Here's why Creatards might be right

[jenny1972]

Ugh. I already said I'm sick to death of seeing "theory" misunderstood and abused, as a word.

1. The judge's ruling is not proof, it is evidence because of what he says, and what he bases the proof upon, as a neutral arbiter. In fact, he was probably predisposed to believing in the ID/IC ideas because he is a Christian and one of the most conservative members of that federal district's judiciary.

2. Science (and all theories it contains) will always be open to testing, and never proved, because that's what science is.

That's what keeps science honest and lets us reasonably believe in it at all. It does not mean "this is a guess", it means that is an explanation that fits what we see, whose details survive all current abilities to test it for falsehood.

It's a method of honesty.

Taking the radical ideas of a tiny, tiny number of people, ideas which either have been tested and proven false or which are phrased in a way that is not testable and thus not science, and calling them "a theory too" is to spit in the face of every scientist who has labored lifetimes to unify and test every part of the scientific body of knowledge.

Theory is the highest praise we can heap upon an idea.

Calling somebody's random hunch a theory is to spit on the entire community of science. Just because some (a lot of) people find comfort in the way the woo-woo of those radical ideas sounds, like mystics and their Yoga-Buddhism/Hinduism woo-woo, doesn't mean they are real ideas, which is why they must be subjected to the scientific method, open for reproducible and falsifiable testing. Until that happens, it is not okay to call it "another theory".

actually its more than just one guys 'random hunch'

What is intelligent design?

Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago. Intelligent Design is not the same as creationism  (intelligentdesign.org)

---

no i didnt it  . was from the judges ruling from the link that RS posted

It's the sticker from the books which triggered the whole case. It's amazing that you didn't read anything other than what confirmed your biased position... which, ironically, is the reason they were there.

fine but i wasnt quoting the texbook sticker i was quoting the actual judges ruling