by Robert Byers wrote:Another good point to bring up is that the whole intellectual attempt to have truth decided by judges on great issues of knowledge
Have you actually READ any of the Dover Trial transcripts, Byers?
What Judge Jones was being asked to decide, was whether ID was simply a speciation variant of creationism, seeking to use duplicitous devices in order to circumvent the Establishment Clause. This is precisely what he found, after considering the evidence from the real world, including the words of the IDists themselves. He also found that ID consisted of merely erecting specious, synthetic, fabricated objections to evolution of the sort that are routine in creationist circles, and then dressing them up in scientific sounding language, for the explicit purpose of seeking to deceive people about the realmotivation behind the proponents thereof. Indeed, if you bother to READ those transcripts properly, Byers, you will find that not only did IDists engage in hasty, and sometimes incompetent, editing of creationist books in order to provide them with an entirely synthetic scientific veneer, and pass them off as purportedly "scientific" textbooks, when they were nothing more than vehicles for mythology, but that a number of the IDists lied on oath. Specifically, the IDists lied with respect to such matters as the sources of funding for the books they were trying to introduce into schools, as well as several other issues.
Let us turn to the relevant documents, shall we? Including Judge Jones's 139-page summing up at the end of the Dover Trial, in which he effectively accused the proponents of ID of perjury.
We have, for example:
[1] Footnote 7 on page 46:
Throughout the trial and in various submissions to the Court, Defendants vigorously argue that the reading of the statement is not “teaching” ID but instead is merely “making students aware of it.” In fact, one consistency among the Dover School Board members’ testimony, which was marked by selective memories and outright lies under oath, as will be discussed in more detail below, is that they did not think they needed to be knowledgeable about ID because it was not being taught to the students. We disagree.
[2] Top of page 84:
Plaintiffs’ science experts, Drs. Miller and Padian, clearly explained how ID proponents generally and Pandas specifically, distort and misrepresent scientific knowledge in making their anti-evolution argument.
[3] Page 89:
Moreover, ID's backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that thecontroversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard.
[4] Page 93:
The disclaimer’s plain language, the legislative history, and the historical context in which the ID Policy arose, all inevitably lead to the conclusion that Defendants consciously chose to change Dover’s biology curriculum to advance religion. We have been presented with a wealth of evidence which reveals that the District’s purpose was to advance creationism, an inherently religious view, both by introducing it directly under the label ID and by disparaging the scientific theory of evolution, so that creationism would gain credence by default as the only apparent alternative to evolution, for the reasons that follow.
[5] Pages 96 & 97:
Apart from two consecutive Board retreats, Bonsell raised the issue of creationism on numerous other occasions as well. When he ran for the Board in 2001, Bonsell told Jeff Brown he did not believe in evolution, that he wanted creationism taught side-by-side with evolution in biology class, and that taking prayer and Bible reading out of school was a mistake which he wanted reinstated in the Dover public schools. (8:48-49 (J. Brown)). Subsequently, Bonsell told Jeff Brown he wanted to be on the Board Curriculum Committee because he had concerns about teaching evolution and he wanted to see some changes in that area. (8:55 (J. Brown)). Additionally, Nilsen complained to Jeff Brown that each Board President had a new set of priorities and Bonsell’s priority was that of creationism. (8:53 (J. Brown)). It is notable, and in fact incredible that Bonsell disclaimed any interest in creationism during his testimony, despite the admission by his counsel in Defendants’ opening statement that Bonsell had such an interest. (1:19). Simply put, Bonsell repeatedly failed to testify in a truthful manner about this and other subjects. Finally, Bonsell not only wanted prayer in schools and creationism taught in science class, he also wanted to inject religion into the social studies curriculum, as evidenced by his statement to Baksa that he wanted students to learn more about the Founding Fathers and providing Baksa with a book entitled Myth of Separation by David Barton.
[6] Page 102
After Barrie Callahan asked whether the Board would approve the purchase of the 2002 edition of the textbook entitled Biology, Buckingham told Callahan that the book was “laced with Darwinism” and spoke in favor of purchasing a textbook that included a balance of creationism and evolution. (P-46/P-790; 35:76-78 (Baksa); 24:45-46 (Nilsen); 3:135-36 (B. Callahan); 4:51-52 (B. Rehm); 6:62-63 ©. Rehm); 7:25-26 ©. Brown)). With surprising candor considering his otherwise largely inconsistent and non-credible testimony, Buckingham did admit that he made this statement.
[7] Page 131:
Finally, although Defendants have unceasingly attempted in vain to distance themselves from their own actions and statements, which culminated in repetitious, untruthful testimony, such a strategy constitutes additional strong evidence of improper purpose under the first prong of the Lemon test. As exhaustively detailed herein, the thought leaders on the Board made it their considered purpose to inject some form of creationism into the science classrooms, and by the dint of their personalities and persistence they were able to pull the majority of the Board along in their collective wake.
[8] Page 136 (First part of Conclusion):
The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.
Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs’ scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.
To be sure, Darwin’s theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.
[9] Much more damning though is this on page 137:
The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.
As if we needed any more examples of malfeasance on the part of creationists from the same trial, we have:
[1] Pages 40-41:
The second paragraph of the disclaimer reads as follows:
Because Darwin’s Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.
P-124. This paragraph singles out evolution from the rest of the science curriculum and informs students that evolution, unlike anything else that they are learning, is “just a theory,” which plays on the “colloquial or popular understanding of the term [‘theory’] and suggest[ing] to the informed, reasonable observer that evolution is only a highly questionable ‘opinion’ or a ‘hunch.’” Selman, 390 F. Supp. 2d at 1310; 14:110-12 (Alters); 1:92 (Miller). Immediately after students are told that “Darwin’s Theory” is a theory and that it continues to be tested, they are told that “gaps” exist within evolutionary theory without any indication that other scientific theories might suffer the same supposed weakness.
As Dr. Alters explained this paragraph is both misleading and creates misconceptions in students about evolutionary theory by misrepresenting the scientific status of evolution and by telling students that they should regard it as singularly unreliable, or on shaky ground. (14:117 (Alters)). Additionally and as pointed out by Plaintiffs, it is indeed telling that even defense expert Professor Fuller agreed with this conclusion by stating that in his own expert opinion the disclaimer is misleading. Case 4:04-cv-02688-JEJ Document 342 Filed 12/20/2005 Page 41 of 139
In other words, even an expert witness called by the defence in the case agreed, that the disclaimer that the defendants wished to append to textbooks was MISLEADING.
[2] Page 28:
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.
[3] Pages 28-30:
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)).
In other words, the attempt to present ID as "scientific" was a BARE FACED LIE and KNOWN TO BE SUCH BY ITS PROPAGANDISTS WHEN THEY SET OUT TO DO SO.
Once more, with respect to the Wedge Strategy document cited above, which the IDists themselves published, we have this interesting revelation:
Wedge Strategy Document wrote:The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a "wedge" that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the "thin edge of the wedge," was Phillip ]ohnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeatng Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.
In other words, in the highlighted parts above, the "fellows" of the ID movement openly admit that they are seeking to destroy science as currently constituted (first boldface highlight above) and replace it with a bastardised version that is subservient to a particular religious ideology (second boldface highlight above).
It is also interesting to note that William Dembski, one of the "Fellows" of the incongruously named "Discovery Institute" (whose only "discovery" thus far seems to have been the level of gullibility of American religious believers - this organisation certainly hasn't made any scientific discoveries) also blew the cover of the ID movement in his book Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science And Theology, whose title alone should be revealing. I'll provide the following quotes, which are apposite with respect to the real agenda of this organisation and its propagandists:
William Dembski wrote:My thesis is that the disciplines find their completion in Christ and cannot be properly understood apart from Christ ... The point to understand here is that Christ is never an addendum to a scientific theory but always the completion.
William Dembski wrote:Not only does intelligent design rid us of this ideology, which suffocates the human spirit, but, in my personal experience, I've found that it opens the path for people to come to Christ. Indeed, once materialism is no longer an option, Christianity again becomes an option. True, there are then also other options. But Christianity is more than able to hold its own once it is seen as a live option. The problem with materialism is that it rules out Christianity so completely that it is not even a live option. Thus, in its relation to Christianity, intelligent design should be viewed as a ground-clearing operation that gets rid of the intellectual rubbish that for generations has kept Christianity from receiving serious consideration
William Dembski wrote:I think at a fundamental level, in terms of what drives me in this is that I think God's glory is being robbed by these naturalistic approaches to biological evolution, creation, the origin of the world, the origin of biological complexity and diversity. When you are attributing the wonders of nature to these mindless material mechanisms, God's glory is getting robbed. [...] And so there is a cultural war here. Ultimately I want to see God get the credit for what he’s done — and he's not getting it.
Again, all independently checkable facts from the real world.
In short, Byers, IDists lied about evolution, lied about their own motivations, lied about the real nature of ID, and lied about numerous other relevant issues. Judge Jones merely took the IDists' own words, compared them to reality, and found them seriously wanting when subject to such test. IDists lied on oath when they tried to claim that they were merely presenting a "scientific" alternative, as their own documents and the vast mass of other evidence plainly shows - they were merely using scientific sounding language to paint a synthetic veneer over a religious doctrine, for the express purpose of trying to force mythology into science classes where it doesn't belong.
Now, I don't expect that Byers will bother reading any of the above, because the precedents he has set thus far include ignoring anything that fails to genuflect before his biases and presuppositions, or pretending that evidence flushing his presuppositions down the toilet doesn't exist. But the above constitutes voluminous evidence that Byers is once again engaging in manifest fabrication, when he claims that "truth is being decided upon by judges". What happened at the Dover Trial, was that the deliberate lies and misrepresentations of creationists were subject to critical scrutiny, and found to BE deliberate lies and misrepresentations. Once again, if creationism bore any relation to [b]reality, its propagandists would not need to lie on behalf of their doctrine, indeed, if reality supported creationism, then creationism would be part of mainstream science. This elementary fact is another one of those inconvenient facts from reality that creationists hope that no one will notice, whilst pushing their doctrine.
Moving on ...
Robert Byers wrote:is a complete rejection of mans historic attempts to discover knowledge including correcting previous conclusions.
Poppycock. Exposing demonstrable and manifest lies is a part of that process, Byers, and this was EXACTLY what happened at the Dover Trial - creationist lies were exposed as such. What part of "creationists LIED ON OATH at the Dover Trial" do you not understand?
Robert Byers wrote:Obscure judges deciding whether this or that idea on origins is right or whether its conclusins is from right processes of investigation is clearly absurd.
Actually, Byers, what Judge Jones found at the Dover Trial is simply what everyone else who pays attention to reality has known for a long time, namely that:
[1] Evolutionary theory is valid science, massively supported by real world evidence, a good quantity of which was presented at the trial;
[2] Creationist attempts to attack evolution are frequently based upon demonstrable and manifest lies, deliberate misrepresentations of the valid science, and outright fabrications, several of which were exposed as such at the trial;
[3] As a consequence of [1] and [2] above, evolutionary theory, being valid, evidence-based, reality-based science, belongs in science classes, whilst creationism, being a mythology-based doctrine propped up by demonstrable and manifest lies, does not.
It's GAME FUCKING OVER, Byers.
Robert Byers wrote:Anyways the whole concept of state control over ideas in public institutions is just a old idea that most Americans don't agree with.
Oh here we go again, with the tired and previously destroyed nonsense about so-called fucking "censorship" ... which has been carpet bombed back to the primaeval fucking slime so many times it's ceased to be funny any more ...
Byers, the Establishment Clause specifically prohibits the state from favouring one mythology over any other. This applies equally to ALL mythologies, yours included. It's not just YOUR precious mythology and its fatuous blind assertions that are prevented from being pushed as established fact. The same applies to Islamic mythology and its blind assertions, Hindu mythology and its blind assertions, Palaeolithic stone age tribal mythologies and their blind assertions, Native American mythologies and their blind assertions, and so forth. Your mythology isn't receiving any special treatment, because the Establishment Clause stops ALL mythologies from being pushed as if they constituted established fact. You have been told this repeatedly, Byers, and it's about time you learned this elementary lesson.
On the other hand, Byers, the reason evolution is NOT subject to the Establishment Clause, is because EVOLUTION IS AN OBSERVABLE BIOLOGICAL FACT FROM THE REAL WORLD, ONE THAT IS DOCUMENTED IN THOUSANDS OF SCIENTIFIC PAPERS, AND WHICH IS SUPPORTED BY A THEORY ENJOYING MASSIVE EVIDENTIAL SUPPORT FROM THE REAL WORLD. The Establishment Clause does NOT prohibit FACTS from being presented as such. Just because you and other mythology fetishists happen not to like this, Byers, and engage in petulant whingeing about this, is not going to change this FACT. Once again, learn this elementary lesson.
Robert Byers wrote:These cases still are rather off the radar for most people and what is needed are great cases with great concepts and great publicity.
Byers, the Dover Trial was reported around the entire planet. There were television crews from the BBC here in the UK, from NHK in Japan, from several European networks, and from Australia, New Zealand and Canada covering this trial. Broadsheet newspapers such as The Guardian and The Independent here in the UK devoted numerous column inches to the trial. A part of the coverage included enormous amounts of amazement that grown, adult human beings could give credence to some of the nonsense espoused by creationists and IDists. The PBS documentary on the trial has been made globally accessible over the Internet. For all we know, Byers, there could be little green men in flying saucers analysing the television footage, and laughing at what a primitive species humans are, because some of them still give credence to such ridiculous notions as creationism.
Robert Byers wrote:Time has come.
Creationists had their time at Dover, Byers, and creationists blew it big time because they LIED ON OATH
Robert Byers wrote:The silly Dover case is just case in point of how the law system is being falsely and making judgements that reflect very poorly on jurisprudence.
Complete poppycock. What part of "creationists LIED ON OATH" do you not understand, Byers? Which is why the case was of seminal importance in exposing the nonsense that is creationism, by demonstrating that its professional propagandists are liars and charlatans?
Robert Byers wrote:Its impossible for truth to be illegal in a free country.
Which is why creationists are trying to turn the USA into a theocracy, so that they can enforce conformity to their doctrine and suppress the truth about valid evolutionary science. It's not as if your fellow creationists have been reticent with respect to their public statements with respect to this, Byers. Indeed, the more extreme elements openly espouse exterminating anyone who opposes them.
Robert Byers wrote:If creationism is illegal then its a state opinion its not true.
Oh for fuck's sake Byers, you've had this bullshit napalmed repeatedly.
Creationism is NOT "illegal", Byers, asserting that creationism is somehow "illegal" is a blatant and manifest creationist lie. Creationists are free to disseminate their nonsense and lies in thousands of churches across the USA, creationists have well funded and politically well connected organisations disseminating their nonsense and lies, creationists have globally accessible websites disseminating their nonsense and lies. If creationism was "illegal", Byers, NONE of this would be happening.
All that is happening, Byers, is that your brand of creationism, in common with ALL other mythology-based nonsense, is kept out of science classes because SCIENCE CLASSES ARE THERE TO TEACH ABOUT REALITY, NOT MYTHOLOGY. Now fucking learn this elementary lesson once and for all, and stop peddling this farcical, petulant whingeing about "censorship" that is even more of a fantasy than the pathetic fairy tales about the fantasy "global flood".
Robert Byers wrote:If its said to be illegal because its religious then its a state opinion religions are not true.
Guess what, Byers? NONE OF THEM ARE. ALL RELIGIONS ARE JUST MYTHOLOGIES. NONE OF THEM HAVE AN ATOM OF EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT ANY OF THEIR ASSORTED BLIND ASSERTIONS. WHICH IS WHY THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE EXISTS, SO THAT NO FAVOURITISM IS SHOWN TOWARD ANY OF THEM. Once again, learn this elementary lesson, and spare us the tiresome whingeing that your worthless mythology is being singled out for special treatment, because it isn't, and your assertions that your mythology is being singled out for special treatment are yet more manifest creationist lies.
Robert Byers wrote:Therefore breaking the very law it invokes for the illegality of creationism.
Bollocks. Drop this fucking pathetic lie once and for all, Byers. Once again ...
Creationism is NOT "illegal", Byers, asserting that creationism is somehow "illegal" is a blatant and manifest creationist lie. Creationists are free to disseminate their nonsense and lies in thousands of churches across the USA, creationists have well funded and politically well connected organisations disseminating their nonsense and lies, creationists have globally accessible websites disseminating their nonsense and lies. If creationism was "illegal", Byers, NONE of this would be happening. Now DROP THIS TIRESOME CREATIONIST LIE ONCE AND FOR ALL, BYERS.
Robert Byers wrote:Of course there is no law but a mere invention of the last half of the previous century.
Bollocks. You've had THIS creationist lie napalmed repeatedly as well, Byers.
When was the Establishment Clause written? Oh, that's right, it was a part of the Bill of Rights. Which was first introduced by James Madison in 1789, and which came into effect as Constitutional Amendments in 1791. A photograph of the original document can be viewed via this link. The full text is available on this page, which is part of the Archives of the Government of the United States of America. Which means that the Establishment Clause has been in existence for two hundred and twenty one years, and has been a ratified part of the Constitution for two hundred and nineteen years. "Invention of the last half of the previous century" my arse.
Meanwhile, let's lay down the elementary FACTS about this Amendment, shall we? Namely:
[1] The Establishment Clause and related legislation does not prohibit teaching valid science;
[2] The Establishment Clause and related legislation does not prohibit teaching about religions in the proper classes assigned to that subject;
[3] The proper classes for teaching about religions, yours included, Byers, are classes devoted to comparative mythology, and such classes exist;
[4] Your tiresome whinge about your ideological masturbation fantasies being "banned" was a pile of steaming dog turds, because far from being "banned", you and other adherents of mythology have, in the USA, over 100,000 churches, several well-funded and politically well-connected organisations, and dozens of websites propagating your mythology-based world view;
[5] Science classes exist to teach students about REALITY and how it works, and are NOT there to fill children's heads with lies peddled by ideological stormtroopers for doctrine;
[6] If valid science happens to point to the fact that REALITY says your mythology is horseshit, then it's fucking tough, because that valid science is based upon REALITY, and therefore is NOT "religious".
Now go away and fucking live with this, and tell every other creationist to do the same.
