Please...Your link only mentioned irreducible complexity twice.
There’s an interesting statement written by Judge Jones in his decision:
“After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that
while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court
takes no position,
ID is not science.”
Jones was more interested in upholding the
Law (as he should be). He was misled into thinking that ID is religious, and he wanted to keep religion separate from the state.
(Even the anti-religious Dawkins once promoted ID...he
specifically stated that
aliens could have seeded life on Earth!
That is ID.)
The point is, though....what may actually
be truth, was not the important issue to the court.
Not to certain factions in science, either, apparently.
No, just evolutionary biology. And only certain aspects of that. I also question dating methods, as they rely on the axiom, “the present is the key to the past.” It isn’t.
Certainly, it’s already been documented.
Google Richard Sternberg.
Here’s a link....
Smithsonian "discriminated" against scientist
We are not YEC's.
