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

Learned Hand: Despite the debate, which I do for my own personal enjoyment, I don't have a very great interest in the decision, as I've said. (I have no interest in seeing creationism taught in schools.) That's why I dispense with detailed analysis and limit myself to picking at a very small part of the text in which the judge borrowed language carefully crafted by biased individuals to mislead and deceive. I believe it could only be missed by one's determination not to see it. As for ID's entanglement with religion, I'm perplexed that Behe and others don't attempt to keep it at arm's length. Half the challenge facing ID is to convince the opposition that it's not religious. While it's Behe's and everyone else's right to express their religious beliefs, it reinforces the inaccurate perception that ID is inherently religious.ScottAndrews_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
07:53 PM
7
07
53
PM
PDT}

----David: "StephenB, thanks for quoting that too. Someone thought it should be deleted. Oh, you mean your latest unprovoked attack? Whoever deleted it probably realizes that you are trying to start another flame war. That is why I have recommended several times that we simply stop speaking to each other and about each other.StephenB_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
07:51 PM
7
07
51
PM
PDT}

---David Kellogg: "Actually it’s more than eight parts, and only one part deals with Of Pandas and People: Part V. But why start expecting correctness now?" Speaking of correctness, you were going to tell me how irreducible complexity is inextricably tied to creationism. Are you ready to take that up now?StephenB_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
07:40 PM
7
07
40
PM
PDT}

StephenB, thanks for quoting that too. Someone thought it should be deleted.David Kellogg_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
07:31 PM
7
07
31
PM
PDT}

---David: "Another favorite moment of self-praise from StephenB! Thanks: you are a source of endless amusement." I love to get a rise out of postmodernists with a little bravado. Hyperskeptics go wacko when someone presumes to know something. I knew you would bite.StephenB_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
07:29 PM
7
07
29
PM
PDT}

lamarck, I don't really have a stake in your argument with LH. I just thought your tone was off, given his incredible patience and obvious expertise. I'm not an attorney (I am married to one). My lay view on precedent is this: I do think lower courts are bound by precedent. Sure they can just rule against precedent and get humiliated by the appeals court again and again, but there's more satisfaction in taking the law as it stands seriously.David Kellogg_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
07:28 PM
7
07
28
PM
PDT}

David, I'd like something I can bite into. For example. "Lamarck you're wrong because of the following".lamarck_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
07:23 PM
7
07
23
PM
PDT}

lamarck to Learned Hand: "Let me tell you how law works." I believe Mr. Hand is a lawyer.David Kellogg_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
07:07 PM
7
07
07
PM
PDT}

Learned Hand, Me: "He could never state that the AMOUNT of data makes this an insufficient science" You: "I don’t think that argument would hold water in a court of law; are you basing this off of any legal standard, or is this just the way you think things should work? Let me tell you how law works. If you don't have the law, you argue facts, if you don't have the facts, you argue law. OF COURSE what I say could hold water. Law isn't so cut and dry. Your opinion that a lower circuit judge doesn't have the authority to rule on such a precedent could be argued that it's not a significant precedent, or not a precedent at all. Come on you know this, the law is not a science. If the judge ruled in favor of ID it could be appealed to a higher court where they would give THEIR opinion. You have no recourse to absolutes here.lamarck_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
07:01 PM
7
07
01
PM
PDT}

Response to Barbara Forrest’s Kitzmiller account in eight parts.
Actually it's more than eight parts, and only one part deals with Of Pandas and People: Part V. But why start expecting correctness now? Anyway, Part V shows how a couple of parts of early drafts of OPAP tries to get around creationism in a creationist text through a few weak maneuvers, but does not deal at all with Forrest's account of the cut-and-paste substitution after 1987. The only thing certain after reading Luskin's "refutation" is that the authors of OPAP (both of whom are young-earth creationists) worried that the text would not pass legal muster even before Edwards and were seeking ways to keep it out of trouble.David Kellogg_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
06:24 PM
6
06
24
PM
PDT}

Echidna Levy: ----"If it “did not happen” that will be a simple task, no? It’s a plain simple matter of fact. Two drafts, slightly different words. How can you even begin to disupte that?" The Barbara Forrest fantasy has been roundly refuted. If you have an interest in the facts, check out, "Response to Barbara Forrest’s Kitzmiller account in eight parts." On the other hand, if you prefer to indulge in Barbara's bedtime story, who am I to discourage you.StephenB_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
05:38 PM
5
05
38
PM
PDT}

SA, Yes, I understand how you're reading the sentence. I don't agree. The court is saying that Behe believes X, which makes ID religious and not science under the court's use of those terms. I know you don't see it that way. I don't know how much more meat there is to that argument. I disagree. If this were a religious issue, would the court collect testimony and then issue a ruling on the correct interpretation of scripture? If the correct reading of scripture was at issue (it can almost never be, given certain 1st Amendment rules, but there are exceptions), it would be handled the same way Dover was: call experts, listen to their testimony, do a credibility determination, and go with the more credible expert. Same as if the correct reading of a technical diagram was at issue. It's the only way courts can make rulings that hinge on technical, academic, or abstruse matters on which experts must opine. The court is not qualified to examine two detailed hypotheses and determine which is correct. No, but the experts are - or at least as close as any decisionmaking body can ever get. The court chooses between the experts. That's why Behe's cross examination was such a disaster for the defense - it eviscerated their arguments on ID by destroying his credibility. If expert witnesses testify that one is correct, the court can assess which view is held by the majority, but not the validity of either. Yes, that's pretty much correct. And when the court must choose between one or the other, that's generally how the decision is made. That's more or less what happened at Dover, and why ID cannot succeed in court without getting their arguments out of self-referential religious presses and into scientific literature. In doing so the court denied the existence of peer-reviewed research papers, while later citing the existence of research papers claiming to refute them. Citation, please? quoting it in such detail suggests that the judge adopted every facet of the plaintiff’s complex position wholesale with no thought of his own. OK. But if you read the rules on the subject, appellate courts actually have to make determinations about exactly this point. And the standard they apply is, did the court show independent reasoning? The usual test is whether the court adopted the proposal wholesale, or combed through it and cut individual proposed findings--that demonstrates independent assessment of each one. And that's exactly what the court did here. It didn't just lift the plaintiffs' proposal wholesale - it cut it apart and pulled out the findings it wanted to adopt. If it hadn't done so, we'd have the exact same results in the case, just with an opinion that was worded slightly differently and took two or three weeks longer to write. Such thinking, or even the appearance of it, is a poison that taints the entire proceeding, and, in my opinion, disgraces the judge. Again, OK. I'm not trying to minimize your outrage--I'm of the school of thought that it's wonderful for the public to engage with the courts, even if I don't like their opinions. If it's of any interest to you, that outrage is basically limited to people who are frustrated that ID lost. I've discussed the case with several attorneys (including a judge on Jones's level) who don't give a damn about ID one way or the other, and heard just two comments: the defendants never had a chance, given their sleazy clients, and Pepper Hamilton did a great job. (The cross examination of Behe has been used as an example of really excellent trial advocacy, and is the most common reason people who don't care about ID know about the case.) I've never heard anyone other than an ID supporter criticize the court for its opinion. I'm not saying that you're wrong to be outraged, or that there's nothing to criticize, but all the things that have you so worked up - especially the adoption of the findings of fact - are fairly trivial nonissues to people used to reading opinions and going to court. If you really want to dig into the case, you're going to need to move into the deeper analyses. Tearing apart one or two sentences is easy, but it's never going amount to a substantive critique. If you want to move into that heavier analysis, the Thomas Moore briefs would be a good place to start. That will give you some idea of what legal arguments were being made, and what issues the court was really tackling. You might contrast their post-trial memos (if there were any, I'm not sure how the D. Pa. does things) with Pepper Hamilton's to see what the court was looking at when it wrote the opinion.Learned Hand_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
05:37 PM
5
05
37
PM
PDT}

StephenB
The scenario you have copied from Barbara Forrest didn’t happen.
Yes, it did. What's your thoughts for the origin of the term?
It is so funny when folks like you try to send someone like my to an intellectually banrupt site like Pandas Thumb to “learn something.” I have a bit of homework for you.
What's funnier is that I gave no link to Pandas Thumb. I guess you never even clicked on the link.
Will someone please educate this man about the Pandas and People time line and explain to him that the editing process had nothing whatsoever to do with any attempt to change the substance of the book.
You have that exactly right. The "editing" process did not change the substance of the book at all.
Have you ever read a book from cover to cover. Do you have any idea how hard it would be to change a creationist book into a ID book by just changinsg 150 words when the book itself contains probably between 50,000 and 100,000 words? Doesn’t anybody ever think any more?
Yet it happened! And it's a matter of public record.
Because a creationist book was not turned into an intelligent design textbook.
Yet that's the way it happened. As you seem to be a fan of Barbara Forrest here is the relevant quote
In the first 1987 draft, which is the pre-Edwards draft, the definition of creation reads this way "Creation means that 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, et cetera." The same definition in this draft, after the Edwards decision, reads this way: "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, et cetera." Same definition, just one is worded in terms of creationism, the other one worded in terms of intelligent design.
All you have to do is prove that the 1987 draft did not have the word "creation" and the later draft did not have the words "intelligent design" instead of "creation". If it "did not happen" that will be a simple task, no? It's a plain simple matter of fact. Two drafts, slightly different words. How can you even begin to disupte that?Echidna.Levy_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
04:18 PM
4
04
18
PM
PDT}

@363: "I know a great deal about the law, and, contrary to your misguided opinion, it is the process that is supposed to serve justice and not the other way around."StephenB_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
02:58 PM
2
02
58
PM
PDT}

Echidna Levy: ----"The term “creationists” was changed to “design proponents”, but in one case the beginning and end of the original word “creationists” were accidentally retained, so that “creationists” became “cdesign proponentsists" What is it about these Darwinists that render them impervious to reason. The scenario you have copied from Barbara Forrest didn't happen. It is so funny when folks like you try to send someone like my to an intellectually banrupt site like Pandas Thumb to "learn something." I have a bit of homework for you. ----In a new draft of Pandas, approximately 150 uses of the root word “creation”, such as “creationism” and “creationist”, were systematically changed to refer to intelligent design,[23] The definition remained essentially the same, with “intelligent design” substituted for “creation”, and “intelligent creator” changed to “intelligent agency”:" Will someone please educate this man about the Pandas and People time line and explain to him that the editing process had nothing whatsoever to do with any attempt to change the substance of the book. ---"The term “creationists” was changed to “design proponents”, but in one case the beginning and end of the original word “creationists” were accidentally retained, so that “creationists” became “cdesign proponentsists”. Have you ever read a book from cover to cover. Do you have any idea how hard it would be to change a creationist book into a ID book by just changinsg 150 words when the book itself contains probably between 50,000 and 100,000 words? Doesn't anybody ever think any more? ----"If these two theories are “radically different” then why can a search and replace turn a creationist book into an intelligent design book?" Because a creationist book was not turned into an intelligent design textbook.StephenB_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
02:51 PM
2
02
51
PM
PDT}

---Learned Hand: "Then we’re done. In other words, you aren't open to the truth. Well, that'a fine, because I don't need you to participate in order refute your errors. ----"If the facts of the matter are not relevant to your arguments, then your arguments are not relevant to me." It is you that are running away from the facts, and it you who are ignorant of history. ___"You cannot understand the opinion, or even whether the court did its job properly, without understanding the binding precedent that dictated the elements of its analysis." I understand the opinion all too well, but you are incapable of looking at it through any other than your postmodernist lens. I know a great deal about the law, and, contrary to your misguided opinion, I know a great deal about the law, it is the process that is supposed to serve justice and not the other way around. You have yet to learn that. ]\----"You’ve drawn a line around the things you’re willing to learn about, which is honest of you, but it excludes you from an educated conversation about the Dover case." It is not I that needs educating, as I made clear in my last post. You don't answer objections or confront the intellectual points of interest. You simply pour forth from you myoopic jurisprudential paradigm, which, as it turns out, has no familiarity with justice at all. "If your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail." You have but one tool.StephenB_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
02:36 PM
2
02
36
PM
PDT}

StephenB
In fact, creationism or creation science is not at all like intelligent design nor has it ever been. The two theories are radically different.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_Pandas_and_People
In a new draft of Pandas, approximately 150 uses of the root word "creation", such as "creationism" and "creationist", were systematically changed to refer to intelligent design,[23] The definition remained essentially the same, with "intelligent design" substituted for "creation", and "intelligent creator" changed to "intelligent agency":
The term "creationists" was changed to "design proponents", but in one case the beginning and end of the original word "creationists" were accidentally retained, so that "creationists" became "cdesign proponentsists". The basic metabolic pathways (reaction chains) of nearly all organisms are the same. Is this because of descent from a common ancestor, or because only these pathways (and their variations) can sustain life? Evolutionists think the former is correct, cdesign proponentsists accept the latter view If these two theories are "radically different" then why can a search and replace turn a creationist book into an intelligent design book?Echidna.Levy_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT}

Kariosfocus
Try to understand what is going to happen when people as a whole wake up one morning and realise that they can no longer trust courts, august institutions of science, professors from major universities etc to present a basic true and fair, balanced view of important matters, or of people connected to such matters.
Um, have you ever considered the idea that you simply might be wrong? I mean, if the courts are against you, the professors from major and minor universities are against you, the vast majority of scientists are against you then perhaps you might simply be wrong? That would appear to be the parsimonious answer that occams razor would suggest is right. A vast global conspiracy? Or a simple misunderstanding of probability relating to biology? I mean, if you are right then one would expect that, as in every other single case since time began, you would be proven right eventually. How long will you give it without being proven right before you consider changing your mind? 10 years? 20 years? 50 years?Echidna.Levy_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT}

Learned Hand:
The court explains this in detail. I commend the opinion to you as a very clear and cogent explanation of why this analysis was necessary.
I disagree. If this were a religious issue, would the court collect testimony and then issue a ruling on the correct interpretation of scripture? The court is not qualified to examine two detailed hypotheses and determine which is correct. Neither is anyone else. If expert witnesses testify that one is correct, the court can assess which view is held by the majority, but not the validity of either. Regardless of need or reason, the court may not proclaim that ID is not science. In doing so the court denied the existence of peer-reviewed research papers, while later citing the existence of research papers claiming to refute them. I refer again and again to the use of the plaintiff's proposal not only because it was so slanted, but also because quoting it in such detail suggests that the judge adopted every facet of the plaintiff's complex position wholesale with no thought of his own. Such thinking, or even the appearance of it, is a poison that taints the entire proceeding, and, in my opinion, disgraces the judge.ScottAndrews_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
01:00 PM
1
01
00
PM
PDT}

Learned Hand: Now I'm resorting to bold. Read this sentence: Professor Behe's assertion constitutes substantial evidence that in his view, as is commensurate with other prominent ID leaders, ID is a religious and not a scientific proposition. This is not a strained reading. The court states that in Behe's view, ID is religious and not scientific. One must strain only to read it any other way. Behe testified that ID was scientific, and the court said, A) you're wrong, and B) that isn't even your view.ScottAndrews_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
12:34 PM
12
12
34
PM
PDT}

StephenB, On thing sure, I feel no need to study the Lemon decision, because it is irrelevant to all of my arguments. Then we’re done. If the facts of the matter are not relevant to your arguments, then your arguments are not relevant to me. You cannot understand the opinion, or even whether the court did its job properly, without understanding the binding precedent that dictated the elements of its analysis. You’ve drawn a line around the things you’re willing to learn about, which is honest of you, but it excludes you from an educated conversation about the Dover case. SA, You keep complaining about the court’s use of the proposed findings of fact, but I don’t have any new answers. It happens all the time. Higher courts don’t like it, because it can make appellate review a pain in the ass, but the appellate court that sits atop Dover explicitly permits the practice. Heck, even the parts that are written by the court are often actually drafted by the clerks and/or cribbed from earlier opinions. Trial dockets are just too full to ask the court to write every opinion from scratch. If judges had to write every page of every opinion themselves, we’d still be waiting for Scopes to get published. And how does rendering judgment on whether ID is religious involve comparing testimony from expert witnesses on disputed scientific questions and declaring a winner? You’ve asked some very good questions in this thread. This is not one of them. The court explains this in detail. I commend the opinion to you as a very clear and cogent explanation of why this analysis was necessary. It’s one thing to disagree with that analysis, but you should at least be familiar with it before asking such a basic question.Learned Hand_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT}

SA, I searched the transcript and didn’t see where this quote was discussed. Why would the defense preemptively argue against a quote that wasn’t damaging to their position? I said that the defense didn’t raise the issue, not that they should have. They shouldn’t have; it was irrelevant. As to whether the quote was discussed, the defense certainly knew it was on the table; it was part of the plaintiffs’ proposed findings of fact. Plaintiffs usually file theirs first, and defendants may rebut. He said that Behe doesn’t think what he thinks he thinks. That is an error. Unless he is insane, Behe is the indisputable authority on what he thinks. Insanity is hardly the only option. Even reading the phrase as you do, which again I feel is strained and unjustified, the court would more reasonably have simply made a credibility determination. When a witness’s prior writings conflict with his testimony, the court is required to decide which is more likely true. As I said, though, the more natural and fair reading is simply that the court is using “science” in that sentence in the sense that it defines science, not in the sense that Behe defines it (which, famously, would include astrology). I’m saying it’s open to question whether the judge understood the opinion. Yes, I understand what I’m implying. But he’s responsible regardless. Everything’s open to question. And I appreciate the fact that you are questioning, and thinking, rather than making veiled threats of bloody revolution, as KF has, or empty assertions that this so obviously proves that everyone who disagrees with ID is either stupid or dishonest, as UB has. The opinion takes certain statements and first distorts them, and then builds upon that distortion to reach a conclusion not warranted by any evidence and contradicted by testimony. And now we’re sliding back into arguing by fiat. We haven’t even begun to discuss the evidence; we’re still quibbling over two sentences in an opinion over one hundred pages long. As for distortions, I note that Behe doesn’t seem to think there was one, going by his response to the opinion. As for the opinion being “contradicted by testimony,” I’d remind you that every trial verdict is “contradicted by testimony.” If there wasn’t testimony on both sides, there wouldn’t be a trial. Behe’s testimony just wasn’t persuasive – and why should it have been? He was refuted by experts who brought a mountain of supporting literature to the table, that Behe couldn’t match. He had to admit that he doesn’t engage in the scientific literature, doesn’t have his work peer-reviewed, and doesn’t bother to conduct the experiments that he testified could validate his work. That’s exactly the sort of thing courts look to in resolving conflicts among experts, because they aren’t qualified to dig into the underlying merits of technical matters. It’s more a credibility determination than anything else. Courts aren’t there to promote radical outsiders into the inner circle of the scientific community. It needs to work the other way around – convince scientists first, and the civic machinery will follow.Learned Hand_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PDT}

Learned Hand:
Can you explain, in your own words (and please in a paragraph or less – verbosity will not improve communication here) what steps went into the court’s analysis?
I'd be even more curious to know what analysis the court could perform that results in the same conclusion as the plaintiff's, word for word. What do we call that, "convergent analysis?" Validity aside, did he not have thoughts of his own? And how does rendering judgment on whether ID is religious involve comparing testimony from expert witnesses on disputed scientific questions and declaring a winner?ScottAndrews_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PDT}

----Learned Hand: “As for your comments, you will need to moderate your tone if you want to engage me in a detailed conversation. Your conduct on this thread has not impressed me, and I am not inclined to keep discussing the matter with you. Your comments are becoming increasingly bitter and strident, with no more content to show for it.” You will find that the texture of my tone almost always reflects the relevance of the answers to my questions. Thus, when honest questions are followed by honest answers, my tone is remarkably congenial. On the other hand, when questions are avoided or reframed, my tone does tend to reflect that strategy. In fact, the court’s opinion about creationism and intelligent design reflected an incredible ignorance of history. It was Judge Jones moral obligation to learn about that history and he simply didn’t bother to do it. In fact, creationism or creation science is not at all like intelligent design nor has it ever been. The two theories are radically different. Creationism moves forward: that is, it assumes, asserts or accepts something about God and what he has to say about origins; then interprets nature in that context. Intelligent design moves backward: that is, it observes something interesting in nature (complex, specified information) and then theorises and tests possible ways how that might have come to be. Creationism is faith-based; Intelligent Design is empirically-based. Each approach has a pedigree that goes back over two thousand years. We notice the “forward” approach in Tertullian, Anselm, and Kierkegaard has been described as “What does Athens have to do with Jerusalem?” With these thinkers, the investigation was faith-based. By contrast, we discover the “backward” orientation in Aristotle, Aquinas, and Paley. Aristotle’s argument, which begins with “motion in nature” and reasons BACK to a “prime mover” — i.e. from effect to its “best” causal explanation — is obviously empirically based. To say then, that Tertullian, Anselm, and Kierrgegard (Creationism) is similar to Aristotle, Aquinas, and Paley (ID) is equivalent to saying forward equals backward. What could be more illogical? Yet, that is your position and it is Judge Jones’ position. I am not speculating about these formulations. So, it should be evident to all rational people that those who try to tie the one tradition to the other is either ignorant of history or malicious in their intent. It should be equally evident that ID methodology is exactly what Michael Behe says it is. The scientist studies patterns in nature and draws an inference to design. It is, as I say, the "backward approach." By conflating the two, Judge Jones has done a terrible injustice to all scientists everywhere, and I will not let it pass without comment. On the matter of old business, I have already explained, more than once, that, with respect to the problem of “plausibility,” I got the words wrong, but I was referring to a definite exchange that did occur. I expect you to acknowledge that point and move on rather than to declare it as “non-existent,” especially since I followed up with three more examples which show that Michael Behe clearly does not think that ID is religion. If you call those responses “non-existent” again, then you will find that my tone will, once again, become a bit more "strident," as you say. On thing sure, I feel no need to study the Lemon decision, because it is irrelevant to all of my arguments. That you think otherwise causes me to suspect that you do not appreciate the concept of justice in the abstract.StephenB_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
11:58 AM
11
11
58
AM
PDT}

GEM, Your 1:16 comment contained actual content. I hope that, by responding to it, you will slowly become less inclined to take up space with meaningless fluff like “distorted to the point of being a strawman laced with ad hominem oil and ignited, clouding, confusing and choking the air with hostility.” The court had this to say about IC: We therefore find that Professor Behe’s claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large. (17:45-46 (Padian); 3:99 (Miller)). Additionally, even if irreducible complexity had not been rejected, it still does not support ID as it is merely a test for evolution, not design. (2:15, 2:35-40 (Miller); 28:63-66 (Fuller)). How is your assertion that IC is nonreligious relevant to that analysis? I don’t think that you’re considering the court’s role. Can you explain, in your own words (and please in a paragraph or less – verbosity will not improve communication here) what steps went into the court’s analysis? In other words, can you tell us in your own words what questions the court had to answer, what test it used to answer those questions, and what the elements of that test are?Learned Hand_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
11:49 AM
11
11
49
AM
PDT}

LearnedHand, By your continued parsing of this case, you have provided what may be the most compelling exposé to date that Judge Jones was technically over his head and needlessly biased - as you are.Upright BiPed_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT}

LH:
If one of plaintiff’s witnesses had made Behe’s point in the converse, as you do here, the court might have agreed.
I searched the transcript and didn't see where this quote was discussed. Why would the defense preemptively argue against a quote that wasn't damaging to their position? They wouldn't know how it had been twisted until they read it in the decision. And it was twisted. Behe did say this at trial on day 12:
And in the same sense, just because intelligent design is compatible with Christian views, or because it makes such views or other theistic views seem more plausible does not mean that intelligent design itself is not a scientific theory.
Somehow that didn't make it to the decision.
there was no error
He said that Behe doesn't think what he thinks he thinks. That is an error. Unless he is insane, Behe is the indisputable authority on what he thinks.
We know it’s the judge’s opinion. That is, in fact, the legal effect of the adoption, as the Third Circuit makes clear in its opinion permitting such cribbing: the adopted materials become the court’s opinion in every respect.
I'm not disputing whether it's the court's opinion or the legality of such copying. I'm saying it's open to question whether the judge understood the opinion. Yes, I understand what I'm implying. But he's responsible regardless.
You’re assuming that the court wants people to read something it didn’t explicitly write – something sneaky and underhanded.
How suspicious of me to think that ACLU lawyers writing a publicized opinion on a politicized subject would take the opportunity to score some blows. Who has ever heard of such a thing? The opinion takes certain statements and first distorts them, and then builds upon that distortion to reach a conclusion not warranted by any evidence and contradicted by testimony. Underhanded is as underhanded does.ScottAndrews_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PDT}

PPS: LH, If you think Judge Jones' copycat reading on Behe (from ACLU) is an "objective" or fair reading, then that tells us all we need to know. And none of it good.kairosfocus_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT}

PS: And, Above LH, I pointed out exactly how this point on distorting Behe is part of the keystone plank of the ideological agenda to distort and demonise design theory. That it happens to be here listed as one point among several does not change that basic and unfortunate fact of life. As for the beginnings of a dangerous breakdown of public trust, simply cf how a lot of people are now very dubious on climate change pronouncements,and on economic policy declarations. Ask yourself why -- and it is not because hoi polloi are "ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked." [Do you remember the lady who (apocryphally, I acknowledge) famously said "let them eat cake" and her sad fate? What about the marshal who said of the Ardennes, that it was impassable to tanks (never mind his proviso). Or, the generals who shunted Lenin and co across Germany into russia? Or, the power brokers who thought that a jumped up lance corporal would be manageable in the government. THAT is the kind of history I dread to see us refusing to learn from and so repeating.]kairosfocus_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PDT}

Footnote: LH and DK, as one who has worked with technological applications of science, I am very familiar with entities for which loss of function (or even going off operating point) for one component will derange the system block and the system as a whole. (Sometimes in maddeningly subtle ways . . . ) In short, it is a common fact of life for engineered systems to see that they have irreducibly complex cores in which all parts must work and must work together to get basic function. (Peripheral components and redundancy reduce the impact of loss of function for non-core elements.) I also note that trial and error is not a good design strategy for such systems, as to get all elements to a mutual operating point is very hard to do. Nor is the idea that sub-systems are functional in themselves a good answer, as the components must be so organised together and so mutually adjusted that they will work together. [Ever had to try to find the RIGHT car part?] When therefore I see Mr Behe applying from the insight that many systems in biology are also like that, starting with the flagellum, I see his point that these are going to be poor targets for chance variation plus natural selection; esp as until the system is together in a properly balanced way, it will not work: i.e. until you get to more or less deeply isolated islands of function. So, since trial and erro is dependent on being close enough to frull funciton to see how to make the next try, the proposed mechanism will not be very successful. Q: Now, kindly explain to me wherein this chain of reasoning I have adverted to theistic metaphysics and institutions or commitments thereto? A: Nowhere. Sorry, your objection above to Irreducible complexity begs the question and projects the demonising and distorting agitprop; it does not address the issue cogently on its merits. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
11:16 AM
11
11
16
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 12 13 14 15 16 … 26 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply