Home > FreeHovind > Content > General > Discussion: Creationists Next Move??
Creationists Next Move??
2 Comments - 8200 Views
What will they do next??
Submitted By ronnies_evil_twin on 10/01/12
FreeHovind, ronnies_evil_twin, General 
This Discussion originally posted in the "FreeHovind" Group

I am in the process of reading the Kitzmiller v. Dover case.
http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf

I was thinking about the history of creationists trying to get their "theory" taught in public schools.
Creationism Only: Failed in court.
Teach Both/Equal Time: Failed in Court
Teach Creation "Science" This is where they hide Genesis in scientific sounding language. Failed in Court
Intellegent Design: Failed in Court

I am not sure they have "won" a case in court since Scopes. (Later overturned because of some technicality).

Now, my question is, what will they do next to try to sneak creationism in class. As I see it they have several options.
1) Just try again in different venue. I don't think so. You had your best chance in Dover. Conservitive Judge..appointed by president who basically said.."let them teach it." Still got blown out of the water.
2) They can try I.D. again MUCH later. Part of their problem is that they didn't have any real scientists backing them up. They had scientists who had written EXTENSIVELY about creationism. Another problem was the book they wanted to use. All Pandas was was a creationist book that was literally cut and pasted into a I.D. book. They are going to have to get some biological scientitsts on their side who don't have a record of trying to force their aganda on anyone. (Gonna be tough to do that) Additionally, they would still need to draft an entire textbook from scratch. Personally, I think they MAY try to do this but it's going to be tough to go against a court system which has already had a federal judge declare I.D. is not science.
3) They can name it something else but still maintain the same core concepts of I.D. Still probably won't work.
4) Change the definition of Science AND then try I.D. again. They have already done this in my state of Ohio. Science used to be defined as...blah blah blah..."a natural explanation for natural phenomena" Now science is defined as....blah blah blah..."more acurately explains natural phenomenon" THEY TOOK OUT THAT IT HAS TO BE A NATURAL EXPLANATION???? They did this in 2003 and i am assuming they did this because they were going to try to get I.D. through the court system here in Ohio. Now, I think that after I.D.'s crushing defeat in Dover....any School System may be leary of doing anything beyond changing the definition.

The broader point here is that it appears that our judicial system is working. Trust me..there are some dumb judges out there. However, most are smart..and don't like being overturned...especially on HUGE cases like this would be. They don't like being made out to be fools by higher courts. They are NOT being politically swayed by fundamentalists who think I.D. and "creation science" are real science.
Judge Jones did something smart here. He actually wrote that attacking evolution has been done historically by the religious community. He used these attack as evidence that when I.D. was attacking evolution...it was doing it for religious purposes....not scientific purposes. That is a HUGE thing to put in an opinion. It may help other courts to keep creationism out of classrooms.
It appears that out entire judicial system is not buying these fake attacks on evolution. It appears that the ONLY people who are dumb enough to buy these attacks on evolution are the creationists themselves.

» Reply to Comment
Re: Creationists Next Move??
2 days - 2,415v
Posted 2010/01/12 - 13:02 GMT
This will hopefully answer your question:

» Reply to Comment
Re: Creationists Next Move??
1 minute - 1v
Posted 2010/01/12 - 14:39 GMT
I saw that . Very interesting.

If anyone read the Kitzmiller v. Dover it becomes apparent that what I.D. proponets tell the public is VASTLY differnt from what they say under oath.
1) Under Oath they all admitted that the entire, centuries old, definition of science must be re-worded to include supernatural explanations before I.D. may become "science" They conceded that if "science" was expanded to include the supernatural, witchcraft and astrology would become "scientific" theories.
2) Under oath they admit I.D. is not science.
3) Under oath they admit it is not testable.
4) Under oath they admit that there is no SCIENTIFIC debate regarding evolution.
5) Under oath, the creator of Irreducable Complexity admitted that the central tennant of I.C. had a defect. (He has failed to correct that defect to this day)
6) Nobody would testify UNDER OATH that evolution was not sound science
7) Nobody would testify UNDER OATH that there is a controversy in the scientific community
8) I.D. proponents admitted under oath that thier textbook was strewn with outdated concepts and "bad science"
9) Plaintiffs in this case put an expert paleotologist on the stand to discuss the fossil record, geologic column and radiometric dating. Now, interestingly, I.D. proponets did not put anyone on the stand to rebutt his testimony. This was I.D.'s big chance to show these "gaps" in the fossil record...to prove the geologic column was a myth..to prove radiometric dating was not sound science. However, they where unable to even produce one scientist to show these "gaps" in science.

I find it astonishing that people who think these gaps exist do not even realize..the people who are telling them.."there are gaps"...refuse to testify to that effect. Discovery Institute continues to claim there is some HUGE scientific debate regarding evolution. However, when given a chance to put on evidence of this debate..they could not do it. (Sound familiar)


GenTime: 0.0153 seconds

Site Design and Graphics Copyright 2002 - 2020 by Aubrey
Use of this site constitutes agreement to our » Legal Stuff