Evolutionary trump card

[Coyotero]

Creationists: Something I've always been puzzled about.

Why is evolution viewed as the trump card that would claim to disprove God and creation? Why must divine creation and evolution be mutually exclusive?

I would think that evolution could be said to resemble an intelligently-designed process. It makes sense that if I were God, and I were populating a planet with creatures, I would want the creatures to be adaptable and dynamic, to change with their environment.

Why are people so threatened by this theory?

[McCulloch]

Evolution says absolutely nothing about the Universe, that is Astronomy and Cosmology.

Never say absolutely. Evolution says nothing about cosmology other than there must have been enough time on earth for the evolutionary process to have occurred.

[Grumpy]

McCulloch

Evolution says nothing about cosmology other than there must have been enough time on earth for the evolutionary process to have occurred.

It is a minor quibble, but I would dissagree. Both Cosmology and evolution indicate long periods of time but they come to those conclusions from entirely different lines of reasoning(other branches of science(geology, physics, etc)also come to the same conclusion through different lines). This indicates the increasing certainty of the old age of the Earth and the Universe, but does not indicate that one discipline informs the other, just that they all validate the same conclusions.

"I just love it when a plan comes together"

Grumpy

[Alan Clarke]

SHOULD CREATIONISM BE TAUGHT IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS?

Alan in your attempt to argue away the results of the Dover trial you ignore why there was a trial at all. The school board tried to force creationist teachings into the science curriculum.

The U.S. Govt. and school boards have acted against the will of the people by trying to make evolution exclusive for the science curriculum. More than half of those polled (see below), want creationism taught as well. The 61% who favor evolution being taught include people such as myself who want multiple theories taught because of the comparative advantages offered. Even Aristotle’s “mice from dirty hay� has excellent applicability because it allows one to contrast how ideas develop and change over time. Many school textbooks do indeed teach Aristotle for its novelty, and you are not threatened, so why is creationism threatening?

GALLUP POLL (source)

#1 Do you think each of the following explanations about the origin and development of life on earth should or should not be taught in public school science classes, or are you unsure?

[mrow] 2005 Aug 8-11 [mcol] Yes, should [mcol] No, should not [mcol] Unsure [mcol] No answer [row] Evolution [col] 61% [col] 20 [col] 19 [col] < 0.5% [row] Creationism [col] 54% [col] 22 [col] 23 [col] 1 [row] Intelligent design [col] 43% [col] 21 [col] 35 [col] 1

Creation Science Can Predict
I previously showed how YEC theory predicts polar ice cap melt (uniformitarianists are “surprised�), the current anomalies of our Sun (mag. field < 1/2 of the min. 22 yrs. ago), magnetic field strengths of various solar bodies (Humphreys), mass and sudden animal extinction, coal & oil formation, T. Rex soft tissues, a non-walking coelacanth (also long-term morphological stasis of coelacanths), a Pakicetus with non-transitional forelimbs, human population appearing to be practically zero at the time of the Biblical Flood (evo. model uses magnifying glass on imprecise data points prior to 2500 B.C.), etc.

Many argue that creationism is not empirical. But neither is cosmologic evolution theory for "big bang" time near t=0 as Alan Guth's "something from nothing" expansion theory illustrates. The same holds true for highly-speculative chemical evolution (abiogenisis). Your “speculations� put you on equal footing with creation theory at time near t=0 and at the time of Earth's primordial state 4.5B years ago. After that point, I have never called upon divine power to explain why genetic variation occurs or why the Sun’s useful energy is in decline.

Many school textbooks include Aristotle’s antiquated ideas for historical purposes. How can any scientist in his right mind argue that “critical thinking� is being taught students if all alternate theories are excluded? Even if a theory has a “religious nature�, there is no implication that it cannot be excluded as non-viable (as Aristotelian ideas are excluded) by students who are now empowered with tools to make decisions. If you fear that students will not be able to make the right choice, then you are no different than a Jehovah’s Witness who cannot simply hand a person a Bible and rest with assurance that the reader will come to a self-derived rational conclusion. You are no different than a parent who won’t allow their 16 year-old child to read a Bible for fear that their conclusion may be contrary to yours. The U.S. utilized the Bible in the education system for years but it fell to the wayside quickly when prayer was banned by the Supreme Court in 1962. Prior to 1962, was the U.S. suffering academically? After 1962 has the U.S. suffered academically?


#2 How familiar would you say you are with each of the following explanations about the origin and development of life on earth -- very familiar, somewhat familiar, not too familiar, or not at all familiar?

[mrow] 2005 Aug 5-7 [mcol] Very Familiar [mcol] Somewhat familiar [mcol] Not too familiar [mcol] Not at all familiar [mcol] No opinion [row] Evolution [col] 45% [col] 37 [col] 10 [col] 7 [col] 1 [row] Creationism [col] 45% [col] 29 [col] 15 [col] 9 [col] 2 [row] Intelligent design [col] 17% [col] 28 [col] 27 [col] 25 [col] 3

The above chart illustrates that creationists and evolutionists are not making decisions based on ignorance. The important point is that both theories are on equal footing.


#3 For each of the following, please say whether you believe it is -- definitely true, probably true, probably false, (or) definitely false] as an explanation for the origin and development of life on earth?

[mrow] 2005 Aug 5-7 [mcol] Definitely/ Probably true [mcol] Definitely/ Probably false [mcol] Not familiar/ No opinion [row] Creationism [col] 58% [col] 26 [col] 16 [row] Evolution [col] 55% [col] 34 [col] 11 [row] Intelligent design [col] 31% [col] 32 [col] 37

Again, the polling indicates that both theories are thought to be equally viable except for an unbalance where evolution is thought to be definitely or probably false. If this is the consensus, then why are school boards and the government denying people choice? Under Maoist rule, many persons wanted to grow crops but were paid and/or forced to smelt iron in order to create a “forced� industrial revolution. Countless people starved to death under the hands of a few individuals who did not consider the wishes of the people. To this day, the Chinese govt. imposes a limit on the number of children a family can have. If you can't stomach that idea, then why would you impose a similar limit against the will of the populace? America’s private schools allow people choice but those who are economically disadvantaged have no choice.

#4 If the public schools in your community taught the theory of creationism -- that is, the idea that human beings were created by God in their present form and did not evolve from other species of animals -- would you be upset, or not?

[mrow] 2005 Mar 21-23 [mcol] Combined Responses % [row] Not upset if either taught [col] 45 [row] Upset if evolution taught, but not creationism [col] 30 [row] Upset if creationism taught, but not evolution [col] 18 [row] Upset if both taught [col] 4 [row] No opinion [col] 3

The chart above shines light on the HUGE GAP that exists between the empowered elite and the general populace. What is keeping a civil war from happening again? Consider that the minority 18% would EVEN include ME who would be upset if only creationism were taught. (The comparative aspects would be lost!) The remainder of that small 18% would be people who don’t want people to HAVE A CHOICE. The mindset is no different than that of a dictatorial or fascist government.

Why isn’t a bloody civil war happening?
Answer: The “less than 18%� (15% ??) minority who adamantly oppose ANY choice are evenly distributed from house-to-house unlike the pre-Civil War period where the divide was from State-to-State. Fifteen percent (15%) would mean that out of every 20 houses, 3 houses contain people that are making the lives of the majority miserable. You can’t drop a bomb on every sixth home to eradicate the problem without burning down everyone’s home. Jesus taught how to deal with this problem. In the King James text, the “problem� is defined as "thorns" (tares) growing in a field:

Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:

But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.

But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.

So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?

He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?

But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.

Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

The smoking gun of the trial was the book, "Of pandas and people" The edition that was "anonymously" donated was worded to support ID but when the previous edition was examined it had replaced all the terms for ID with god with no other changes.

Let’s compare like-for-like.
We have textbooks that are “anonymously donated� vs. “govt. and board-mandated through police-enforced taxation�. Kent Hovind is a perfect example of what happens when you don't write checks to pay for govt. services INCLUDING SCHOOL TEXTBOOKS AND ABORTION. I differ from Hovind in that I pay for evolutionist textbooks against my will. Perhaps later in life I'll pay a steeper price. Secondly, Wyvern criticizes the "abridged� edition that replaces “god� with “ID�.

• Which Is Worse?
  
  1) A textbook that changes itself from cover to cover to appeal to consumers who dislike a certain aspect.
  
  2) A textbook that changes itself from cover to first page in order to sell an idea that is not represented by its cover. ("bait and switch" is prosecutable)

The reality of worst case #2 is supported by the following evidences:

Textbooks Advertise “Science� On Cover
But Provide “Speculation� Inside (source)

1. It started with a bang!
“… all the matter in the universe was concentrated into one verey dense, very hot region that may have been much smaller than a period on this page. For some unknown reason, this region exploded. This explosion is called the big bang.�
Prentice Hall – General Science – 1992, page 61

2. Long ago and far away…Earth formed.
“Earth has changed much since its formation 4.5 billion years ago.�
First Grade – Merrill Science – 1989, p. 46

3. Earth was molten lava, cooled down, and turned into a rock.
“As Earth formed, its surface may have been similar to the surface of the moon today. … Earth’s surface was hot and there were large pools of bubbling lava.�

“4.6 billion years ago earth cooled down and formed a rocky crust.�
Holt Earth Science – 1994, p. 280

4. It started to rain, the rains formed oceans.
“Between 3 billion and 3.5 billion years ago, water vapor began to condense. It fell to earth as rain …�
“Oceans formed as it rained on the rocks for millions of years …�
Holt Earth Science, 1989, p. 502

“Millions of years of torrential rains created great oceans�
Holt Earth Science – 1994, p. 281

5. Life started in the soup from complex chemicals.
“… swirling in the waters of the oceans is a bubbling broth of complex chemicals. … progress from a complex chemical soup to a living organism is very slow.�
Holt Earth Science – 1994 p. 282

“It is in these oceans, about 3.5 billion years ago, that scientists believe the first living organisms appeared.�
Glenco Biology – 1995, p. 398

6. Your first grandpa was a bacteria.
“… humans probably evolved from bacteria that lived more than 4 billion years ago.�
HBJ Earth Science – 1989, p. 356

“The first organisms to appear on the planet were bacteria. These early bacteria are the ancestors of modern bacteria and of all the many kinds of organisms living today, including you.�
Biology – Visualizing Life - Holt, Rinehart and Winston – 1998, ch. 11, p. 195

Notice the frequent use of "may have", "probably", and "unknown" which stand in stark contrast to the last textbook, "Visualizing Life", which states matter of factly that humans evolved from bacteria. The only truthful book cover was this last one which replaced the word “Science� with “Visualizing�. The mind must be “trained� to see things that others cannot. The most grievous transgression was the FIRST GRADE text book which incorporated a fairy-tale story line, “Long ago and far away…� to garner attention from 6-year-old children, then switched to an adult concept of “4.5 billion years ago� which a child cannot comprehend but only repeat (i.e. indoctrination). The 4.5 billion-year concept is controversial as evidenced by the polling data. Can one argue that “lack of education� accounts for the polling data that is not favorable to evolution? To do so is circular reasoning if “education� is defined as “educated in evolution�.

Also when everything was said and done it turns out these supposedly good christian people lied under oath and destroyed a large mural because it disagreed with their dogma an action the Taliban would agree with.

I will assume your information is true. In such a case, the individual Christians should be punished and held accountable. The entire population should not suffer and be judged on the failure of a few individuals.

You state the judge was not qualified to pass judgement but all I have to say is the verdict would have come in a lot quicker if put before a science panel and it would have been the same.

I will argue in your favor. I say the judge WAS qualified to impose a penalty for perjury and/or vandalism. But that’s all. He should not presume himself to be an advocate for the “good� of all society in matters pertaining to science. Your next suggestion is to incorporate the judicial system with the stipulation that a “science panel� be used as a jury. In such a case, as in all juries, you cannot discriminate by means of race, creed, color, or religious affiliation. To make sure you are not “tampering� with the jury, would you agree to install a cross-section of the populace that is represented by those who were polled by Gallup? I know people who have no science major but they are very versed in discerning indoctrination, inequality, improbability, ulterior motives, and liars. Of course “science majors� are desirable, but so are liberal arts majors and people like Bill Gates who are drop-outs.



Summary
Most school textbooks expound on "evolution" in a few beginning paragraphs or 2-3 pages at most due to the speculative nature (as illustrated above). If creationism was included with the same level of sparsity, then how is science damaged if the remaining 99% of the book is empirical? Russell Humphreys makes one assumption about the beginning magnetic state of a planet (Bible-based), then supports everything thereafter using Maxwell, Newton, etc. Isn't the energy spent by evolutionists in refuting his argument worthwhile since skills are sharpened in doing so? Newton would not have developed his theory in such detail if he had no opponents. Please consider the advantages of teaching multiple theories.

[Grumpy]

Alan Clarke

SHOULD CREATIONISM BE TAUGHT IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS?

Of course not, it isn't science, it is religious belief and therefore prohibited by the Constitution.

Next question.

Grumpy

[micatala]

Moderator Formal Warning

The important question to ask is not, “Am I in the center of the Universe?�, but “Is God in the center of me?� (god ≠ God).

This comment can be classified as preaching and is also off topic. Alan Clarke has been warned before that the forum is not a platform for expressing miscellaneous opinions, but it is a debate forum.

History is written by the victors. Fortunately, those attempting to revise history by placing revisionist pamphlets on every automobile are not going to succeed while Bible-based Christians are living.

The lesson to be learned from Galileo, is not that the Church held too tightly to biblical truths; but rather that it did not hold tightly enough. It allowed the Greek philosophy of Aristotle to influence its theology and held to tradition rather than to the teachings of the Bible. Click to read whole story.

Parodying other members of the forum is a personal attack. Alan Clarke has been warned about these kinds of tactics previously.

Does it not seem contradictory that Catholic Church’s endorsement of an Aristotelian Universe was also an endorsement of Aristotle who believed that aphids, fleas, mice, and crocodiles came from plant dew, decaying matter, dirty hay, and rotting sunken logs respectively? This compromise is identical to modern-day Christians who think that God uses evolution to create species. The Bible couldn’t be clearer in articulating a line of demarcation between “kinds�. The phrase is repeated so often that only the most indoctrinated, belligerent, die-hard evolutionist could miss it:

One is free to take any position one wishes. However, in the Science Forum, the Bible is not considered reliable evidence.

[micatala]

Moderator Comment

Alan Clarke

The images I posted are not your copyrighted property. They represent "ideas", not people.

No, the pictures were in ridicule of specific people, IE scotracer and I.

If otseng will allow it, I would like to serve your probation and let you go free. Is it a deal? Otseng, are you out there?

Just as a note, there is no need to bring up alleged rules violations or people's probationary status, even one's own, within a thread. Alleged rules violations should always simply be reported to the mods and then not mentioned further in the thread.

[Alan Clarke]

RELIGIOUS BELIEF = PROHIBITED BY CONSTITUTION?

Alan Clarke

SHOULD CREATIONISM BE TAUGHT IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS?

Of course not, it isn't science, it is religious belief and therefore prohibited by the Constitution.

Your highly-detailed articulation of the matter (NOT!) illustrates that your denial amounts to nothing more than a mantra. I've noticed that historical revisionists don't fare well in the face of information availability via the internet. This website alone strikes the death knoll for revisionists. The number of documents refuting the idea that “religion� has no place in government are innumerable.

Providence has given our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as privilege and interest, of a Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.

Here is where your logic disintegrates: The Bible was the center of U.S. education when the country was founded and for a long time thereafter. Were the founders breaking constitutional laws unwittingly?

Most every east-coast university had Christian clergymen as their presidents and/or founders (Yale, Princeton and Harvard to name a few). In 1844 there was U.S. Supreme court case that challenged a Frenchman, Girard, who wanted to build a university that DIDN'T have clergymen for its teachers but instead stipulated that "only the purest principles of morality" be taught (i.e. secular humanism). Daniel Webster represented the U.S. Govt. and won the case against Girard. Here is a key portion of Webster's argument:

"Both in the Old and New Testaments its importance [viz., the religious
instruction of youth] is recognized. In the Old it is said, "Thou shalt
diligently teach them to thy children," and in the New, "Suffer little
children to come unto me and forbid them not . . . ." No fault can be found
with Girard for wishing a marble college to bear his name for ever, but it
is not valuable unless it has a fragrance of Christianity about it."

Rev. John Witherspoon, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, was the sixth president of Princeton University. There was a movement during his day to separate the clergy from governmental affairs. Witherspoon rejected the idea vehemently: Click here.

Witherspoon's satire and sarcasm is priceless. He suggested that if clerics were disallowed from Congress, but later lost their clerical office by way of "cursing and swearing, drunkenness or uncleanness", then that person should be received back into Congress with full pardon and restored constitutional freedom. What's more mind-boggling is to think that Witherspoon would probably be banned from Princeton today (same university where Einstein taught), if he openly proclaimed his philosophic conviction. Look at the following list and notice the titles in front of the names: Princeton University Presidents, then ask yourself where we are today. Are we better or worse? The current president of Princeton University is Shirley M. Tilghman, a molecular biologist. I gleaned the following info from Princeton's website:

When asked if Tilghman believes in the theory of evolution. She smiled again and nodded emphatically. "Oh yeah. I'm a scientist, so I spend my life evaluating information and asking whether that information supports or doesn't support various models. If one looks at the question of evolution, in my opinion, the evidence is overwhelming. Most people who've looked at it objectively believe that that's the case. And how does a scientist answer the question of how did life start? Tilghman said, "Well, I'm an atheist. So I look for scientific explanations, and I think that we don't have a definitive answer to that question as scientists."

Tilghman attributes her “successful� balancing of a scientific career and caring for her family to organization and focus. Read about another “successful� person who not only failed as did Tilghman to hold her marriage together, but in addition she managed to bust up someone else’s family by having an affair, then succeeded in eliminating prayer from schools: Madeleine Murray O'Hare (look at first Wikipedia link) WARNING! Reading is not for the faint-hearted: more children out of wedlock, murder, “…humans should be allowed to engage in intercourse as soon as nature intended, as cattle and flowers do.�, founder of “American Atheists�, O’Hair’s son described her as “profane and vulgar�, "...grotesque statues of mating animals displayed in her home.", etc.

Grumpy, your words are still ringing in my ears, “…prohibited by the Constitution�. O’Hair worked to amend governmental laws in a way that seems to delight you. Can you see no correlation between failed marriages, failed respect, failed motives, failed sexuality, failed logic, failed educators, and failed science?

Next question.

Would Newton have developed his theory in the same detail if he had no opponents? Provide me a list of alternative theories to evolution which you would accept as viable opposition candidates. We are holding our breaths.

[Alan Clarke]

One is free to take any position one wishes. However, in the Science Forum, the Bible is not considered reliable evidence.

Maybe you could help me with the right word if "evidence" is not suitable. What do you call a map that corroborates with the discoveries of lost cities? The newly discovered cities could be rightfully called "evidence", but what do you call the map that leads to the discoveries? As the map's veracity increases through repeated successful predictions, what do you call that map other than "map" so that people will take note?

[JoeyKnothead]

Also when everything was said and done it turns out these supposedly good christian people lied under oath and destroyed a large mural because it disagreed with their dogma an action the Taliban would agree with.

I will assume your information is true. In such a case, the individual Christians should be punished and held accountable. The entire population should not suffer and be judged on the failure of a few individuals.

Tell that to God.

[Wyvern]

Alan in your attempt to argue away the results of the Dover trial you ignore why there was a trial at all. The school board tried to force creationist teachings into the science curriculum.

The U.S. Govt. and school boards have acted against the will of the people by trying to make evolution exclusive for the science curriculum. More than half of those polled (see below), want creationism taught as well. The 61% who favor evolution being taught include people such as myself who want multiple theories taught because of the comparative advantages offered. Even Aristotle’s “mice from dirty hay� has excellent applicability because it allows one to contrast how ideas develop and change over time. Many school textbooks do indeed teach Aristotle for its novelty, and you are not threatened, so why is creationism threatening?

Creationism isn't threatening it simply isn't science, and I hope you would agree that we should be teaching science in a science class. Science is pretty adaptable if a paradigm shift should occur which would invalidate evolution then you can rest assured that it will be relegated to the trashbin, as you have pointed out yourself this has happened many times in the past. The big thing though is that science is not a popularity contest and I would not be surprised if creationism is taught just not in science class but in history of science classes much like Aristotles ideas.

Many argue that creationism is not empirical. But neither is cosmologic evolution theory for "big bang" time near t=0 as Alan Guth's "something from nothing" expansion theory illustrates. The same holds true for highly-speculative chemical evolution (abiogenisis). Your “speculations� put you on equal footing with creation theory at time near t=0 and at the time of Earth's primordial state 4.5B years ago. After that point, I have never called upon divine power to explain why genetic variation occurs or why the Sun’s useful energy is in decline.

The big bang is not something from nothing, at t=0 we simply have no idea what was there it is a singularity just like the event horizon of a black hole, and no I am not saying that the big bang was a black hole.

Many school textbooks include Aristotle’s antiquated ideas for historical purposes. How can any scientist in his right mind argue that “critical thinking� is being taught students if all alternate theories are excluded? Even if a theory has a “religious nature�, there is no implication that it cannot be excluded as non-viable (as Aristotelian ideas are excluded) by students who are now empowered with tools to make decisions. If you fear that students will not be able to make the right choice, then you are no different than a Jehovah’s Witness who cannot simply hand a person a Bible and rest with assurance that the reader will come to a self-derived rational conclusion. You are no different than a parent who won’t allow their 16 year-old child to read a Bible for fear that their conclusion may be contrary to yours. The U.S. utilized the Bible in the education system for years but it fell to the wayside quickly when prayer was banned by the Supreme Court in 1962. Prior to 1962, was the U.S. suffering academically? After 1962 has the U.S. suffered academically?

Yes if you want to throw in a unit on creationism in a history of science class that would be fine just not in an actual science class.

The above chart illustrates that creationists and evolutionists are not making decisions based on ignorance. The important point is that both theories are on equal footing.

No they are not, creationists have yet to turn their beliefs into a working theory, which would entail proving god exists scientifically.

We have textbooks that are “anonymously donated� vs. “govt. and board-mandated through police-enforced taxation�. Kent Hovind is a perfect example of what happens when you don't write checks to pay for govt. services INCLUDING SCHOOL TEXTBOOKS AND ABORTION. I differ from Hovind in that I pay for evolutionist textbooks against my will. Perhaps later in life I'll pay a steeper price. Secondly, Wyvern criticizes the "abridged� edition that replaces “god� with “ID�.

Absolutely I critisize the two editions because it shows the levels of deceit the authors would go to to get god into the classroom. Do you really want your god to be represented by such shady characters? Hey if you don't like taxes so much you are free to move to a country that does not do so, but face it those evil taxes pay for the roads you drive on and the military that protects us and many other things which improve our collective lives.

Also when everything was said and done it turns out these supposedly good christian people lied under oath and destroyed a large mural because it disagreed with their dogma an action the Taliban would agree with.

I will assume your information is true. In such a case, the individual Christians should be punished and held accountable. The entire population should not suffer and be judged on the failure of a few individuals.

That's the whole point these few individuals tried to make the children of an entire community suffer because of their beliefs. In the following school board election they were held accountable and every one of them was voted out of office.

You state the judge was not qualified to pass judgement but all I have to say is the verdict would have come in a lot quicker if put before a science panel and it would have been the same.

I will argue in your favor. I say the judge WAS qualified to impose a penalty for perjury and/or vandalism. But that’s all. He should not presume himself to be an advocate for the “good� of all society in matters pertaining to science. Your next suggestion is to incorporate the judicial system with the stipulation that a “science panel� be used as a jury. In such a case, as in all juries, you cannot discriminate by means of race, creed, color, or religious affiliation. To make sure you are not “tampering� with the jury, would you agree to install a cross-section of the populace that is represented by those who were polled by Gallup? I know people who have no science major but they are very versed in discerning indoctrination, inequality, improbability, ulterior motives, and liars. Of course “science majors� are desirable, but so are liberal arts majors and people like Bill Gates who are drop-outs.

Wow did you misinterpret what I said. You stated the judge was not qualified to judge on a matter of science and if you would look into the case a bit you would see that it was about the relabeling of creationism into ID. All the judge really needed was to see the two different editions of the book which was unchanged except for turning god into an intelligent entity which meant that the terms were synonymous.