If you really don't want to hear from me again, here is what you need to do
So, when is your court date? I want to see it from the front row. Then, when it's over, I can laugh at the fact I'll never be hearing of you again.-blipey the clueless clown
blipey is clueless because Courts cannot keep me quite- even if I went to trial for introducing ID to public schools and lost. Courts cannot and do not rule over what is and isn't science.
The only way to keep me quiet is to actually find a way to objectively test the theory of evolution. IOW start by coming up with a working hypothesis for stochastic processes- in biology that means a hypothesis that includes culled genetic accidents as the prime cause of diversity.
Ya see if I go to Court over ID the opposition is going to be asked to produce that hypothesis. They are also going to be asked to provide the genetic data that accounts for the physiological and anatomical differences observed between allegedly closely related species such as chimps and humans.
Not only that but any claims made by the opposition that ID is religious will also have to be answered. That means demonstrating that ID says who, when, where, how and why to worship (good luck with that), as well as explaining how their position doesn't require anything beyond nature when it is obvious that natural processes only exist in nature and therefore could not have been responsible for its origins.
Yes, blipey, it will be fun to watch the opposition squirm in their seats when asked to support their position with scientific data when in reality all evolutionitwits can do is to point to minor variations and throw time in the mix to magically get the diversity of life.
It would also be interesting, that is if Barbara Forrest testifies again, if the following could be substantiated (From the Kitzmiller v Dover SB, 10/06/05 AM session, referring to Dr Behe Q is the defense attorney Mr Thompson; A is Barbara Forrest):
Q. He doesn't use religious terms to describe
11 these biological systems, does he?
12 A. No, not in those descriptions. When he is
13 referring to "design," though, that is a religious
Forrest follows that with:
Q. That wasn't my question.
16 A. When he introduces that into his discussion,
17 then that would be a religious term.
Since when did "design" become a religious term? Did she really mean that?
18 Q. But that wasn't my question, was it?
19 A. In specific places in the book, yes, he does
20 speak about it in a scientific fashion.
21 Q. My question was, when he discusses the blood
22 clotting cascade, does he discuss that in scientific
23 terms? And your answer was yes, as I understand it.
24 A. I said when he introduces the concept of
25 design, then he's introducing it as a religious term.
Yes she did!!! That would never pass in any trial I am affiliated with. I would make sure the attorney hammered her on that.
And once we were finished exposing the strawman version of ID they are attacking it would become obvious as to why ID needs to be at least presented in schools- to prevent the blatant lies and misrepresentations (strawman arguments that have been refuted 1,000 times) that the evolutionitwits have been spreading unabated. IOW the evolutionitwits will be exposed for the intellectual cowardice that goes hand-in-hand with their Nazi thought police tactics.