As I discussed here, here, here and here, evolutionists won the day in the Kitzmiller case. But their victory came at a cost. There were substantial legal costs, but evolutionists paid a far greater cost which can’t be measured in dollars. They gave up their soul.
In the Kitzmiller case evolutionists misrepresented science and their own theory. They issued a series of blatant lies in that very public forum for all to see. And later they celebrated their lies in books, videos and web pages.
Even now, years later, when I point out the misrepresentations and lies, evolutionists remain steadfast. The response of evolutionists is 100% indignant and 0% contrite. Consider this response from evolution expert Nick Matzke:
Cornelius, your arguments, if true, would also apply against paternity testing, DNA fingerprinting, etc. It's precisely the same concept -- shared genetic similarity is evidence of genetic relationship. Courts accept it routinely in the forensic situation -- where people's lives are literally on the line! -- yet it magically becomes "lies" all of the sudden when used in support of evolution.
You wonder why creationists keep on losing in court? Your post is an example of why. You couldn't critically examine your own argument or provide a balanced assessment of it if you tried. Which you don't. You have no sense of the weak spots, or the damage your arguments would do to vast areas of science, law, etc., which even you accept, if applied consistently...
But paternity testing and DNA fingerprinting are completely unrelated to the pseudogene example presented by evolutionist Ken Miller at the Kitzmiller trial. This comparison of forensic tests with evolutionary homologies is another common evolutionary canard that evolutionists use to mislead those not familiar with molecular biology.
Forensic tests are performed where genealogical relationships are known to exist because they are empirically observed. There’s no question that people have children, and those children’s DNA sequences derive from their parents, grandparents, and so forth. This we know.
Forensic tests do not rely on heroic hypotheses about unobserved biological phenomena. Forensic tests deal with relationships that are known to exist and the only question is, what are the particular relationships in the case at hand?
This is completely different from the evolutionist’s misrepresentations of how “shared errors” mandate common descent. In both cases DNA comparisons are made, but forensic tests check for genealogical relationships which are known, a priori, to be plausible. We know they exist.
Evolutionary homology tests, on the other hand, argue for common descent relationships that are not known to exist. We do not observe lower primates, as in the case at hand, evolving into humans. Indeed, the DNA comparisons are being used by evolutionists to argue for such types of relationships.
Furthermore, the type of evidence presented in the Kitzmiller trial can be found in cases where common descent doesn’t work and so even evolutionists must agree the DNA matches must have arisen independently.
And of course forensic testing has no built-in religious claims as evolution does. Criminal investigators are not hiding crucial metaphysical assumptions as did the evolutionists at the Kitzmiller trial.
Unfortunately, such facts don’t seem to matter to evolutionists as they continue with their false claims. At some point, however, the web we weave will snare us. Though it may have been a great victory at the time, ultimately the Kitzmiller trial will likely lead to a downfall for evolutionists. For what does a man profit if he gains the whole world but loses his very soul?