Originally Posted by DBT
Originally Posted by Thunderstick



Outlawing Creation science was not based on science but rather upon previous liberal interpretations of the constitution. The Declaration of Independence says our rights come from our Creator who made all men equal. When Creation science is outlawed we are attacking both science and the foundation of equal rights. Our Founders were creationists.


The point of the trial was not to 'ban creation science' but determine whether creationism in the form of intelligent design is science. The defenders of intelligent design could not prove the proposition, and in fact their claim of irreducible complexity was show to be false. [/quote]

Partially correct--it was disproved on the basis that science as defined by the government to be legally taught in public schools could not include religious connotations--which they said intelligent design does, because it is creation science and linked to religious connotations and hence not pure science. This is a great example where the modern court system was used by liberals to interpret law contrary to the beliefs of our founders who framed the constitution and to use an irreligious view of science to exclude anything as science that did not meet their irreligious definition. The only thing the prosecution needed to prove was that there was a link between intelligent design and creation science for it to be considered illegal to be taught in school. This was based on previous case law which declares evolutionary science pure science because it has no religious link. I knew the people on the school board and some of those who initiated the suit against the board and the school district. In a pure scientific debate without legal implications of previous liberal case law, irreducible complexity is clearly established as a fact--the most simple cell cannot exist without all its components. Even good lawyers arguing a bad case cannot disprove that.