pure unadulterated BS and you know it.so you can’t practice medicine unless you are an evolutionist?

That is not what I said. Sure you could probably be a decent family practice doctor or a OB/GYN. However, in terms of cutting edge medical research evolutionary theory, genetics, and such fields are very much involved.

is the hope to educate or indoctrinate? if the goal is educate,then teach biological processes first and save evolutionary theory for post-secondary[more rigorous]education.have you read “an origin of specious”?[sic]

Considering that science considers all answers to be conditionally true (unlike religion which considers some answers to be true no matter the evidence--e.g. dogma), call it indoctrination is just goofy.

Nothing in biology makes any sense save in terms of evolutionary theory. However, evolutionary theory, as taught in mose public schools, is not that rigorous. It would require too much of the students.

The scientific method does not include the supernatural. I believe this. Many philosophers of science believe this, almost all scientists believe this, and the court went with this view as well. I don't see what you are objecting about other than reasonable people have defined science to be something you don't like. Is that a reasonable summation of your complaint?

Judge Jones did not define science. Any defintion was given by the scientific expert witnesses in this case. His conclusion was based on the definition given by experts in science who were crossexamined, ID does not meet that definition. In fact, the court transcript shows that the defense expert witness acknowledged that ID doesn't meet the definition of science.

What else can be drawn from this statement, than he figures science means there is no higher power, and thereby, we are alone in the universe, and the largest power in it?

Not true, what it means is that the question of whether or not there is a higher power is outside the purview of science. Science can't answer that question even if "it" tried. So concluding that this implies that there is no higher power is logically flawed.

Creation science by definition, uses scientific methods to back it’s arguments… in precisely the same way evolutionists back theirs.

No. Scientists use the scientific method to establish the (conditional) veracity of a hypothesis. If the results are that another hypothesis is better, then the current hypothesis is replaced. Creation "scientists" by contrast have a predetermined conclusion and the data is made to fit that conclusion. That is merely apologetics, not science.

Oh, but I HAVE in fact read them. And that runs afoul of what I said, how? I mean, does it stirke you as logical, that someone (or a group of someones) with the power to create a universe wouldn’t be able to create US, as well? Or, the reverse, for that matter…

Sure, I grant everything you have written. However, this is precisely why it is NOT science. If you have such a being then the "God Hypothesis" cannot be out performed by any natural hypothesis. Hence gravity is the result of God. Your heart beats because God wills it. Your car works because God has willed it to work. No amount of evidence can beat this hypothesis.

Look, I personally operate from the standpoint of God, (Or anyone, for that matter) making a universe would create a fairly big bang. I see no conflict, between evolution and creation. I see nothing in creation that excludes a creative inteligence being behind it’s creation. INdeed, there are many thusfar unexplained phenom in our universe which would be better understood, if we allowed for the idea of someone else having created it, as opposed to be being some random chance or another.

Not to be rude, but this is why my ancestors believed in the God Thor. They couldn't explain lightening so they created a being that was responsible for it.

It would be interesting to go back over the last 50 years and try to catalogue some of the historical "unexplained phenomenon" and see if science how many science has subsequently explained.

I find that denying out of hand the possibility of our universe… and ourselves, having been created, isn’t very scientific.

Again, nobody has done that. All that Judge Jones has done is say the following:

1. ID is not science since it allows for the supernatural which is a "science stopper".
2. ID is religious in nature and intent.
3. Based on 2, it is unconstitutional to teach ID in public school science curricula.

There is nothing preventing IDists from rolling up their sleeves and getting busy with science as they interpret it. Ironically in the last 19 years (ID first popped up in modern times in 1987) not a single bit of science based on ID has been done. Kinda ironic for a scientific endeavor...no?

Under our system of justice, a judge must consider a case based upon the law and the facts presented in court. When the judge said that ID was not science, he was saying that ID did not meet the definitions given by the expert witnesses. In fact one of the witnesses on the ID side clearly said that for ID to be scientific the definition of science would have to be changed and changed in such a way that atrology would be a science. You are also engaging in the kind of duality that Judge Jones rightly decried. He made it quite clear in his opinion that he was not denying that a creator existed. Although not part of the trial record, I would ask you to consider the following. The ID argument believes that there is a creator because living organisms are irreducibly complex and all irreducibly complex things are created. However the creator of those irreducibly complex living organisms is irreducibly complex and thus, under the ID theory, must have been created. Doesn't this go on ad infinitum.

The court’s ruling that Intelligent Design is nothing more than a sham was better than I’d expected:

A ?hypothetical reasonable observer,? adult or child, who is ?aware of the history and context of the community and forum? is al...

The court concluded that creation science “is simply not science” because it depends upon “supernatural intervention,” which cannot be explained by natural causes, or be proven through empirical investigation, and is therefore neither testable nor falsifiable.

What else can be drawn from this statement, than he figures science means there is no higher power, and thereby, we are alone in the universe, and the largest power in it?

Creation science by definition, uses scientific methods to back it's arguments... in precisely the same way evolutionists back theirs.

From what I’ve read Judge Jones was appointed by George W. Bush, his political patrons are Rick Santorum and Tom Ridge.

Given the record of Republicans and court appointments of late...(See also, Stephan Breyer, as an example) I'm not sure how much credit this point is due.

This is baloney if you actually read the ID literature, views, and comments. This designer isn’t merely a time travelling cell biologist, but is a being that designs the entire universe.

Oh, but I HAVE in fact read them. And that runs afoul of what I said, how? I mean, does it stirke you as logical, that someone (or a group of someones) with the power to create a universe wouldn't be able to create US, as well? Or, the reverse, for that matter...

Look, I personally operate from the standpoint of God, (Or anyone, for that matter) making a universe would create a fairly big bang. I see no conflict, between evolution and creation. I see nothing in creation that excludes a creative inteligence being behind it's creation. INdeed, there are many thusfar unexplained phenom in our universe which would be better understood, if we allowed for the idea of someone else having created it, as opposed to be being some random chance or another.

I find that denying out of hand the possibility of our universe... and ourselves, having been created, isn't very scientific.

As a parting shot: If anyone really thinks that atheism isn't itself a religion, fraught with many of the same faults and terrors that the other religions suffer, they need only witness what happens when you challange the basic precepts of Atheism...

And I'm not even raising God concepts as a part of the discussion, past the idea that any being with such a power could be percived as a God.

What the court has said in reality is that there are no higher beings than Humans.

Really, read the decision and provide even a single quote that supports this assertion. I'm calling Bravo Sierra on this one.

The concept of ID is simply that someone more powerful than we exists, that they created the world and the things on it.

And that someone is also outside of nature--i.e. supernatural. This renders it outside the purview of science and places it in the realm of religion.

As to the implication of that being, being God… well, was it Small, or Short or something like that… “any technology sufficiently advanced, will be perceived as being Godlike” Or somthing. And that was something of a byword in in the scientific. the court has apparently rejected this, as well.

This is baloney if you actually read the ID literature, views, and comments. This designer isn't merely a time travelling cell biologist, but is a being that designs the entire universe.

The bottom line here, is that the judge has stepped into the arena of ruling on the logically impossible, to say nothing of stepping outside his realm.

This conclusion is predicated on your false claims and hence is itself immediately suspect. Further, the judge did not rule that there is no God, but that trying to put God into a public school science curriculum is in violation of established case law. Big, big difference.

Can he honestly say he understands what constitutes Science better than scientists, who also happen to belive in God?

Ken Miller, a Catholic, is on the same page as the judge. So, I'd say that this is just not relevant.

I can’t imagine this being the final word on the matter. I would also be very interested indeed on this judge’s background, given what I see in the transcripts.

From what I've read Judge Jones was appointed by George W. Bush, his political patrons are Rick Santorum and Tom Ridge. Go ahead and try to paint him as a liberal activist judge, but you'll simple be adding another data point that conservatives call judicial activism anything court outcome they don't like.