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.
You're not? Then what of the "IOW, Behe lied" comments? The judge never said Behe lied.
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".
Haven't we covered this months and months ago? I think we both agreed that everyone brings their presuppositions to the table, scientists included. Even basic apparent design is apparent. It's through a philosophical presupposition that it is dismissed from science, not the evidence. Which you more or less admitted with the next statement.
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?
Remember? This was in response to removing God from science a priori?
And, I'm sorry, but my understanding has been that science has has advanced faster as technology has advanced. Now, I'm aware that they are intertwined, but the fact of the matter is that science was building up steam, and that steam was there because of ID scientists such as Newton, etc... The scientific process as we know it wouldn't even exist without belief in God!
Debarring God from science is a priori philosophy, period.
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.
I'm trying to get back on point, as you were eager to do earlier. I'm more than implying. I'm pointing out that the judge never called him a liar, never sought perjury and never spoke to motive as you are so willing to read into and speak to.
Ah, the martyrdom finally arrives! Behe is not being crucified here, just his ill-concieved notions.
I'm not trying to play a martyr card. I'm pointing out character assassination. Your words: "IOW, Behe lied..." That speaks to his character, not his notions (no matter your opinion on them...).
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.
Which is a dualism even by the judges definition!!! What you are saying is that evidence for evolution can't also support ID and vice versa. That's a dualism, i.e. entering an excluded middle.
I was trying to stay on topic. You said, "IOW, Behe lied..." In that same post, you used this line of argument, thus my "dualism" comment.
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.
"IOW, Behe lied..."
The rest of your post was off topic, so I'll also humbly request that we get back on topic.
You have still failed to prove your assertion (no matter your denials now as to making the assertion) that Behe lied. At best, you've established that Evolution and ID disagrees, and that Behe isn't a very good witness at times.
(Speaking briefly to why the other ID guys didn't' show, it was my understanding that it was because they couldn't have their own counsel. But... I can't testify to that. :D-- Take care, dogg...)
I'm not trying to paint him
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.
You're not? Then what of the "IOW, Behe lied" comments? The judge never said Behe lied.
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".
Haven't we covered this months and months ago? I think we both agreed that everyone brings their presuppositions to the table, scientists included. Even basic apparent design is apparent. It's through a philosophical presupposition that it is dismissed from science, not the evidence. Which you more or less admitted with the next statement.
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?
Remember? This was in response to removing God from science a priori?
And, I'm sorry, but my understanding has been that science has has advanced faster as technology has advanced. Now, I'm aware that they are intertwined, but the fact of the matter is that science was building up steam, and that steam was there because of ID scientists such as Newton, etc... The scientific process as we know it wouldn't even exist without belief in God!
Debarring God from science is a priori philosophy, period.
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.
I'm trying to get back on point, as you were eager to do earlier. I'm more than implying. I'm pointing out that the judge never called him a liar, never sought perjury and never spoke to motive as you are so willing to read into and speak to.
Ah, the martyrdom finally arrives! Behe is not being crucified here, just his ill-concieved notions.
I'm not trying to play a martyr card. I'm pointing out character assassination. Your words: "IOW, Behe lied..." That speaks to his character, not his notions (no matter your opinion on them...).
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.
Which is a dualism even by the judges definition!!! What you are saying is that evidence for evolution can't also support ID and vice versa. That's a dualism, i.e. entering an excluded middle.
I was trying to stay on topic. You said, "IOW, Behe lied..." In that same post, you used this line of argument, thus my "dualism" comment.
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.
"IOW, Behe lied..."
The rest of your post was off topic, so I'll also humbly request that we get back on topic.
You have still failed to prove your assertion (no matter your denials now as to making the assertion) that Behe lied. At best, you've established that Evolution and ID disagrees, and that Behe isn't a very good witness at times.
(Speaking briefly to why the other ID guys didn't' show, it was my understanding that it was because they couldn't have their own counsel. But... I can't testify to that. :D-- Take care, dogg...)