibition against teaching creation science in the public school system.

The concept of intelligent design (hereinafter "ID"), in its current form, came into existence after the Edwards case was decided in 1987. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child.

We initially note that John Haught, a theologian who testified as an expert witness for Plaintiffs and who has written extensively on the subject of evolution and religion, succinctly explained to the Court that the argument for ID is not a new scientific argument, but is rather an old religious argument for the existence of God. He traced this argument back to at least Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century, who framed the argument as a syllogism: Wherever complex design exists, there must have been a designer; nature is complex; therefore nature must have had an intelligent designer. (Trial Tr. vol. 9, Haught Test., 7-8, Sept. 30, 2005). Dr. Haught testified that Aquinas was explicit that this intelligent designer "everyone understands to be God." Id. The syllogism described by Dr. Haught is essentially the same argument for ID as presented by defense expert witnesses Professors Behe and Minnich who employ the phrase "purposeful arrangement of parts."

Dr. Haught testified that this argument for the existence of God was advanced early in the 19th century by Reverend Paley and defense expert witnesses Behe and Minnich admitted that their argument for ID based on the "purposeful arrangement of parts" is the same one that Paley made for design. (9:7-8 (Haught); Trial Tr. vol. 23, Behe Test., 55-57, Oct. 19, 2005; Trial Tr. vol. 38, Minnich Test., 44, Nov. 4, 2005). The only apparent difference between the argument made by Paley and the argument for ID, as expressed by defense expert witnesses Behe and Minnich, is that ID's "official position" does not acknowledge that the designer is God. However, as Dr. Haught testified, anyone familiar with Western religious thought would immediately make the association that the tactically unnamed designer is God, as the description of the designer in Of Pandas and People (hereinafter "Pandas") is a "master intellect," strongly suggesting a supernatural deity as opposed to any intelligent actor known to exist in the natural world. (P-11 at 85). Moreover, it is notable that both Professors Behe and Minnich admitted their personal view is that the designer is God and Professor Minnich testified that he understands many leading advocates of ID to believe the designer to be God. (21:90 (Behe); 38:36-38 (Minnich)).

Although proponents of the IDM occasionally suggest that the designer could be a space alien or a time-traveling cell biologist, no serious alternative to God as the designer has been proposed by members of the IDM, including Defendants' expert witnesses. (20:102-03 (Behe)). In fact, an explicit concession that the intelligent designer works outside the laws of nature and science and a direct reference to religion is Pandas' rhetorical statement, "what kind of intelligent agent was it [the designer]" and answer: "On its own science cannot answer this question. It must leave it to religion and philosophy." (P-11 at 7; 9:13-14 (Haught)).

A significant aspect of the IDM is that despite Defendants' protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity. Dr. Barbara Forrest, one of Plaintiffs' expert witnesses, is the author of the book Creationism's Trojan Horse. She has thoroughly and exhaustively chronicled the history of ID in her book and other writings for her testimony in this case. Her testimony, and the exhibits which were admitted with it, provide a wealth of statements by ID leaders that reveal ID's religious, philosophical, and cultural content. The following is a representative grouping of such statements made by prominent ID proponents.5

Phillip Johnson, considered to be the father of the IDM, developer of ID's "Wedge Strategy," which will be discussed below, and author of the 1991 book entitled Darwin on Trial, has written that "theistic realism" or "mere creation" are defining concepts of the IDM. This means "that God is objectively real as Creator and recorded in the biological evidence . . ." (Trial Tr. vol. 10, Forrest Test., 80-81, Oct. 5, 2005; P-328). In addition, Phillip Johnson states that the "Darwinian theory of evolution contradicts not just the Book of Genesis, but every word in the Bible from beginning to end. It contradicts the idea that we are here because a creator brought about our existence for a purpose." (11:16-17 (Forrest); P-524 at 1). ID proponents Johnson, William Dembski, and Charles Thaxton, one of the editors of Pandas, situate ID in the Book of John in the New Testament of the Bible, which begins, "In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was God." (11:18-20, 54-55 (Forrest); P-524; P-355; P-357). Dembski has written that ID is a "ground clearing operation" to allow Christianity to receive serious consideration, and "Christ is never an addendum to a scientific theory but always a completion." (11:50-53 (Forrest); P-386; P-390). Moreover, in turning to Defendants' lead expert, Professor Behe, his testimony at trial indicated that ID is only a scientific, as opposed to a religious, project for him; however, considerable evidence was introduced to refute this claim. Consider, to illustrate, that Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God. (P-718 at 705) (emphasis added). As no evidence in the record indicates that any other scientific proposition's validity rests on belief in God, nor is the Court aware of any such scientific propositions, Professor Behe's assertion constitutes substantial evidence that in his view, as is commensurate with other prominent ID leaders, ID is a religious and not a scientific proposition.

Dramatic evidence of ID's religious nature and aspirations is found in what is referred to as the "Wedge Document." The Wedge Document, developed by the Discovery Institute's Center for Renewal of Science and Culture (hereinafter "CRSC"), represents from an institutional standpoint, the IDM's goals and objectives, much as writings from the Institute for Creation Research did for the earlier creation-science movement, as discussed in McLean. (11:26-28 (Forrest)); McLean, 529 F. Supp. at 1255. The Wedge Document states in its "Five Year Strategic Plan Summary" that the IDM's goal is to replace science as currently practiced with "theistic and Christian science." (P-140 at 6). As posited in the Wedge Document, the IDM's "Governing Goals" are to "defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies" and "to replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God." Id. at 4. The CSRC expressly announces, in the Wedge Document, a program of Christian apologetics to promote ID. A careful review of the Wedge Document's goals and language throughout the document reveals cultural and religious goals, as opposed to scientific ones. (11:26-48 (Forrest); P-140). ID aspires to change the ground rules of science to make room for religion, specifically, beliefs consonant with a particular version of Christianity.

In addition to the IDM itself describing ID as a religious argument, ID's religious nature is evident because it involves a supernatural designer. The courts in Edwards and McLean expressly found that this characteristic removed creationism from the realm of science and made it a religious proposition. Edwards, 482 U.S. at 591-92; McLean, 529 F. Supp. at 1265-66. Prominent ID proponents have made abundantly clear that the designer is supernatural.

Defendants' expert witness ID proponents confirmed that the existence of a supernatural designer is a hallmark of ID. First, Professor Behe has written that by ID he means "not designed by the laws of nature," and that it is "implausible that the designer is a natural entity." (P-647 at 193; P-718 at 696, 700). Second, Professor Minnich testified that for ID to be considered science, the ground rules of science have to be broadened so that supernatural forces can be considered. (38:97 (Minnich)). Third, Professor Steven William Fuller testified that it is ID's project to change the ground rules of science to include the supernatural. (Trial Tr. vol. 28, Fuller Test., 20-24, Oct. 24, 2005). Turning from defense expert witnesses to leading ID proponents, Johnson has concluded that science must be redefined to include the supernatural if religious challenges to evolution are to get a hearing. (11:8-15 (Forrest); P-429). Additionally, Dembski agrees that science is ruled by methodological naturalism and argues that this rule must be overturned if ID is to prosper. (Trial Tr. vol. 5, Pennock Test., 32-34, Sept. 28, 2005).

Further support for the proposition that ID requires supernatural creation is found in the book Pandas, to which students in Dover's ninth grade biology class are directed. Pandas indicates that there are two kinds of causes, natural and intelligent, which demonstrate that intelligent causes are beyond nature. (P-11 at 6). Professor Haught, who as noted was the only theologian to testify in this case, explained that in Western intellectual tradition, non-natural causes occupy a space reserved for ultimate religious explanations. (9:13-14 (Haught)). Robert Pennock, Plaintiffs' expert in the philosophy of science, concurred with Professor Haught and concluded that because its basic proposition is that the features of the natural world are produced by a transcendent, immaterial, non-natural being, ID is a religious proposition regardless of whether that religious proposition is given a recognized religious label. (5:55-56 (Pennock)). It is notable that not one defense expert was able to explain how the supernatural action suggested by ID could be anything other than an inherently religious proposition. Accordingly, we find that ID's religious nature would be further evident to our objective observer because it directly involves a supernatural designer.

A "hypothetical reasonable observer," adult or child, who is "aware of the history and context of the community and forum" is also presumed to know that ID is a form of creationism. Child Evangelism, 386 F.3d at 531 (citations omitted); Allegheny, 492 U.S. at 624-25. The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism. What is likely the strongest evidence supporting the finding of ID's creationist nature is the history and historical pedigree of the book to which students in Dover's ninth grade biology class are referred, Pandas. Pandas is published by an organization called FTE, as noted, whose articles of incorporation and filings with the Internal Revenue Service describe it as a religious, Christian organization. (P-461; P-28; P-566; P-633; Buell Dep. 1:13, July 8, 2005). Pandas was written by Dean Kenyon and Percival Davis, both acknowledged creationists, and Nancy Pearcey, a Young Earth Creationist, contributed to the work. (10:102-08 (Forrest)).

As Plaintiffs meticulously and effectively presented to the Court, Pandas went through many drafts, several of which were completed prior to and some after the Supreme Court's decision in Edwards , which held that the Constitution forbids teaching creationism as science. By comparing the pre and post Edwards drafts of Pandas, three astonishing points emerge: (1) the definition for creation science in early drafts is identical to the definition of ID; (2) cognates of the word creation (creationism and creationist), which appeared approximately 150 times were deliberately and systematically replaced with the phrase ID; and (3) the changes occurred shortly after the Supreme Court held that creation science is religious and cannot be taught in public school science classes in Edwards. This word substitution is telling, significant, and reveals that a purposeful change of words was effected without any corresponding change in content, which directly refutes FTE's argument that by merely disregarding the words "creation" and "creationism," FTE expressly rejected creationism in Pandas. In early pre-Edwards drafts of Pandas, the term "creation" was defined as "various forms of life that began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive features intact – fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc," the very same way in which ID is defined in the subsequent published versions. (P-560 at 210; P-1 at 2-13; P-562 at 2-14, P-652 at 2-15; P-6 at 99-100; P-11 at 99-100; P-856.2.). This definition was described by many witnesses for both parties, notably including defense experts Minnich and Fuller, as "special creation" of kinds of animals, an inherently religious and creationist concept. (28:85-86 (Fuller); Minnich Dep. at 34, May 26, 2005; Trial Tr. vol. 1, Miller Test., 141-42, Sept. 26, 2005; 9:10 (Haught); Trial Tr. vol. 33, Bonsell Test., 54-56, Oct. 31, 2005). Professor Behe's assertion that this passage was merely a description of appearances in the fossil record is illogical and defies the weight of the evidence that the passage is a conclusion about how life began based upon an interpretation of the fossil record, which is reinforced by the content of drafts of Pandas.

The weight of the evidence clearly demonstrates, as noted, that the systemic change from "creation" to "intelligent design" occurred sometime in 1987, after the Supreme Court's important Edwards decision. This compelling evidence strongly supports Plaintiffs' assertion that ID is creationism re-labeled. Importantly, the objective observer, whether adult or child, would conclude from the fact that Pandas posits a master intellect that the intelligent designer is God.

Further evidence in support of the conclusion that a reasonable observer, adult or child, who is "aware of the history and context of the community and forum" is presumed to know that ID is a form of creationism concerns the fact that ID uses the same, or exceedingly similar arguments as were posited in support of creationism. One significant difference is that the words "God," "creationism," and "Genesis" have been systematically purged from ID explanations, and replaced by an unnamed "designer." Dr. Forrest testified and sponsored exhibits showing six arguments common to creationists. (10:140-48 (Forrest); P-856.5-856.10). Demonstrative charts introduced through Dr. Forrest show parallel arguments relating to the rejection of naturalism, evolution's threat to culture and society, "abrupt appearance" implying divine creation, the exploitation of the same alleged gaps in the fossil record, the alleged inability of science to explain complex biological information like DNA, as well as the theme that proponents of each version of creationism merely aim to teach a scientific alternative to evolution to show its "strengths and weaknesses," and to alert students to a supposed "controversy" in the scientific community. (10:140-48 (Forrest)). In addition, creationists made the same argument that the complexity of the bacterial flagellum supported creationism as Professors Behe and Minnich now make for ID. (P-853; P-845; 37:155-56 (Minnich)). The IDM openly welcomes adherents to creationism into its "Big Tent," urging them to postpone biblical disputes like the age of the earth. (11:3-15 (Forrest); P-429). Moreover and as previously stated, there is hardly better evidence of ID's relations hip with creationism than an explicit statement by defense expert Fuller that ID is a form of creationism. (Fuller Dep. at 67, June 21, 2005) (indicated that ID is a modern view of creationism).

Although contrary to Fuller, defense experts Professors Behe and Minnich testified that ID is not creationism, their testimony was primarily by way of bare assertion and it failed to directly rebut the creationist history of Pandas or other evidence presented by Plaintiffs showing the commonality between creationism and ID. The sole argument Defendants made to distinguish creationism from ID was their assertion that the term "creationism" applies only to arguments based on the Book of Genesis, a young earth, and a catastrophic Noaich flood; however, substantial evidence established that this is only one form of creationism, including the chart that was distributed to the Board Curriculum Committee, as will be described below. (P-149 at 2; 10:129-32 (Forrest); P-555 at 22-24).

I have about as much faith in one judges findings as I do in the oj case or the Casey Anthony trial