Quote Originally Posted by animalman

intelligent design is nothing more that creationism and had been thoroughly discredited in the court ruling Dover.
You may not be aware of the whole story in the Kitzmiller vs Dover Opinion. Here are some facts:

Michael J. Behe is Professor of Biological Sciences at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania. He received his Ph.D. in Biochemistry from the University of Pennsylvania in 1978. Behe's current research involves delineation of design and natural selection in protein structures. He was an expert witness in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District federal trial in 2005.

On December 20, 2005 Judge John Jones issued his opinion in the matter of Kitzmiller, in which I was the lead witness for the defense. There are many statements of the Court scattered throughout the opinion with which I disagree. However, here I will remark only on section E-4, ??Whether ID is Science.?

The Court finds that intelligent design (ID) is not science. In its legal analysis, the Court takes what I would call a restricted sociological view of science: ??science? is what the consensus of the community of practicing scientists declares it to be. The word ??science? belongs to that community and to no one else. Thus, in the Court??s reasoning, since prominent science organizations have declared intelligent design to not be science, it is not science. Although at first blush that may seem reasonable, the restricted sociological view of science risks conflating the presumptions and prejudices of the current group of practitioners with the way physical reality must be understood.

On the other hand, like myself most of the public takes a broader view: ??science? is an unrestricted search for the truth about nature based on reasoning from physical evidence. By those lights, intelligent design is indeed science. Thus there is a disconnect between the two views of what ??science? is. Although the two views rarely conflict at all, the dissonance grows acute when the topic turns to the most fundamental matters, such as the origins of the universe, life, and mind.

Below I proceed sequentially through section E-4. Statements from the opinion are in italics, followed by my comments.

[To read the complete response, go to: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vie...wnload&id=697]

Conclusion

The Court??s reasoning in section E-4 is premised on: a cramped view of science; the conflation of intelligent design with creationism; an incapacity to distinguish the implications of a theory from the theory itself; a failure to differentiate evolution from Darwinism; and strawman arguments against ID. The Court has accepted the most tendentious and shopworn excuses for Darwinism with great charity and impatiently dismissed evidence-based arguments for design.

All of that is regrettable, but in the end does not impact the realities of biology, which are not amenable to adjudication. On the day after the judge??s opinion, December 21, 2005, as before, the cell is run by amazingly complex, functional machinery that in any other context would immediately be recognized as designed. On December 21, 2005, as before, there are no non-design explanations for the molecular machinery of life, only wishful speculations and Just-So stories.

its not even bad science its just bad reasoning. any theory that is based on a unstable foundation cannot be considered science.
Precisely why evolution cannot be considered science.

watch NOVA's judgement day intelligent design on trail, it shows that intelligent design was created by a bunch of religious zealots trying to change society. and at the end when it was ruled not to be science a fold of deaths were sent to many people involved in its disproval, what good Christians believe what i say or i'll kill you...... very Christian dont you think.
Is that movie based on science and fact? Movies rarely are.

evolution does in no way disprove the existence of god it only says that the bible may not be 100% accurate, after all it was written by man not the hand of god and was written to the best of our understandings at the time
Do you understand that evolution teaches a natural undirected cause of the development of life from one cell to humans?

Do you understand the Bible teaches that God created everything and everyone?

Can the cause of life forms be both non-intelligent and intelligent?

Do you know for a fact that the Bible was authored by men rather than God? If so, can you produce evidence supporting that fact?
Pahu78 Reviewed by Pahu78 on . Science Disproves Evolution Compatible Senders and Receivers Only intelligence creates codes, programs, and information (CP&I). Each involves senders and receivers. Senders and receivers can be people, animals, plants, organs, cells, or certain molecules. (The DNA molecule is a prolific sender.) The CP&I in a message must be understandable and beneficial to both sender and receiver; otherwise, the effort expended in transmitting and receiving messages (written, chemical, electrical, magnetic, visual, and auditory) will Rating: 5