@farmerman,
It is worth noting that anything fm posts on a science thread is worthless because he has me on Ignore. If there was a senior matriarch within his personal arrangements who was intercepting his mail and preventing anything reaching his attention which came from one of those naughty boys who might lead him astray it would be bad enough. But he is doing it to himself. His scientific credentials are non existent after that. And similarly anyone who has anybody on Ignore on a science thread.
And I don't see any possibility of an intellectually valid argument to refute that conclusion.
It is also very odd for a supposed evolutionist, which of course he isn't actually, to be setting such store on a few judicial decisions taking place in the space of a few years when it is well known how short the time span is in relation to evolution. As far as I know the invasion of Iraq was proceeded with on sound legal grounds as was the election of Mr Bush and fm disagreed with both those decisions.
There is also the small matter of whether evolution theory is sound science in anything like the same manner that the science of falling bodies is. It can hardly claim to be a universal explanation of phenomena when the vast bulk of the field it purports to explain is unobservable and what is observable is a minute fraction, at its largest, of what has taken place on earth since life began. Nor can the theory explain how life began nor how or why life took the route the evolution theory claims it did. It also fails the predictabilty test.
And that which is observable may have been specially selected to save the theory or interpreted to acheive the same end accompanied by incantations of "glitter" words with which to hypnotise the weak-minded. As with the recent fossil discovery which has turned out to be not what it was said to be in the premature ejaculatory gushes to which we were exposed at the time. There is certainly plenty of motive for such activity which any evolutionist would never underestimate.
And nor would he underestimate the advantages to the legal profession of undermining traditional religious beliefs and instiutions. All sources of authority are keen to undermine any others. Except when two or three sources combine to undermine one. If the legal profession, media and the scientific profession succeed in undermining religion they will turn on each other forthwith.
It is worth considering that an important function of religion is to provide other sources of authority with a common enemy in order to prevent that very thing. It may even be that religion was invented for no other reason than to provide an authority not depending solely on empirical and scientific evidence which we might find it impossible to organise complex societies with. The evidence of history supports such a contention. What empirical and scientific evidence could prevent wholesale "dog eat dog" modes of operation?
fm's citing of a few recent, very recent, judicial determinations by the most eminent members of one of the greediest professions known to mankind (see Francois Rabelais) and who will be leaders of various legal networks cuts no ice with me. The idea that these eminent men and women are intellectually independent thinkers is strictly for the sweet, pretty things.
fm is guilty of hero worship and on a selective basis. His science is non-existent. He's parleying his qualifications which obviously don't include correct English usage. He's a poseur. Science is his toy. To play with when he feels like it and discarded when he doesn't.
Is that your best ?