@Leadfoot,
Quote:
Dont know if my perspective on the court decisions will resolve anything or not. The reason I don't see them as relevant to the actual ID debate (which is far too complex to happen in public schools anyway) is that the ID advocates faced three impossible barriers.
Well, it was pretty-well summarized in the several decisions that Creationism/ID are NOT _AT_ALL based upon evidence. They are the very basis of a belief system to which some evidence is sought. The means by which ID.s evidence is sought is usually based upon trying to find some fault with standard science. The ID "Institute" hs promised all kinds of papaers for 15 yers or more and to date, nothing has been produced.
AS to your points --
1."Foes" of ID have never interfered with their freedom of religion until the Creationists and IDers had attempted to teach Creationism and ID as SCIENCE IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS (See heres where a little understanding of the history would keep your opinions from appearing so naive). Actually, because of the old "Butler Rules" nd the "Price ?Morrison" activism in the early pqrt of the 20th century, it was actully ILLEGAL, in many states to teach evolution in biology. Ive got several old text books from the 1920's in my lab library that are based upon a Creationist worldview.
2. Again, going back to the entire history of the movements, they had plenty of "Scientists" who claimed they were Creation SCientists (as well as ID scientistts). So it wasnt for lack of trying. Under the Fry and Daubert rules for expert evidence, apparently the "Experts" that were voire dire'd by the courts, passed muster and could represent their views on behalf of thweir side.
3
Quote: was that there no way to prove the existence of what legitimate ID advocates wanted to change in the science education environment.
Again, had you been "interested " in the hitory, you would have een that your assertion is wrong, for the IDers had a VERY good idea of what they wanted to present.
Everything youve stated i quite easily debunkable from a casual review of the history of past 30 years of "culture wars" between the religious based views of ID/Creationism v standard science education.
Trying to have me believe that your view of ID is different nd therefore on a more scientifically based foundation than was , say Dr Michael Behe's or Dr WilliM Dembski's own views (Dembski is a machine logic physicist), would mean trhat youve come up with a new way of presenting the ID pitch. Many have tried that ploy, so far, no takers to claim any prizes.
As FBM stated above, if any scientist were to discover some evidence bout a"Galactic Intelligence in the biogenesis story" , That scientist would be a Nobel Prize shoo-in nd be on the late night TV for years and years. Scientists are selfish opportunists. They want the notoriety nd credit for finding out something really big. You tell me, where would they even begin?
I feel that the pangenesis story will be a major topic of research if we, upon reaching out onto farther and farther planets, discover similrities in alien life -forms with our own. Until then, the story of ID is a story "going in", not "Coming out" of all the evidence. Theres no real evidence to even mildly support it. Everything you seem to claim as evidence is not an irreducible complexity as the IDers claim
