Even atheists and Darwinists have attacked Dover decision
Judge "Jackass" Jones and his supporters want you to believe that all the critics of his Kitzmiller v. Dover decision are holy-rolling, bible-pounding fundy-type creationist crackpots. However, that decision has recently come under heavy criticism from two atheists, Thomas Nagel [link] {link] and Bradley Monton [link]. Previously, the Dover decision was criticized by three Darwinists: Jay Wexler and J. Scott Turner [link], because they felt that Judge Jones should not have ruled on the issue of ID-as-science, and Larry Moran [link], who agreed with the opinion's ID-as-science section but was disturbed that it was merely copied nearly verbatim from the plaintiffs' opening post-trial brief. I certainly don't agree with all the views of these atheists and Darwinists, but I am happy that their criticisms of the decision are a source of great embarrassment to Judge Jones and his supporters.
posted by Larry Fafarman | 1/11/2010 01:30:00 AM
5 Comments:
Do you really thing Judge Jones cares about a few dingbats?
Why don't you ask him?
I asked. He doesn't care about you.
Darwinists could look up the views of Darwinist evolutionary biologist J Scott Turner, which Larry mentions. He not only objects to the fumings of Judge Jones, but remains somewhat open-minded about the possiblity that ID could turn out to be scientifically valid. And at least he has a good idea of what ID is, which is more than can be said for most Darwinists. Many of them simply follow the old propaganda line about alleged "intelligent design creationism."
This decision by Judge Jones shows poorly on our legal system. First of all, did they show any evidence of evolution in court? I mean REAL HARD evidence, like mud turning into a cell, or plants giving birth to animals? Granted, NOONE has witnessed the entire chain of events that Darwinists theorize about, such as the great myth about pre-biotic mud somehow morphing into cells that have the capacity to feed themselves and reproduce, and over the years evolve and evolve into greater and larger organisms, with man at the pinnacle. Behe is great, I love his two books Darwin's Black Box and The Edge of Evolution. The arguments seem simple enough to me: if 10^20 malarial cells have not evolved significantly, then how could the mammals have evolved when their numbers throughout history are approximately 10^20th.
But seriously, no one has seen a monkey gradually morph into a human, or a predecessor of a giraffe evolve into a giraffe.
The real problem here is this: the government takes our money in the form of taxes and then uses our money to fund public school systems where parents get absolutely NO say when it comes to issues like this. Lets say I'm an atheist and I believe in evolution: why should my kids spend precious time in school learning a theory of evolution when it really has absolutely NO bearing on the rest of one's life. It is not a skill you can get a job for. There are no tech start-up firms trying to use evolution to produce a nifty product, like a domesticated hippo. The only real consequence of evolution is to deny the account of creation as taught by the Torah.
Post a Comment
<< Home