Answers for Judge Jones

_{Cornelius Hunter

June 19, 2009

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

In my previous post I posed two questions for Judge Jones. The answers to the second question are A, B and C. That is, (A) Evolutionary theory incorporates religious premises, (B) Proponents of evolutionary theory are religious people and (C) Evolutionary theory mandates certain types of solutions.

Continue reading here.

Comments

----Echidna-Levy: "Flew does not count as an atheist who believes in ID because he is not an atheist!" Checking in from my vacation perch, I find Echidna-Levy making several incredibly irrational statements. With regard to the above, if an atheist was converted to theism by intelligent design, then he obviously counts as one who found ID plausible without believing in God. Present or past tense has nothing to do with it. ----"I’ll ask you too then as nobody else wants to answer - why does Flew now believe in the Christian god instead of the “the intelligent designer”?" Your confusion may set new records here. First, Anthony Flew does not believe in the Christian God, even if he did, your point would be irrelevant. A person can come to believe in Christianity by other means after having been brought out of his atheism by ID. ----"So, in the whole history of science we’re up to what, 5 names of people who (you say) support ID but are athiest." There are a lot more than that, but there is no reason to list them all. I could have included Bill Gates, several other computer geeks and a few well-educated engineers, but what is the point. If I gave you 20, you would ask for 100, change the subject, or refuse to respond. The point is that in each case, ID did not depend on a believe in God. You are refuted. Deal with it. ---Learned Hand: "As an aside, I think that you’ll find that telling people that ID made an atheist come to Jesus is extraordinarily poor support for your argument that ID is not inextricably bound up in religious faith." That statement goes against the facts and against logic. First, Anthony Flew did not come to Christianity. Second, If he had, it would not mean that ID was the reason. ----David Kellogg to Learned hand concerning his anti-factual and illogical statement: "True. And well put." Ah yes. Three cheers from the "Amen corner." Back to vacation. I hope!StephenB_{July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
04:16 AM
4
04
16
AM
PST}

This is a excerpt from Emerson's essay "Self Reliance". It's for Echinda and Mereologist, who love other's opinions: "The political parties meet in numerous conventions; the greater the concourse, and with each new uproar of announcement, The delegation from Essex! The Democrats from New Hampshire! The Whigs of Maine! the young patriot feels himself stronger than before by a new thousand of eyes and arms. In like manner the reformers summon conventions, and vote and resolve in multitude. Not so, O friends! will the God deign to enter and inhabit you, but by a method precisely the reverse. It is only as a man puts off all foreign support, and stands alone, that I see him to be strong and to prevail. He is weaker by every recruit to his banner. Is not a man better than a town? Ask nothing of men, and in the endless mutation, thou only firm column must presently appear the upholder of all that surrounds thee. He who knows that power is inborn, that he is weak because he has looked for good out of him and elsewhere, and so perceiving, throws himself unhesitatingly on his thought, instantly rights himself, stands in the erect position, commands his limbs, works miracles; just as a man who stands on his feet is stronger than a man who stands on his head. So use all that is called Fortune. Most men gamble with her, and gain all, and lose all, as her wheel rolls. But do thou leave as unlawful these winnings, and deal with Cause and Effect, the chancellors of God. In the Will work and acquire, and thou hast chained the wheel of Chance, and shalt sit hereafter out of fear from her rotations. A political victory, a rise of rents, the recovery of your sick, or the return of your absent friend, or some other favorable event, raises your spirits, and you think good days are preparing for you. Do not believe it. Nothing can bring you peace but yourself. Nothing can bring you peace but the triumph of principles."lamarck_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
05:09 PM
5
05
09
PM
PST}

So, in the whole history of science we're up to what, 5 names of people who (you say) support ID but are athiest. 5 people? And Hoyle? He believed in god! He's not an athiest! He's was not an athiest ID supporter, whatever you might think! As the post said
And the truth is that Hoyle absolutely disbelieved in Darwinism. He thought that there is intelligence “out there” in the cosmos, and perhaps in past time, that is directing the progress of life on Earth.
Sounds like "god" to me. Therefore he was not an athiest! Therefore you cannot claim Hoyle as an athiest who believed in ID!Echidna-Levy_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
04:37 AM
4
04
37
AM
PST}

KF
I could not but observe that above one objection made was that Flew is no longer an atheist, so this outstanding case somehow does not count
No, that's not at all what was meant and you know it. Flew does not count as an atheist who believes in ID because he is not an atheist! You tell me what you mean by the word "count" in the phrase
Flew is no longer an atheist, so this outstanding case somehow does not count
Well?
So, he looked at the modern design theory and walked away from a lifetime of pro-atheist scholarship. And, lo and behold, this therefore suddenly “doesn’t count” in showing that the plausibility of ID evidence and reasoning does not DEPEND on one’s theism or atheism.
I'll ask you too then as nobody else wants to answer - why does Flew now believe in the Christian god instead of the "the intelligent designer"?Echidna-Levy_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
04:30 AM
4
04
30
AM
PST}

As I too head out to vacation: I could not but observe that above one objection made was that Flew is no longer an atheist, so this outstanding case somehow does not count: _____________ Q: So, what was he when he considered the issues on the design inference (and SB, this includes as far back as fora when TMLO came out, in which he indicated that he was taking the TBO critical review of OOL seriously)? ANS: The world's leading philosophical atheist, with a heavy inclination to science related issues. ________ So, he looked at the modern design theory and walked away from a lifetime of pro-atheist scholarship. And, lo and behold, this therefore suddenly "doesn't count" in showing that the plausibility of ID evidence and reasoning does not DEPEND on one's theism or atheism. (On that now much despised subject, logic 101: if there is but one solid counter instance to a universal claim, the universal fails.) I must underscore in signing off: arguments draw their persuasive power from one or more of three forces: emotions, authority, claimed facts and logic. Of these, emotions -- especially those of hostility -- are notoriously blinding. (Which is why distractions, distortions, demonisation and dismissal leading to polarisation and confusion are the stock in trade of destructive propagandists. Therefore, let us never forget: distortions, confusion, and deep hostility cultivated at institutional and governmental levels -- as the ACLU/Jones decision's irresponsible and demonstrable slanders against the ID movement clearly instantiate [start with the weak argument correctives in the sidebar above, then go here for more] -- have terrible consequences for the course of justice in a land. And, before we can get to the level of institutionalising massive injustice, a critical mass of the public have to first become polarised, alienated from those who have serious counters to the intended policy, and confused about the true weight of the relevant facts. So, those who come here in droves to repeat carefully crafted but demostrably false or distorted talking points and then refuse to even read a simple corrective on the many fallacies that are commonly propagated to drive a wedge across our civilisation about the evidence for design in life and in our universe, should take pause to reflect on where such trends of behaviour historically head: in the end, you, too, have a personal duty to truth and fairness. [And if you think the major totalitarianisms of the last century are the only relevant cases in point ("it can't happen here . . . "), let's bring this one a lot closer to home: the sad fate of 48+ millions of unborn children in the USA since 1973 -- thus, at the hands of courts acting under colour of law -- is not at all an irrelevant example.]) Similarly, no authority -- whether acting in the name of God or of "science" or "the people" or "justice" or any other cause -- is better than the facts and reasoning behind his or her claims. So, it is only when the facts claimed are so and represent the undistorted material truth; and lead on to correct reasoning that conclusions are trustworthy. Therefore, when we see the sophomoric misunderstadnings and closed minded mateirlaistic a priorism in the Lewontinian materialism now being instituionalised by the US National Academy of Science and the like, we should think again. Very carefully indeed. And, from the thread above, it is highly evident that in our time, many acting in the name of science have demonstrably traded on half truths, distortions, distractions and outright demonisation; which in the case of the ACLU/Jones decision on ID has been institutionalised in law. So, it is time to think, very carefully about where our civilisation is headed. Good day, gentlemen. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
04:04 AM
4
04
04
AM
PST}

mereologist, He's writing a book in support of ID.Clive Hayden_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
12:21 AM
12
12
21
AM
PST}

Clive, How about giving us a quote from Monton that supports your contention that he "believes in ID"?mereologist_{July 1, 2009
July
07
Jul
1
01
2009
11:08 PM
11
11
08
PM
PST}

mereologist, I do not agree, read about him please, and you'll see, that he, supports ID. :)Clive Hayden_{July 1, 2009
July
07
Jul
1
01
2009
11:00 PM
11
11
00
PM
PST}

Clive, You claimed that Monton "believes in ID." Do you now concede that your statement was incorrect?mereologist_{July 1, 2009
July
07
Jul
1
01
2009
10:20 PM
10
10
20
PM
PST}

mereologist, follow up on the link if you want to know more about Monton supporting ID.Clive Hayden_{July 1, 2009
July
07
Jul
1
01
2009
10:11 PM
10
10
11
PM
PST}

Clive, You claimed that Monton is "an atheist who believes in ID." Nothing in your quote of Monton supports that view. All he says is that ID arguments are "somewhat plausible" and that ID should be taught in science classes. That is a far cry from "believing in ID."mereologist_{July 1, 2009
July
07
Jul
1
01
2009
10:05 PM
10
10
05
PM
PST}

mereologist, Bradley Monton argued for the atheistic ID supporter side in a debate in Ft. Worth, with David Berlinski on his side. He is pro-ID. He said: "The doctrine of intelligent design has been maligned by atheists, but even though I'm an atheist, I'm of the opinion that the arguments for intelligent design are stronger than most realize. The goal of this book is to try to get people to take intelligent design seriously. I maintain that it is legitimate to view intelligent design as science, that there are somewhat plausible arguments for the existence of a cosmic designer, and that intelligent design should be taught in public school science classes." from his book Seeking God in Science, An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design. http://spot.colorado.edu/~monton/BradleyMonton/ID.html AND, of course, not to forget David Berlinski, himself as an agnostic ID supporter, and Fred Hoyle. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/fred-hoyle-an-atheist-for-id/Clive Hayden_{July 1, 2009
July
07
Jul
1
01
2009
09:34 PM
9
09
34
PM
PST}

Clive, Unless Monton has changed his position recently, he is not an ID supporter. He is just less critical of ID than most atheists. As Bill Dembski wrote:
Bradley Monton, a Princeton-trained philosopher on the faculty at the University of Kentucky, has an important piece on Dover here. Though Monton is not an ID proponent (he is a philosopher of physics who in his professional work is quite critical of fine-tuning as evidence for God), he exhibits little patience for the reasoning in Judge Jones’s decision.
Keep looking.mereologist_{July 1, 2009
July
07
Jul
1
01
2009
09:30 PM
9
09
30
PM
PST}

Echidna, Meet Bradley Monton, an atheist who believes in ID. http://bradleymonton.wordpress.com/Clive Hayden_{July 1, 2009
July
07
Jul
1
01
2009
09:28 PM
9
09
28
PM
PST}

David Kellogg, ------"I can’t think of an atheist who supports ID. Flew is an ex-atheist, so he can’t really count." Bradley Monton. http://bradleymonton.wordpress.com/ David Berlinski, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGAAQfZ0AwE Fred Hoyle, https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/fred-hoyle-an-atheist-for-id/Clive Hayden_{July 1, 2009
July
07
Jul
1
01
2009
09:16 PM
9
09
16
PM
PST}

As an aside, I think that you’ll find that telling people that ID made an atheist come to Jesus is extraordinarily poor support for your argument that ID is not inextricably bound up in religious faith.
True. And well put. But as far as I know, Flew has not come to Jesus (yet! the evangelical adds hopefully) but to God as a general proposition. That he did so on the basis of the evidence alone is his view, of course, but it too could be conteste.dDavid Kellogg_{July 1, 2009
July
07
Jul
1
01
2009
07:43 PM
7
07
43
PM
PST}

Now the obvious question for any thinking person, (that would rule out Judge Jones... Do you feel that juvenile, grammatically incorrect snide aside is a good representation of your character? After seven hundred and fifty comments, I do. If ID’s plausibility “depends on the extent to which one believes in God,” how is it that Anthony Flew, one who clearly did not believe in God, not only found it plausible, but literally changed his life as a response to it[?] I'm not aware that the court ever said that ID is exclusively the province of religious people. I'm quite certain, having read the whole thing, that the opinion doesn't rest on that proposition. You appear to have come to the contrary conclusion by reading one sentence, out of context, over and over and over again. If you had put that time and energy into reading the rest of the opinion, you'd be done by now. As an aside, I think that you'll find that telling people that ID made an atheist come to Jesus is extraordinarily poor support for your argument that ID is not inextricably bound up in religious faith.Learned Hand_{July 1, 2009
July
07
Jul
1
01
2009
07:34 PM
7
07
34
PM
PST}

No, you are the irrational one. I'm the rational one in this conversation. Gosh, that's so easy! I wish I'd discovered it before. Just say it, and it's true! Wonderful.Echidna-Levy_{July 1, 2009
July
07
Jul
1
01
2009
07:21 PM
7
07
21
PM
PST}

Have a wonderful vacation StephenB. Do something exotic, but stay away from the Appalachian Trail.David Kellogg_{July 1, 2009
July
07
Jul
1
01
2009
07:19 PM
7
07
19
PM
PST}

Typical irrational answers. Vacation time. Let the Darwinist love fest begin. Adios.StephenB_{July 1, 2009
July
07
Jul
1
01
2009
07:12 PM
7
07
12
PM
PST}

I can't think of an atheist who supports ID. Flew is an ex-atheist, so he can't really count.David Kellogg_{July 1, 2009
July
07
Jul
1
01
2009
05:53 PM
5
05
53
PM
PST}

StephenB
The unavoidable issue is that ID is not “peculiar to Christianity” nor is it even peculiar to theism? One need not be a Christian or even a theist to believe it.
Yet when asked to name 20 you stumble, give a few names one of which does not even support ID. Yet I can point to hundreds of scientists called "Steve" who agree with this statement
It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.
http://ncseweb.org/taking-action/project-steve
The anthropic principle holds that the universe appears especially designed to accommodate human life.
This is simply untrue. Refer to Wikipedia
The anthropic principle has given rise to some confusion and controversy, partly because the phrase has been applied to several distinct ideas. All versions of the principle have been accused of undermining the search for a deeper physical understanding of the universe. Those who invoke the anthropic principle often invoke multiple universes or an intelligent designer, both controversial and criticised for being untestable and therefore outside the purview of accepted science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle Namely
The only kind of universe humans can occupy is one that is similar to the current one.
Not what you said.
Among other measurements that could be mentioned, the ratio of gravitational force constant to the electromagnetic force constant could not differ more than one part in ten to the fortieth power. (one part in ten thousand trillion x trillion x trillion). There are more than 150 of these finely tuned characteristics.
And the puddle finds itself in a hole that exactly fits it and wonders how such a miracle could have happened. And in any case, are you saying that your "intelligent designer" would have been unable to bring about human life in a universe with different values for the gravitational force constant and the electromagnetic force constant?
I have already explained on this site that many agnostics and some atheists accept intelligent design.
Yep, but you can't name 20. Simple question then
If agnostics and even atheists can accept intelligent design, and be persuaded by it, then obviously it cannot be a faith based paradigm.
If atheists can accept intelligent design then they and you must think the intelligent designer is also present (or was) in the universe with us, in a material way. Not in a non-material way. Or they'd be believeing in your god. And would no longer be athiests. Do you accept that the intelligent designer who did the flagellum etc could just be a material alien? If so, do you accept that ID as it stands can't be used to prove anything one way or the other about if "the designer" is a material alien entity or the christian god? And that, logically, that alien would itself have arisen in a material way? Occams razor. Or would it have StephenB, could it have?
This fact alone completely destroys the argument that ID is faith based, or that it depends on religion in any way.
Willam Dembski - Touchstone Magazine. Volume 12, Issue4: July/August, 1999
Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory
http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/William_Dembski#cite_note-dembski_logos-0
ID does not depend on the extent to which one believes in God, nor is ID synonymous with creationism. If you don’t believe me, ask Anthony Flew.
So, if Anthonly Flew believes that the evidence for ID is so great, and if you say that ID does not depend on the extent to which one believes in god then how is it that Intelligent Design convinced Flew to believe in "God" rather then the "Intelligent Designer". Given what I say above, which indicates you believe the designer is a materal entity (not really eh?) that athiests can believe in too, how can you say
This fact alone completely destroys the argument that ID is faith based, or that it depends on religion in any way.
with a straight face?Echidna-Levy_{July 1, 2009
July
07
Jul
1
01
2009
05:43 PM
5
05
43
PM
PST}

----Learned Hand: "Results 1 - 1 of 1 for “peculiar to christianity” kitzmiller. (0.62 seconds)” Irrelevant to the fact concerning one of many commonly used three word terms and a decidedly desperate ploy. Again, because you are unacquainted with the subject matter, you do not appreciate the essence of what is being discussed. The unavoidable issue is that ID is not “peculiar to Christianity” nor is it even peculiar to theism? One need not be a Christian or even a theist to believe it. If ID’s plausibility depends on the extent to which one believes in God, agnostics could not accept ID, yet some do. If ID’s plausibility depended on the extent to which one was Christian, Muslims could not accept it. Indeed, if ID’s plausibility depended on belief in God to any extent at all, Anthony Flew would never have been persuaded to abandon his atheism on the basis of ID’s “anthropic principle.” I suspect that you have also been sheltered from the story of Anthony Flew. Under the circumstances, I will set the stage for you. The anthropic principle holds that the universe appears especially designed to accommodate human life. Humans, as it turns out, cannot exist accept in a cosmological environment where special physical laws and properties that fall within exceedingly narrow ranges, with almost no margin for error. In other words, the universe is fine-tuned for life and, as it turns out, the earth is a “privileged planet.” Among other measurements that could be mentioned, the ratio of gravitational force constant to the electromagnetic force constant could not differ more than one part in ten to the fortieth power. (one part in ten thousand trillion x trillion x trillion). There are more than 150 of these finely tuned characteristics. I have already explained on this site that many agnostics and some atheists accept intelligent design. If agnostics and even atheists can accept intelligent design, and be persuaded by it, then obviously it cannot be a faith based paradigm. Indeed, perhaps the worlds most famous atheist, Anthony Flew, found the anthropic principle so compelling that he renounced his atheism and wrote a book entitled, “There is a God.” Now the obvious question for any thinking person, (that would rule out Judge Jones is this: If ID’s plausibility “depends on the extent to which one believes in God,” how is it that Anthony Flew, one who clearly did not believe in God, not only found it plausible, but literally changed his life as a response to it. This fact alone completely destroys the argument that ID is faith based, or that it depends on religion in any way. It completely closes the case on all your ridiculous notions that ID = creationism and it exposes Judge Jones for what he is, an activist judge who lied about ID and its relationship to religion. Rather than face this logical fact, for which there is no refutation, you have, throughout this correspondence, sought to avoid argument and tried to make the issue about me. Yet, here is this unassailable fact staring you right in the face yet you continue to hide behind the judicial process as if it had anything at all to do with he aforementioned fact. But you are not interested in relevant facts. Quite the contrary, you run away from any information that will contradict your misguided thesis, hearkening back to the “Lemon test” or the legal process, ignoring facts presented at the ID sidebar, questioning my honesty, and resorting to any number of intellectual dodges to avoid that which is obvious to any rational person. ID does not depend on the extent to which one believes in God, nor is ID synonymous with creationism. If you don't believe me, ask Anthony Flew.StephenB_{July 1, 2009
July
07
Jul
1
01
2009
03:34 PM
3
03
34
PM
PST}

Question: Have you read the sidebar yet? Answer, no. Will you ever, probably not. Disgraceful! Yes. I find it unpersuasive, but interesting. Your presumption appears to be garden variety desperation. What you don’t understand is that phrases like that have been used for many years to describe the events at Dover and several other places. "Results 1 - 1 of 1 for "peculiar to christianity" kitzmiller. (0.62 seconds)"Learned Hand_{July 1, 2009
July
07
Jul
1
01
2009
02:04 PM
2
02
04
PM
PST}

----Learned Hand: “If you had read the entire opinion, you might have noticed that the court applied only one prong of the Lemon test, and one that you apparently feel was correctly applied. Your beef appears to be solely with the Lynch test.” I was responding to your lecture attempting to inform me that the Lemon test had three parts, after I summarized it. Make up your mind whether you want elaboration or summarization. ----“Unfortunately, your outrage is still based primarily in what you think the court said, instead of a careful reading of the opinion. The court did not find that ID is “peculiar to Christianity.” That’s true, but it did associate ID with religion, and the religion in question is obviously Christianity. ----“That phrase is odd enough that I googled it. I encourage everyone to google “Kitzmiller and ‘peculiar to christianity.’” Mr. Stephen B. appears to be taking his talking points, verbatim and without attribution, from other peoples’ writing about the opinion.” It’s not odd. It has almost become part of an oral tradition. You are obviously unaware of the fact that Christianity is under assault and that phrase, outside your inner circle of Darwinists, refers to the Darwinist attack on Christianity which is often veiled as a defense of science. You need to start thinking clearly and transcend your myopic paradigm in order to analyze what is actually happening in the larger culture. You seem to be a bit insulated. ----“Unfortunately, that particular talking point is wrong, showing yet again the importance of reading the opinion. Yourself. Start to finish. Again, a good exercise would be to ask yourself whether you can restate, in your own words, the logical flow of the sections of the court’s analysis. Part one, endorsement, subpart one, X, subpart two, Y, etc. I don’t think that there’s a Life Site News article summarizing the opinion in that way, so it might be a stretch.” Again, you are trying to get mileage out of a product of your own ignorance. You need to get out from under your legal pad and visit the real world. A good start for you would be to acquaint yourself with the subject matter under discussion since this thread involved more than your pet project and the process employed. ----“Please do not insult us by trying to defend your copying of the article by contrasting it to the court’s adoption of the proposed findings of fact. The court’s action was a commonplace way for courts to efficiently resolve technical disputes, and one that is explicitly permissible under the applicable ethical and conduct rules. Your cribbing appears to be garden-variety plagiarism.” Your presumption appears to be garden variety desperation. What you don’t understand is that phrases like that have been used for many years to describe the events at Dover and several other places. Chuck Colson, Jay Sekulow, and many others have used the term “peculiar to Christianity,” “mob attack on Christians,” “Christians singled out,” “last acceptable prejudice,” religious tolerance, “except for Christianity,” and other such expressions to describe the Darwinist hegemonic control of the culture and other major institutions. Judge Jones’ decision fits well into that pattern of prejudice. You fit well into that pattern. ----“You misunderstand the legal part, which involved only part of Lemon and a sophisticated analysis of prior precedent (such as Selman) in the Lynch test. You seem to have picked up what you recited mostly from brief comments on this thread and from Wikipedia, rather than from the opinion itself, as demonstrated by your mistake regarding the three parts of Lemon. And you seem to be getting the “analytical part” from the UD faq and right-wing commentary. I don’t think you can fairly claim to understand those things until you read the original material for yourself, and show some facility with an original analysis.” You seem to forget that it was I that informed you about the difference between what Michael Behe stated and what Judge Jones wrote in place of that. You also seem to forget that my criticism did not relate so much to the legal process as to the rank dishonesty of the parties involved. Each time a substantive issue is raised, you head for the tall grass and hide behind the process as if the process could analyze the subject matter for you. In fact, my objection, and the objection of the entire ID community stems from the fact that Judge Jones, and people like yourself, are content to pass judgment on matters about which you know nothing. Further, your ignorance about ID is so complete, as was Judge Jones, that you resist all attempts to learn about it. Indeed, you are powerless to comment on the main issue, namely the ridiculous charge that ID=creationism. That kind of ignorance has always been inexcusable, but now, after having been prompted to read the side bar, you are too lazy to even avail yourself of that information. Frankly, your lack of intellectual curiosity is almost as scandalous as that of Judge Jones. The really sad part about this is that you know no more about this subject than when you entered the discussion. It is almost as if you are proud of your ignorance, happy to not know the difference between creation science and intelligent design, content to spread lies, yes lies, about ID methodology, which you studiously avoid learning about, without any qualms whatsoever. How dead can a man’s conscience be [I realize that you don’t believe in a human conscience, but still] in order for him to know that he is misrepresenting the views of an entire community of scientists, but choosing nevertheless to do it anyway as a means of pushing his own agenda? How infertile can his mind be that he would have no intellectual curiosity about whether or not a court acted in a fair and just way? ----I would like to hear an original criticism of Kitzmiller. But telling us that we just don’t understand what the constitution means, man, is not an analysis. If you want to criticize the court, please do so with specific references to facts and page numbers. Winging it requires a degree of credibility that you have expended with false quotations and plagiarized comments.” I am not winging it. Clearly, you don’t understand what the constitution means, since you were not able to tell me what it is supposed to protect. I need not criticize the court on your terms; I will criticize it and you on my terms. You, like your hero, Judge “copycat” Jones, are scandalously uneducated on the subject matter of intelligent design even though you have a moral obligation to learn something about it in order to defend Judge Jones’s decision. Since you know nothing about it, you opinion on the matter holds no value. Again, my earlier charges against you still hold. You are so unacquainted with legal-cultural issues, that you think that every decision that comes out of a court of law is fair and just. Only one grounded in postmodern irrationalism could hold such a view. Judge Jones misrepresented the ID community in order to serve his own selfish career. It was a disgrace, and you are a disgrace for supporting him. Question: Have you read the sidebar yet? Answer, no. Will you ever, probably not. Disgraceful!StephenB_{July 1, 2009
July
07
Jul
1
01
2009
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PST}

David Kellogg, Or close to the truth.Clive Hayden_{July 1, 2009
July
07
Jul
1
01
2009
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PST}

Very close to a Googlewhack, that.David Kellogg_{July 1, 2009
July
07
Jul
1
01
2009
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PST}

The latter, which as three parts, was conceived for basically the same reason, except the emphasis is less on the perception of endorsing a religion and more on the fact of endorsing religion. I disdain both tests, especially the Lemon test because, as I stated earlier, it is too subjective. Do I need to define “subjective?” B-. If you had read the entire opinion, you might have noticed that the court applied only one prong of the Lemon test, and one that you apparently feel was correctly applied. Your beef appears to be solely with the Lynch test. Unfortunately, your outrage is still based primarily in what you think the court said, instead of a careful reading of the opinion. The court did not find that ID is "peculiar to Christianity." That phrase is odd enough that I googled it. I encourage everyone to google "Kitzmiller and 'peculiar to christianity.'" Mr. Stephen B. appears to be taking his talking points, verbatim and without attribution, from other peoples' writing about the opinion. Unfortunately, that particular talking point is wrong, showing yet again the importance of reading the opinion. Yourself. Start to finish. Again, a good exercise would be to ask yourself whether you can restate, in your own words, the logical flow of the sections of the court's analysis. Part one, endorsement, subpart one, X, subpart two, Y, etc. I don't think that there's a Life Site News article summarizing the opinion in that way, so it might be a stretch. Please do not insult us by trying to defend your copying of the article by contrasting it to the court's adoption of the proposed findings of fact. The court's action was a commonplace way for courts to efficiently resolve technical disputes, and one that is explicitly permissible under the applicable ethical and conduct rules. Your cribbing appears to be garden-variety plagiarism. I understand the legal part of this discussion but you do not understand the analytical part... You misunderstand the legal part, which involved only part of Lemon and a sophisticated analysis of prior precedent (such as Selman) in the Lynch test. You seem to have picked up what you recited mostly from brief comments on this thread and from Wikipedia, rather than from the opinion itself, as demonstrated by your mistake regarding the three parts of Lemon. And you seem to be getting the "analytical part" from the UD faq and right-wing commentary. I don't think you can fairly claim to understand those things until you read the original material for yourself, and show some facility with an original analysis. I would like to hear an original criticism of Kitzmiller. But telling us that we just don't understand what the constitution means, man, is not an analysis. If you want to criticize the court, please do so with specific references to facts and page numbers. Winging it requires a degree of credibility that you have expended with false quotations and plagiarized comments.Learned Hand_{July 1, 2009
July
07
Jul
1
01
2009
09:16 AM
9
09
16
AM
PST}

Learned Hand: "Please do describe to us what two tests the Kitzmiller court applied, and why you think those tests were inappropriate or wrongly applied. I think you could do that in two sentences, but it will require reading Kitzmiller. Or at least a summary of it. Or just the section headings." As I have stated many times, I did read Kitzmiller, which is why I could refer to the problems I have been emphasizing. I gather you are referring to the “endorsement test” and the “Lemon test.” The former was conceived to determine whether governmental action creates the impression that it is either endorsing or criticizing religion. The latter, which as three parts, was conceived for basically the same reason, except the emphasis is less on the perception of endorsing a religion and more on the fact of endorsing religion. I disdain both tests, especially the Lemon test because, as I stated earlier, it is too subjective. Do I need to define "subjective?" Judge Jones, we are given to understand, used this criteria to rule that the Dover school district violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Insofar as the school board clearly did violate those tests, the decision, in that context, was correct. On the other hand, Judge Jones had no moral or legal right whatsoever to claim, falsely and with extreme ignorance and prejudice, that ID is a theologically based religious doctrine peculiar to Christianity. That is a lie as I have made clear many times. He misrepresented ID and a whole community of scientists by refusing to listen to their own accounts of what they are doing. In fact, most attorneys I communicate with don’t have a clue about what The Constitution was meant to protect and I would certainly place you in that category. The one thing it was not meant to do is remove all vestiges of religious tradition from the public square, which is exactly what Darwinists hope to do. Darwinists hate freedom in the public square and in the classroom, and they don’t hesitate to pervert the constitution in order to get their way. The problem here is very simple. I understand the legal part of this discussion but you do not understand the analytical part since you know nothing about, nor are even curious about, intelligent design. So, I can keep up my end of the dialogue, but you cannot keep up your end.StephenB_{July 1, 2009
July
07
Jul
1
01
2009
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PST}

It applies only the religious intent of the school board and has nothing at all to do with the subject of intelligent design. The Lemon test has three parts. You've described one part, and done so inaccurately. I suspect that I know more about the law than you do. That is something that is very easy to say, and very difficult to demonstrate. So far, you've been unable to accurately describe the Kitzmiller opinion, or the basis for its analysis, much less any other law. It is my earnest hope that, by attempting to live up to your boast, you learn something. I don't think learning the law will change your mind, any more than it will change the tides. But it would be a relief to almost all of us to move you past the stage where you hurl invective and insults to a point where you can have an informed conversation about the facts. Please do describe to us what two tests the Kitzmiller court applied, and why you think those tests were inappropriate or wrongly applied. I think you could do that in two sentences, but it will require reading Kitzmiller. Or at least a summary of it. Or just the section headings.Learned Hand_{July 1, 2009
July
07
Jul
1
01
2009
06:13 AM
6
06
13
AM
PST}

1 2 3 … 26 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply