Intelligent Design and the Law

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Well, you're making the claim, why don't you provide some statistic concerning the ideas of leading biologists? How many leading biologists reject the core ideas of evolution theory: natural selection, DNA, mutations?

I've made the claim in this forum more than once that all creationists and IDers in more than forty years of alleged research have published exactly one article in a refereed scientific journal on the subject of their claims. That article perverted the process to find its way into print. Two days ago, I found that there are two other articles, also compromised in various ways.

Now, I'm seeking to tap the wisdom and experience of RHP posters, if there is any wisdom to be found here, to ascertain new sources of refutation about specious claims in fora that are new to me.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
I've made the claim in this forum more than once that all creationists and IDers in more than forty years of alleged research have published exactly one article in a refereed scientific journal on the subject of their claims. That article perverted the process to find its way into print. Two days ago, I found that there are two other articles, also co ...[text shortened]... [/i], to ascertain new sources of refutation about specious claims in fora that are new to me.

I don't see what you mean, there is no reason to assume biologists' confidence in the core ideas of evolution theory is waning, so why waste any time trying to confirm the obvious?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I don't see what you mean, there is no reason to assume biologists' confidence in the core ideas of evolution theory is waning, so why waste any time trying to confirm the obvious?

What he said.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I don't see what you mean, there is no reason to assume biologists' confidence in the core ideas of evolution theory is waning, so why waste any time trying to confirm the obvious?

For the simple reason that not all enemies are dead. They are infiltrating our schools. They must be met at the door and defeated over and over again.

Knowing the truth is insufficient. War is imminent and the truth must be defended. I'm looking for sharper steel. Evidently you wish only to offer the same tired refrain. It no longer cuts as well as it once did.


Nothing is more vital than error. Controversies rarely if
ever die. They merely sink beneath the surface of literate attention
and continue a submerged existence in the dark, unfathomed caves
of the popular mind.
Bergan Evans, The Natural History of Nonsense

Originally posted by Wulebgr
For the simple reason that not all enemies are dead. They are infiltrating our schools. They must be met at the door and defeated over and over again.

Knowing the truth is insufficient. War is imminent and the truth must be defended. I'm looking for sharper steel. Evidently you wish only to offer the same tired refrain. It no longer cuts as well as it onc ...[text shortened]... nfathomed caves
of the popular mind.[/i]
Bergan Evans, The Natural History of Nonsense

Creationists are not deterred by facts, if they were, they wouldn't be creationists in the first place. Although arguing with creationists can be a mildly amusing practise at times, it's also probably one of the least constructive things you can do.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Creationists are not deterred by facts, if they were, they wouldn't be creationists in the first place. Although arguing with creationists can be a mildly amusing practise at times, it's also probably one of the least constructive things you can do.

The people to argue with are school board members that are listening to creationists, and the editors of law journals publishing their claims

Originally posted by Wulebgr
Prove it.

Project Steve.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Project Steve.

Thanks. That's helpful, as is their link to the Clergy Letter Project.