I wrote arguments in 2012 (copyright arrived January 2013) to overturn the decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover (2007). I would like to do that. I am certain many people would like to do that. "We" (educated people) were ready to do that before Donald Trump was elected. "We" sat back in case he wanted to do it in the name of his party, denomination, or whatever group. Obviously he did not, and it now appears he never will.
"We" should be ready to proceed then. I am not inclined myself to proceed on behalf of any particular political party, religious denomination, news organization, educational organization, or any particular segment of society. I prefer to make the announcement in concert with a variety groups represented and acknowledging such truth as cannot be denied, and holding no group to blame for the delay. I will however accept support from groups who especially agree with the action.
If there is any opposition to this proceeding please speak up now. Please first acquaint yourselves with my arguments. Basically they note that a misunderstanding of the term "random" gave opponents of intelligent design a loophole to continue pretending life could assemble by probabilities such as one in a million or worse. That gave them an enormous extension of the time a proof might take. My arguments dismiss "probabilities" as being irrelevant because lifeless nature proceeds on a course predetermined by the "laws" science. Nature "obeys" them. The "probability" is always "1" what is going to happen, meaning there are no choices to be made. The outcome is known in advance. As a "probability" it is irrelevant. My original document is on this website here.
If you believe there is nothing new in my arguments it remains a curiosity why the definition of "random" has not been corrected yet, since that should follow. And of course there is the obvious fact the decision in the case has not (at the time of this writing) been overturned. I would be happy to see you overturn Kitzmiller v. Dover on your own though if you can. I would applaud you. I generally do applaud goodness.
It appears there might be some concern about my character or qualifications. Republicans, especially Trump Republicans, accuse me of being a communist, hippie, or otherwise socially maladjusted. I can prove I am none of that.
I in my turn accused both parties of having an underdeveloped world view. I mentioned they depend too much on authority, but have not accepted good leadership lately. They in their turn hope to deny my accomplishment by not accepting my leadership on this issue. Which would prove my point in the long run!
When I applied for my copyright the office did not ask me whether I was a college professor. It is not a requirement. Anyone may discover or create intellectual property and receive credit for it. College professors are generally busy doing well with other things and don't mind missing something. I assume most people in most walks of life are busy doing something else very well for some compensation or other. The copyrighted idea is among the things I do well.
Should courts in the United States find they need to cite copyrighted material in the course of their legal proceedings they may do so without compensating the owner. It is most clearly "fair use" in such events. At the same time however they may not disguise the ownership of the copyright or claim it all for themselves. I agree with all that. My hope is to become recognized as a commentator and journalist alongside the courts. I'm certain that is legal.
So here we are. Will "authorities" in various professions recognize my work? Will they stake their reputations on agreeing with my argument? Or will they rather stake their reputations on disagreeing with my work? I would assure you that no one with a solid academic reputation would dare stake that reputation on upholding Kitzmiller v. Dover, at least certainly not after reading my arguments. What many of them might do is try to pretend I don't exist in whatever hope of finding a better answer. Donald Trump did not fulfill that hope.
So I say let's take names. Ask them to take a stand on Kitzmiller v. Dover. Ask them why they disagree with me if they disagree. Ask them to overturn it themselves if they can. If you have legitimate business with their offices, ask politely for their signature on what they think about it. If it matters to you, tell them how much it matters. The notion of "random" initial assembly of life gets more ridiculous by the semester. The educational system can no longer perpetuate the lie.
Because it appears people are deliberately ignoring my work with various excuses, and making a nuisance of themselves, I think it would be a great service to society if people who are college professors or other "experts" in the requisite fields would make a documentary announcing whether this or some other argument is sufficient to overturn the Kitzmiller v. Dover decision. Alternately they could trying explaining to me what other plan they recommend. I am confident in my work obviously, but some people will not be until some experts step forward on the matter. I am profoundly concerned that the issue needs to be settled in the court of public opinion first otherwise the actual court system might dodge the issue with legal technicalities.
I did nothing illegal or immoral to find the truth I found. I was never a subversive. I am not 5 years old. I never lied about my qualifications. I have had this website over ten years and there is no lie on it still. I do not own a gun myself. I never stole anything. I am not yet a college professor, but I probably will be asked to teach after my work is recognized by some experts.
People who obviously have no idea how these things work believe that it requires credentials to discover or create intellectual properties. It can be that such intellectual properties are how credentials are gained in the first place though. Lately I mentioned that "blind faith" can be a good thing because it can be efficient, saving society the time, expense, and heartache of trying bad ideas over and over. I do try to see the best in people and speak it. It appears some of them thereby decided they are better or more deserving than I am. But I didn't do anything wrong. I didn't cancel the 14th amendment rights of women. I didn't shut down the economy over runny noses, or whatever disease that was, and I did not stand in the way of the legitimate authorities who did what seemed best to them at the time. Those things were done by people with bad blind faith. I just report the facts as I find them.
I have well understood that a majority of people have for several decades suspected intuitively that there is something wrong with believing science has solved the mystery of the origin of life to the point of stifling speculation beyond their preferences. It grieves me how successful charlatans and simpletons have been against them so far. It is time to stand up for our rights.