This, I think was your strongest point to try and paint him as a liar, and it still fails.
I'm not trying to paint him as a liar, I just found the statements of a conservative judge's legal opinion on the matter to be informative.
If scientific evidence points to God, then science would rest on a belief in God.
I think you've got that backwards there. It's not that scientific evidence is pointing to god, it's that belief in god is a prerequisite for accepting this particular "evidence".
Debarring God from science is a very recent requirement in science, actually.
That's true, as education and science have become more accesible and well-defined, it was recognized that the practice of science is exclusive of religion. Need I remind you of the acceleration of scientific advances that have occurred since that realization?
Being familiar with the word "likely", I don't think I need to.
So, you're implying that a federal judge, in a formal legal opinion, when describing the linchpin of the assertions of the defendants, would use the word "likely" instead of "maybe" or "perhaps", and based on that you won't even bother to investigate any further? Don't look now, but I think your preconceptions are showing.
And is being crucified by those who have closed their mind to the possibility of design...
Ah, the martyrdom finally arrives! Behe is not being crucified here, just his ill-concieved notions.
Further in the judge's ruling, he said that there is no "dualism" between design and evolution, and now he creates one. Behe claimed it supports design and under certain circumstances it may support evolution. I still don't see the lie.
Did you miss the part about supporting evolution if a "biologically realistic" population size were used? If you haven't seen it, I highly recommend you read this part of the trial transcript--day 12, in the morning.
Jones isn't creating a dualism between evolution and ID, he's pointing out that when Behe tries to create it (claiming this study offers positive evidence for ID), it's actually easily explainable by evolutionary mechanisms.
You seem pretty set and ready to accuse and convict.
I didn't accuse, but I have heard plenty of evidence. I followed this trial very closely as it happened. This was ID's chance to shine--their moment in the sun.
Forget about the judge, or the media, or any of your other percieved enemies. These transcripts will be public, and fair-minded people will make their own decisions based on the evidence presented. This was the time to bring it all out. A biased judge might give an erroneous decision, but that's what appeals are for. Your man is in the White House, and his peeps are on the bench at the big dance. It's go time!
Except... nobody showed up.
When the time came, the big hitters bailed out (Dembski, Meyer, etc.). Why? If the evidence is so obvious, and the scientific community so intent on repressing the "truth" why not take the opportunity to present your case in court, on the record, for everyone to see? Why, indeed.
No digging here, Behe's got the shovel
This, I think was your strongest point to try and paint him as a liar, and it still fails.
I'm not trying to paint him as a liar, I just found the statements of a conservative judge's legal opinion on the matter to be informative.
If scientific evidence points to God, then science would rest on a belief in God.
I think you've got that backwards there. It's not that scientific evidence is pointing to god, it's that belief in god is a prerequisite for accepting this particular "evidence".
Debarring God from science is a very recent requirement in science, actually.
That's true, as education and science have become more accesible and well-defined, it was recognized that the practice of science is exclusive of religion. Need I remind you of the acceleration of scientific advances that have occurred since that realization?
Being familiar with the word "likely", I don't think I need to.
So, you're implying that a federal judge, in a formal legal opinion, when describing the linchpin of the assertions of the defendants, would use the word "likely" instead of "maybe" or "perhaps", and based on that you won't even bother to investigate any further? Don't look now, but I think your preconceptions are showing.
And is being crucified by those who have closed their mind to the possibility of design...
Ah, the martyrdom finally arrives! Behe is not being crucified here, just his ill-concieved notions.
Further in the judge's ruling, he said that there is no "dualism" between design and evolution, and now he creates one. Behe claimed it supports design and under certain circumstances it may support evolution. I still don't see the lie.
Did you miss the part about supporting evolution if a "biologically realistic" population size were used? If you haven't seen it, I highly recommend you read this part of the trial transcript--day 12, in the morning.
Jones isn't creating a dualism between evolution and ID, he's pointing out that when Behe tries to create it (claiming this study offers positive evidence for ID), it's actually easily explainable by evolutionary mechanisms.
You seem pretty set and ready to accuse and convict.
I didn't accuse, but I have heard plenty of evidence. I followed this trial very closely as it happened. This was ID's chance to shine--their moment in the sun.
Forget about the judge, or the media, or any of your other percieved enemies. These transcripts will be public, and fair-minded people will make their own decisions based on the evidence presented. This was the time to bring it all out. A biased judge might give an erroneous decision, but that's what appeals are for. Your man is in the White House, and his peeps are on the bench at the big dance. It's go time!
Except... nobody showed up.
When the time came, the big hitters bailed out (Dembski, Meyer, etc.). Why? If the evidence is so obvious, and the scientific community so intent on repressing the "truth" why not take the opportunity to present your case in court, on the record, for everyone to see? Why, indeed.