Answers for Judge Jones

_{Cornelius Hunter
June 19, 2009

Intelligent Design

1}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; 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

----David Kellogg: "In addition to the IDM itself describing ID as a religious argument, ID’s religious nature is evident because it involves a supernatural designer. The courts in Edwards and McLean expressly found that this characteristic removed creationism from the realm of science and made it a religious proposition. Edwards, 482 U.S. at 591-92; McLean, 529 F. Supp. at 1265-66. Prominent ID proponents have made abundantly clear that the designer is supernatural." The original problem persists. How can ID involve a supernatural designer if agnostics and atheists accept it? ----"In rhetorical terms, you’re arguing about the stasis of procedure, but the stasis of Dover is not up to you. Feel free to piss and moan about the injustice of the decision all you want; the legal arena is where it gets decided." Court decisions are made in court. Yes, that would seem to be a difficult proposition to resist. However, what I want to know is about your standard of justice. Does it, like LH/s standard, begin and end with the system---supported by dutiful little worker bees who say "Amen" to anything any court says because they can't conceive of any standard of justice that transcends the courts values. Would you have answered that way in another era when the court decided that a black man was three/fifths of a person? That is why I did not get into a discussion with LH about the Lemon test about religion, because it is a totally arbitrary standard. What is an “excessive” entanglement with religion? Was Thomas Jefferson’s congress excessively entangled with religion when they offered prayer services right inside the government building? Was government excessively entangled with religion when it established Christmas as a holiday? Whoever gets to define the word, “excessive” get’s to decide everything. It is no standard at all. So, what is your standard for justice? All you seem to be able to say is that Jones’ decision was fair because it happened in a court of law and Jones turned out to be your guy. What about the fact that a judge should not be making decisions about the line of demarcation between science and science in the first place? Do you judge that to be reasonable solely on the grounds that it serves your ends? Is that your standard of justice? If it goes my way, it is fair. Do you base your reasoning process on that same standard. If the facts go your way, you will acknowledge them; if not, you will dispute them. Is that your reasoning process?StephenB_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
08:07 PM
8
08
07
PM
PDT}

Yes, I know, but I was challenging LH’s ideal of elevating the process of justice over justice itself.
In rhetorical terms, you're arguing about the stasis of procedure, but the stasis of Dover is not up to you. Feel free to piss and moan about the injustice of the decision all you want; the legal arena is where it gets decided.David Kellogg_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
05:55 PM
5
05
55
PM
PDT}

StephenB,
If you don’t know which standard for creationism that Judge Jones was using, how is it rational for you to say that ID should be tied to that standard or that Judge Jones was right in ruling accordingly?
Don't patronize. Definitional elements are throughout the ruling, as on page 29:
In addition to the IDM itself describing ID as a religious argument, ID’s religious nature is evident because it involves a supernatural designer. The courts in Edwards and McLean expressly found that this characteristic removed creationism from the realm of science and made it a religious proposition. Edwards, 482 U.S. at 591-92; McLean, 529 F. Supp. at 1265-66. Prominent ID proponents have made abundantly clear that the designer is supernatural.
David Kellogg_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
05:50 PM
5
05
50
PM
PDT}

Sorry, that should read "you didn't defend Judge Jones' [decision] on the grounds that it honored precedence, you defended it on the grounds that it was reasonable."StephenB_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
04:43 PM
4
04
43
PM
PDT}

JayM, I won't tolerate baby talk. You're presence here has been one of deceit the entire time, and I'm done with letting you have the opportunity to continue.Clive Hayden_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
04:43 PM
4
04
43
PM
PDT}

Clive Hayden @488

You’re assuming too much, Clive. I started posting here because I got tired of hearing the old “ID says nothing about the nature of the designer” dodge. That and similar arguments from ID supporters who significantly overstate the case for ID, as it stands now, pose a major problem for those of us who want to treat ID as science.
I’m not assuming too much. You’re not fooling anyone.
Clive, baby, if I wanted to fool someone I'd go to a venue where that poses an actual challenge. Now how about addressing the substance of my posts above? JJJayM_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
04:32 PM
4
04
32
PM
PDT}

---David: "As a judge, he’s pretty much obligated to use the standard as defined in prior higher court decisions. He never lays out a definition as such the decision but references many components of earlier court decisions about creationism." Yes, that is correct, as LH hastens to tell us. But what is that definition and how does it differ from Steven Myer's definition, which is the one you used for dialogue? You didn't defend Judge Jones definition on the grounds that he honored precedence, [also doubtful] you defended it on the grounds that it was reasonable. Under the circumstances, I would think you would know what that standard is. ----"He’s obligated to do that, because that’s the legal issue. I think this is why Learned Hand was so surprised that you didn’t care about Lemon. The Lemon test is what a judge is obliged to apply on church-state issues (the grounds of the suit)." Yes, I know, but I was challenging LH's ideal of elevating the process of justice over justice itself. I wanted to know his standard for justice and why he values the process more than that which it is supposed to produce. He appears to think that justice is supposed to serve the process rather than the other way around.StephenB_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
04:27 PM
4
04
27
PM
PDT}

David Kellogg, ------"Clive, I only point out that Dr. Dembski acknowledges his debt to creationism. This “credit cycle” has been acknowledged by many from Robert Merton to Bruno Latour. He doesn’t acknowledge his English teacher for giving any insight into his ID ideas." But you do, implicitly, as an extension of your argument. The conditions that peaked Dr. Dembski's interest are more varying and just as irrelevant as your singular insinuation. Seeing a Model T Ford and being interested in making advances in cars does not link you to Ford's beliefs in antisemitism.Clive Hayden_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
04:23 PM
4
04
23
PM
PDT}

StephenB
Thanks, I love all that high tech stuff, but I must de-emphasize it the moment.
Earlier you accused me of linking to the Pandas Thumb when the link was in fact to Wikipedia. I'm starting to think you don't really care about finding the truth in these matters, rather you seem to me to be concerned with having the apperance of being right rather then the actuality of being right. Do you believe in ghosts?Echidna.Levy_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
04:21 PM
4
04
21
PM
PDT}

StephenB So, cdesign proponentists? You appear to have missed Gaz's comment so I reproduce it below
StephenB (308), “Nope, that is a manifestly untruthful statement. All the early drafts rejected creationism as defined by the courts. Creationism once had an all inclusive meaning, but when the Edwards decision came out, it came to mean something similar to creation science. So, the draft had to be changed since the new legal definition of creationism excluded intelligent design, which was, and always had been, the theme of the book. Anyone who reads the defining opening paragraph of the book would know that. It’s ID through and through.” Nope, totally wrong. The early drafts given by the publishers under subpoena had this defintion of “creation”: “Creation means that the various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent creator with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc.” and the 1987 published edition of “Pandas” had this defintion of “intelligent design”: “Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc.” Note that the only differences between the definitions are that “creation” has been replaced by “intellgent design” and “creator” by “agency”. Therefore, the “Pandas” author showed that “creation” and “intelligent design” are synonymous because HE USED THE TWO TERMS TO MEAN EXACTLY THE SAME THING. The one thing I would agree with you on is that “Pandas” is ID through and through. It is; but that is because ID is creation, as the “Pandas” drafts themselves show.
There is no shame in being wrong on occasion. The facts in the origin of cdesign proponentists are a matter of public record. The drafts containing the smoking gun were put into the record from the publisher themselves. There is no doubt. Creation became intelligent design in Pandas.Echidna.Levy_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
04:18 PM
4
04
18
PM
PDT}

JayM, ------"You’re assuming too much, Clive. I started posting here because I got tired of hearing the old “ID says nothing about the nature of the designer” dodge. That and similar arguments from ID supporters who significantly overstate the case for ID, as it stands now, pose a major problem for those of us who want to treat ID as science." I'm not assuming too much. You're not fooling anyone.Clive Hayden_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
04:17 PM
4
04
17
PM
PDT}

I must de-emphasize it [for] the moment----StephenB_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
04:00 PM
4
04
00
PM
PDT}

---David Kellogg: "StephenB, there seems to be a slight mutation from 480 to 481." Yes, indeed. Stochastic processes seem to be associated with such events. --- "You asked me where I got the Meyer quote. There’s this thing on the interwebs that the kids call a “hyperlink.” It’s provided in the comment where I quote Meyer. I try to provide such newfangled “hyperlinks” if I’m the first person to reference a document in a thread." Thanks, I love all that high tech stuff, but I must de-emphasize it the moment. Otherwise, you may lose focus. So, I will shorten my question: If you don’t know which standard for creationism that Judge Jones was using, how is it rational for you to say that ID should be tied to that standard or that Judge Jones was right in ruling accordingly?StephenB_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
03:58 PM
3
03
58
PM
PDT}

"If you don’t know which standard for creationism that Judge Jones was using" As a judge, he's pretty much obligated to use the standard as defined in prior higher court decisions. He never lays out a definition as such the decision but references many components of earlier court decisions about creationism. He's obligated to do that, because that's the legal issue. I think this is why Learned Hand was so surprised that you didn't care about Lemon. The Lemon test is what a judge is obliged to apply on church-state issues (the grounds of the suit).David Kellogg_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
03:55 PM
3
03
55
PM
PDT}

Clive, I only point out that Dr. Dembski acknowledges his debt to creationism. This "credit cycle" has been acknowledged by many from Robert Merton to Bruno Latour. He doesn't acknowledge his English teacher for giving any insight into his ID ideas.David Kellogg_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
03:48 PM
3
03
48
PM
PDT}

StephenB, there seems to be a slight mutation from 480 to 481. You asked me where I got the Meyer quote. There's this thing on the interwebs that the kids call a "hyperlink." It's provided in the comment where I quote Meyer. I try to provide such newfangled "hyperlinks" if I'm the first person to reference a document in a thread.David Kellogg_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PDT}

Clive Hayden @466

I don’t argue against ID, Clive, I argue against poor arguments from ID supporters. That’s far more supportive of the eventual goal of making ID credible than is participating in an echo chamber where criticism of people on “our side” is strongly discouraged.
You never have any arguments in favor of ID. Never. All I ever see from you are arguments against ID. It doesn’t matter that you posit them in terms of “constructive criticism” and “just wanting to help”. If you really want to help, then make some of your own arguments in favor of ID, instead of always criticizing others who make actual ID arguments. Otherwise, your pretense is exposed.
You're assuming too much, Clive. I started posting here because I got tired of hearing the old "ID says nothing about the nature of the designer" dodge. That and similar arguments from ID supporters who significantly overstate the case for ID, as it stands now, pose a major problem for those of us who want to treat ID as science. There is currently no scientific theory of ID. By that I mean there is no explanation for a body of observations that explains the empirical evidence and makes testable, falsifiable predictions. There are, however, some promising lines of research, particularly Dr. Behe's "edge of evolution." ID is a research concept at this point, and that's fine. All new hypotheses have to mature. The chances of ID being allowed to mature, of researchers taking some of the ideas seriously and really investigating the limitations of known evolutionary mechanisms, are greatly reduced by claims such as those made by many ID proponents here. When ID proponents can be so easily dismissed as uneducated and dissembling, when they show so little respect for and understanding of how science is really practiced, when it is so easy to tar us with the creationist brush, no progress can be made. You, too, are part of the problem. Real scientists debate the issues with each other. Here at UD, you show more concern over loyalty to the cause than to the content of the discussions. If you spent more time policing the quality and accuracy of the posts by some of the regulars here, rather than in questioning the motives of those who are actually interested in making real progress, UD might fulfill its potential as a forum for serious discussion of intelligent design. JJJayM_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
03:40 PM
3
03
40
PM
PDT}

Alan, @478, A sentimental tear trickles down my face as I accept this prestigious award. I don’t deserve it, though, because I didn’t really write those posts. They emerged through a random process. If I am to give an acceptance speech, I must spell prestigious correctly.StephenB_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
03:29 PM
3
03
29
PM
PDT}

Thank you, Alan. A sentimental tear trickles down my face as I accept this presigious award. I don't deserve it, though, because I didn't really write those posts. They emerged through a random process.StephenB_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
03:17 PM
3
03
17
PM
PDT}

David Kellogg, ------"Clive, it’s interesting because it suggests that Dr. Dembski agrees with Morris that many of Dr. Behe’s arguments originate in creationism." Did you notice this line? "To be sure, I am not a young earth creationist nor do I support their efforts to harmonize science with a particular interpretation of Genesis. Nonetheless, it was their literature that first got me thinking about how improbable it is to generate biological complexity and how this problem might be approached scientifically. A. E. Wilder-Smith was particularly important to me in this regard. Making rigorous his intuitive ideas about information has been the impetus for much of my research." By your chain of reasoning, his English teacher should also be credited with his ideas arising as a result of learning English and reading about the debate as a whole. It doesn't much matter where you get the idea, it doesn't link you to the person, nor the ideology, who first espoused it and where you first encountered it. You, being a Darwin proponent, by your reasoning, could be called sympathetic with the weird reasoning of Epicurus and his brand of materialism, for that was the precursor to evolution.Clive Hayden_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
03:09 PM
3
03
09
PM
PDT}

A brief moment of access to the internet gives me, an onlooker, the opportunity to congratulate StephenB on his contribution to truth, logic and honesty. Stephen, you have surpassed Mr M., and now rival Joseph for my favorite UD poster. Long may you continue!Alan Fox_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PDT}

----David Kellogg: "I think the decision was good because the Dover school board’s action was unconstitutionial. Jones seems to have used creationism as defined in legal decisions from Epperson to Edwards." Seems to be? From Epperson to Edwards? You mean you don't know? If you don't know which standard for creationism that Judge Jones was using, how is it rational for you to say that ID should be tied to that standard or that Judge Jones was right in ruling accordingly?StephenB_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT}

That is not the conclusion I would draw, nor suggest. And secondly, insinuations like this don’t really help the discussion much, they border on calling one’s intellectual honesty into question.
Well, you and I read things differently. :-) Actually I am praising Dr. Demsbki's honesty: throughout the document Dr. Dembski is open and honest about the deep creationist roots of ID and the debt that ID owes to creationism.David Kellogg_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT}

"You have one quote taken out of context for the expressed purpose of avoiding argument." It should be "express," but regardless -- what quote are you talking about? As to your strange paragraph about Jones, Meyers, and me: I think the decision was good because the Dover school board's action was unconstitutionial. Jones seems to have used creationism as defined in legal decisions from Epperson to Edwards. If you, StephenB, look back to my citation of Meyer, you'll see that it was made in response to kairosfocus, who (wrongly) said that TMLO as not mentioned in the trial and that those authors were not creationists. I pointed out that it was part of the trial record and that a prominent person in ID identified them as creationists. (To date, kairosfocus has not acknowledged these corrections). That is all. I'm claiming no affinity between Judge Jones's view of creationism, which is guided by legal precedent and discussed in the ruling, and Meyer's.David Kellogg_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT}

David Kellogg, ------"Clive, it’s interesting because it suggests that Dr. Dembski agrees with Morris that many of Dr. Behe’s arguments originate in creationism." That is not the conclusion I would draw, nor suggest. And secondly, insinuations like this don't really help the discussion much, they border on calling one's intellectual honesty into question.Clive Hayden_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT}

---David Kellogg: "StephenB, have I ever strung two bits from 30 pages apart and strung them together as though they were" You have one quote taken out of context for the expressed purpose of avoiding argument. When you cannot argue that you start looking for distractions. You said that Myers definition of creationism was a good one. So, are you saying that his definition of creationism is the same as the one Judge Jones used, or are you saying that Judge Jones used the wrong definition and therefore decided badly, or are you saying that you like Judge Jones definition, insofar as it persecutes ID, but you also like Steven Myers definition if it allows you wiggle room in another context. Or, are saying that you don’t know Judge Jones’ definition of creationism, but whatever it is, it must have been good if it helped him rule against ID? Do you, in fact, know what you are saying?StephenB_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
01:19 PM
1
01
19
PM
PDT}

"originate in creationism." Two comments "originate with creationism" might be better. Just as history originated with the Greeks. But history is not an essential part of being Greek nor is it precluded from use by anyone else. My guess is that some of the arguments espoused by creationists (which definition of creation you choose) originated some place else. Why this tiresome constant attempts to link anything a creationist espoused as suspect? We all know the answer but it does not make it any less tiresome.jerry_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT}

StephenB:
Scott, you are probably the only non-partisan person that has ever appeared on this site. Please stay around for a while.
Thank you. But I may have misrepresented myself. I'm foremost a religious person, but I like what I've read about ID, and I see materialist Darwinism as a load of nonsense. That makes me as biased as the next person. I meant that the Dover decision doesn't matter very much to me. Lots of people say nonsensical things about ID - this one just stings more because it's a federal decision. I'm all but certain that Jones didn't understand the evidence, the decision, or the reasons behind it.ScottAndrews_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT}

The question of whether ID is creationism was not brought up because of some evil intent on my part (or the part of Judge Jones) but because that was among the principal issues on the table in Dover (important legally since Edwards v. Aguillard 1987).David Kellogg_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT}

Clive, it's interesting because it suggests that Dr. Dembski agrees with Morris that many of Dr. Behe's arguments originate in creationism. StephenB, have I ever strung two bits from 30 pages apart and strung them together as though they were quotes from a single sentence? That's what you did. Fail.
A student in my class who makes irrational arguments would be sent back to logic 101.
I seriously doubt you have that authority.David Kellogg_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
12:27 PM
12
12
27
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 8 9 10 11 12 … 26 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply