Quote
Quote
The book was intended for use in schools as a science text. Therefore it was not written to promote any religion, but to teach science.

Which is an oxymoron until you can show creationism to be scientific. That's why the court ruled that this book could not be used in science classes.
No. If the book teaches science it's a science book.

Don't expect me to take your word on the court's motive(s). Your capacity to assess history & motives has not impressed me thus far.
Quote
Quote
this is the best you can come up with to link it to religion: guilt by association.

It originated as a creationist text. The revisions to turn it into an ID text were not significant and most of them consisted of replacing "creationist" with "ID." The God of the Bible is now an unnamed creator. It is specious to claim that this is anything other than Biblical creationist religious teaching. In order to strengthen your case, maybe you can present an example of a person who is not a fundamentalist Christian yet who accepts ID. My thinking is that they'll be pretty hard to find.
The book is claimed to be a science book. You claim it teaches religion? How come none of the dozens (minimum) of evolutionists who've gone over it with a fine-toothed comb haven't been able to find even one single reference to religion in the book? Are they all just too stupid? I'm confident the only thing in that book is science & I suspect you are also. If not, what's your excuse?

Quote
Quote
any empirical test is compatible with creation science

Explain?
It's a pretty simple sentence. Which term is giving you trouble?

Quote
Quote
"this X is too complex, based upon a, b, c" is not incredulity.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask for a specific example. Before the invention of the microscope, when people realised that large things look very different when viewed on a very small scale, do you think many people would have believed it if you'd told them about the existence of atoms? After all, you can't see them. Common substances would have appeared to be irreducible. But now we know about atoms, and quarks and leptons and gluons, and all sorts of things with crazy names. We're not even sure if they are the final reductions of matter. How would we ever learn about these things if we delcare them to be irreducibly complex, and walk away?
Based upon the observation that a helium balloon rises, I don't think gravity works. That's an example of an argument which isn't based upon incredulity.

See any other argument I've ever made for more examples (excepting the ones which openly state that I base them on incredulity).

Quote
While scientists in other countries continue to learn about the world and how it works, it appears that you would have American scientists abandon their labs and get all their information from the Bible. While people then congratulate themselves about how holy they are, they will be technologically surpassed by much of the rest of the developed world. Fortunately this is unlikely to happen.
It may appear so in your imagination. Nothing I've said indicates this. But I will say this: even your goofy imagined scenario beats having people get their information exclusively from talkdeceptions. Beats it all to pieces!

You presume an awful lot to tar me or any other creationist with your slime. I have growing reservations about your intent. YOUR clowns are the ones ACTIVELY GOING OUT OF THEIR WAY to obstruct any creation or I.D. scientist from even having the opportunity to work! If I wanted them to give up science, I'd be on your side.

Dark Matter + Dark Energy = Dark Truth

"We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution." - Judge Jones Kitzmiller case
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Falsify.cfm

"To Compel A Man To Furnish Funds For The Propagation Of Ideas He Disbelieves And Abhors Is Sinful And Tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson

"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?" - Thomas Jefferson