tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5506870823292198189.post6455337777569047343..comments2023-09-16T09:31:23.577-04:00Comments on Please be patient, I am evolving as fast as I can!: Melanie Phillips is just plain wrongTed Herrlichhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03194189686075222808noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5506870823292198189.post-14056508595628104872009-05-07T17:58:00.000-04:002009-05-07T17:58:00.000-04:00Forrest's book Creationism's Trojan Horse has a 20...Forrest's book Creationism's Trojan Horse has a 2006 edition that includes a chapter on Kitzmiller.Olorinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05240133812210926831noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5506870823292198189.post-72696183503492727082009-05-07T15:54:00.000-04:002009-05-07T15:54:00.000-04:00Absolutely! I also found Dr. Forrest's paper on t...Absolutely! I also found Dr. Forrest's paper on the subject (http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/intelligent-design.pdf) quite interesting.Ted Herrlichhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03194189686075222808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5506870823292198189.post-25350037830921007942009-05-07T15:36:00.000-04:002009-05-07T15:36:00.000-04:00Sorry, I misspoke in saying that Prof. Miller did...Sorry, I misspoke in saying that Prof. Miller did not testify at all as to the religious nature of intelligent design.<br /><br />The focus of Prof. Miller’s testimony was the status of evolution as a scientific theory, including the nature of and requirements for such theories. The purpose of that was to demonstrate that the content of intelligent design does not qualify as a scientific theory. TH’s single quoted Q & A asked Miller his opinion as to whether the content of ID conformed to religious creationism , but this subject was not elaborated upon. That is, Miller did not present evidence on this question, merely his bare opinion.<br /><br />The focus of Prof. Forrest’s testimony, on the other hand, was precisely the religious history and motivation of intelligent design, and the presentation of evidence to support this conclusion.. Miller’s contribution to the judge’s holding on this point was almost nothing.Olorinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05240133812210926831noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5506870823292198189.post-32135326546497757812009-05-06T23:35:00.000-04:002009-05-06T23:35:00.000-04:00For the most part you are correct, but he certainl...For the most part you are correct, but he certainly offered his expert opinion that ID was Creationism by a new name. He certainly made his religious opion clear under cross examination as well.<br /><br />"And I had never heard of the book [Of Pandas and People] at the time. They mailed me a copy. I read through the book. And I was unfamiliar with the person who opposed me in debate at that time, but his name was Michael Behe, and as I mentioned, he's a biochemistry professor from Lehigh University. And that was the first place where I heard the term "intelligent design" used in place of the more familiar creation science, which I had debated with various people in the early 1980s."<br /><br />"Q. Do you have an opinion about whether intelligent design is a particular religious view, namely a form of creationism?<br /><br />A. Yes, sir, I do.<br /><br />Q. And what is that opinion?<br /><br />A. I believe that intelligent design is inherently religious and it is a form of creationism. It is a classic form of creationism known as special creationism."<br /><br />Both from his original testimony, accessed at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day1am.html#day1am110Ted Herrlichhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03194189686075222808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5506870823292198189.post-76782268533108305692009-05-06T22:33:00.000-04:002009-05-06T22:33:00.000-04:00Ms. Phillips was abjectly wrong in any case. Pro...Ms. Phillips was abjectly wrong in any case. Prof. Miller did not testify at all as to the religious status of intelligent design. That fell to Barbara Forrest, whose book, Creationism's Trojan Horse contains a thousand documented references to support her position. She was the only witness that the defendants sought to disqualify, and the Discovery Institute mounted a personal smear campaign against her on the web and in the media. <br /><br />Not a single point of her testimony in the Kitzmiller trial was refuted by any evidence put forth by the defendants. Nothing.Olorinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05240133812210926831noreply@blogger.com