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

ScottAndrews, He said that people who believe in God find it more plausible, and atheists find it less plausible. The inverse is true of [loosely termed] evolution - atheists find it more plausible. If ID is entwined with belief in God, then evolution is equally entwined with atheism, for the very same reason. Is that not correct? Another interesting point! If one of plaintiff’s witnesses had made Behe’s point in the converse, as you do here, the court might have agreed. But (a) they did not, and (b) it would have been irrelevant. The entanglement would be with (at most) secularism, rather than atheism. (Because there is no direct connection between standard biology and a belief as to the reality of god, as the court found there was (and Johnson, Dembski, Behe, etc. agreed there was) between ID and faith.) There is a long line of cases establishing that schools may teach secular material, even if it conflicts with students’ religious beliefs, so long as it does not directly suppress those beliefs. A very good argument, though. In fact, one that my constitutional law professor once posed to me in class, as part of the Socratic method. With that error the entire line of reasoning fails and the judge’s understanding of the matter is called into question. Not at all. Partly because there was no error, as discussed above, and partly because the constitutionality of teaching evolution was not at issue. The court was called upon to resolve the issues framed by the parties, and nothing more. And to emphasize, the plaintiff wrote it. We can’t tell if Jones really didn’t understand what Behe said, or if he just didn’t read everything that went into his own ruling. 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. He is responsible for every part of what he puts in his opinion, whoever wrote the words originally – by adopting it, he takes responsibility for any mistake, whether legal, factual, or grammatical. For what it’s worth, the court’s careful consideration and exclusion of parts of the proposed findings is exactly what appellate courts look for in determining whether such copying is reasonable. As for your 12:32 comment, I think that’s very inapposite. You’re assuming that the court wants people to read something it didn’t explicitly write – something sneaky and underhanded. I don’t see any support for that at all. It doesn’t fit the context of the paragraph or the section, and isn’t necessary to reach the court’s eventual conclusion. I just don’t see any reason to take the strained, unnecessary reading you’re adopting, especially because “remarkably” and “unmistakably” make perfect sense in the plain, ordinary reading that does fit the context of the statement. GEM, If you’d like to address the points I provided in demonstrating why it’s ludicrous to call the court’s comment “a keystone plank” of anything, feel free. I will reiterate: 1. The comment is one observation among several in a single paragraph. The comment is therefore not a “keystone plank” of the paragraph. It is merely one observation among several. 2. Even if it were, the section is about how an objective observers would perceive ID. 3. The paragraph is an aside about how ID’s advocates, who are not objective observers, see it. The paragraph is therefore not a “keystone plank” of the section. It is merely ancillary support for one part of the section’s analysis. 3. The section itself is only one part of a sophisticated multipart analysis, which proceeds under between two and four prongs of the Lemon test (and its progeny). The section is significant, but is not a “keystone plank” of that analysis. At most, it is one part of one prong of the test. You may address those points if you wish. The closest thing to an argument in your latest comment, however, is that you bolded the words “a keystone plank.” The rest is filler, invective, and adjectives.* * To be fair, the “horrendously” in “horrendously bloodily” is technically an adverb. Mea culpa.Learned Hand_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
11:07 AM
11
11
07
AM
PDT}

PPS: LH, as SA just pointed out, YOU are now distorting the issue as well in how you are phrasing it. Please, stop, take a breath, look again at the gap between what Mr Behe said and how you are representing him. (And in that light, you will need to ask whether -- by the same standard you just tried to force on SB, you are to be regarded as lacking in basic credibility. Instead, let us acknowledge that we all err,and can correct such errors.)kairosfocus_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
10:49 AM
10
10
49
AM
PDT}

PS: LH, I ask you to look at the logical chain I have laid out at 303 above, on why a priori worldview and methodological commitments such as Mr Lewontin [A NAS member] confessed to in January 1997 in NYRB, can so bias persons -- and the schools of thought and institutions they dominate -- that they are unable to hear the force of a legitimate case. And, without reference to "dependence" on being an atheist or a theist. Then compare what Mr Behe actually said with how Judge Jones/the ACLU reports him. I believe you will find abundant reason to see that the "reading" presented in the decision in the name of the court is distorted to the point of being a strawman laced with ad hominem oil and ignited, clouding, confusing and choking the air with hostility.kairosfocus_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
10:42 AM
10
10
42
AM
PDT}

I really am going to stop. But to provide an example: My co-worker denied stealing candy from my desk. Remarkably and unmistakably she later said that she was eating a piece of candy. Notice how I never actually said she stole it, but the use of those words gives that meaning. If didn't mean to give the wrong impression, why use them?ScottAndrews_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT}

LH: Pace your remarks in 317 above, it is quite evident that there was a gross and evidently calculated misrepresentation of what Mr Behe had to say (and a lot of associated or easily accessible evidence that substantiates Behe's remarks as fundamentally correct), in a wider context of a long term -- frankly, utterly and cynicaly dishonest -- agitprop agenda to mischaracterise the nature of Intelligent Design, and even of what science is itself per its history and philosophical investigations thereupon (this last under the label methodological naturalism). Now, too, most of those who come here and propagate the talking points of that agenda do so sincerely, having been misled. But, once one rises to a certain level, s/he has a duty of care to the truth and to due diligence before speaking in public on a matter. And, on a lot of evidence, the willful (including willfully negligent) mischaracterisation of ID as a politicised, potentially tyrannical religious agenda rather than a legitimate scientific perspective is a keystone plank -- not only of this particular case and its decision, but of the whole ACLU-NCSE-NAS-NSTA etc etc agenda to subvert science in service to materialism and its fellow travellers. On this I must also note to you, the ACLU wrote 90+% of this aspect of the decision as made. (Cf discussion of the strategy of misrepresentation, distortion and demonisation in Section E my always linked, and in the weak argument correctives for this blog, above right.) 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. Indeed, that for many such individuals and the institutions they dominate, there is no more to truth or fairness or morality than subjective opinion and balances of power. And, when the ordinary Joe Smith in the street understands that significant injustice is now being institutionalised though such distortions. Then, reads the history of such days, and tremble. Please, please PLEASE try to correct the mess before it is too late; forever -- and most likely horrendously bloodily -- too late. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
10:29 AM
10
10
29
AM
PDT}

Learned Hand: Permit me to add a few more shoe prints to the deceased horse.
But Behe did say that ID and religion are intertwined
Never, ever. He said that people who believe in God find it more plausible, and atheists find it less plausible. The inverse is true of [loosely termed] evolution - atheists find it more plausible. If ID is entwined with belief in God, then evolution is equally entwined with atheism, for the very same reason. Is that not correct? With that error the entire line of reasoning fails and the judge's understanding of the matter is called into question. And to emphasize, the plaintiff wrote it. We can't tell if Jones really didn't understand what Behe said, or if he just didn't read everything that went into his own ruling. As I said before, I don't necessarily disagree with the outcome. But the judge needs to understand that his decision is not like a forum post where he can accidentally quote something incorrect and retract it later. People read it and they think it means something.ScottAndrews_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT}

StephenB, Does that refer to me? No. The comment was directed at ScottAndrews, and referred to our mutual suspicion of each others' motives. Fortunately, we also seem to share a mutual sense that further discussion on that point is futile. 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. I will make a few broad responses: The article and the testimony make distinct points. They are different. They are alike only in that they show that Behe admits that religion and ID are entangled. Such entanglement is a part of the Lemon test, and thus, the court's analysis. The court obviously did not believe that "irreducible complexity" was a valid scientific argument. In reaching that conclusion, it sided with the experts who were backed up by an enormous weight of published authority. That's how the system works. It's not intended to give radical minorities equal footing with established science. ID has to persuade the scientific community before it will gain traction in such proceedings. Even if "irreducible complexity" were, in the court's eyes, a valid scientific argument, it would not be very relevant to the Lemon analysis. A philosophy that (as its proponents admit) is muddled together with religion may use one or two scientific arguments without extricating itself from that entanglement. Scientology, for example, may use scientific methods in some of its processes; that doesn't make it science. The court considered ID as a movement, which is much more than just a vehicle for "irreducible complexity." Whether IC in and of itself would pass constitutional muster isn't the focus of the opinion, although it would almost certainly fail every prong of the Lemon test, for the reasons the court gave. Finally, even if Behe had said simply, "I do not believe that ID is in any way religious," the court's opinion would still be valid and correct. The court observed that Behe believes that ID and religion are entangled. According to you, Behe thinks that ID is, nevertheless, not religious. The court disagreed with Behe's conclusions, but not his premise. It agreed that ID and religion are entangled, but under the controlling legal standard--which the court was required to apply--such entanglement is enough to make ID "religious." If you disagree, you'll need to start discussing the legal standards applicable here, which are part and parcel of the court's analysis. Start by reading Lemon. After your repeated citations to nonexistent testimony, you will need to demonstrate that you truly understand the opinion and its analysis if you want to continue this discussion.Learned Hand_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
09:48 AM
9
09
48
AM
PDT}

----Learned Hand: "I think the court understands that Behe would say, if asked, “ID is not religion.” Thank you. ----"But Behe did say that ID and religion are intertwined, and the controlling legal test asks, inter alia, whether the challenged policy entangles the state with religion." Did he, in fact, use the word, "intertwined," or did you, like Judge Jones, put a new word in his mouth calculated to make a stronger claim than he really made. ---"The court is saying, in essence, that Behe gave away the game in his article." The court is saying that Behe's words can be trusted if they can be perverted in such a way as to indict him, but they cannot be trusted if they would exonerate him. You too, are saying that. Absolutely incredible!StephenB_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT}

---Learned Hand to Scott Andrews: "Thank you! This is a much more interesting discussion than sniping at each others’ motives." Does that refer to me? I didn't snipe at your motives. I asked you to answer some very simple questions @334. So, far, you have not stepped up to the plate.StephenB_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PDT}

-----David: "If you insist on a religious antecedent, a one word answer is: Paley (who Natural Theology is an acknowledged precedent for both Behe and Dembski.)" You seem to have difficulty following the analysis of the decision. Judge Jones' argument is not that ID HAS a religious antecedents, the argument is that ID [including "irreducible complexity"] CANNOT UNCOUPLE itself from its relious antecedents, even if Paley qualfies as a religious antecedent.StephenB_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT}

ScottAndrews, Thank you! This is a much more interesting discussion than sniping at each others’ motives. I don’t see that your rewriting addresses the objective validity of ID; isn’t that what you think the court was trying to say? I was curious to see how you could rephrase the paragraph to clarify what you think the court’s point was, without losing the flow of the segment. My contention is that you can’t, which is strong evidence for my claim that the court was not addressing (in this paragraph) the objective validity of ID. The court hasn’t found that Behe is wrong, it has found that Behe doesn’t really think what he thinks he does! I think the court understands that Behe would say, if asked, “ID is not religion.” But Behe did say that ID and religion are intertwined, and the controlling legal test asks, inter alia, whether the challenged policy entangles the state with religion. The court is saying, in essence, that Behe gave away the game in his article. Why use “remarkably” and “unmistakably” to draw attention to the sentence if only states the obvious, unless the reader is meant to read more into it? Because it’s written English? “Remarkably” appears a few times in the opinion. It’s just standard phrasing. I use those words all the time, without meaning the reader to “read more into” my phrasing. If there’s any additional meaning to these words, it’s consistent with my comments above; the court understands that Behe would disagree that ID is inherently religious, but is pointing out that he has already given away the game by admitting that ID is intertwined with religion. That makes the admission “remarkable,” and it’s worth pointing out that the admission is “unmistakable” in order to clarify that this is a clear and careful statement on Behe’s part, rather than a slip of the tongue. But in the end, I think those words are filler. If you cut them, it wouldn’t change the thrust or accuracy of the court’s writing. And how twisted is it to claim that Behe doesn’t even believe ID is scientific, even if he thinks he thinks so? This is the problem with taking two sentences out of an ancillary paragraph and acting as if the entire opinion hangs from them. It’s a tangential remark. It could be better written (and probably would be, if it was crucial to the result), but I read it as using the court’s definition of “science,” not Behe’s. I think it’s the only logical reading, but I don’t see consensus in our future. One confusing sentence in over a hundred pages would be inhumanly good writing. There must be other passages you find objectionable. Would you like to move on to a different segment? Fresh material would be more invigorating.Learned Hand_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT}

By "sentences" I mean, of course, "quotes" (or rather ""quotes"", since they're rarely actual quotes). If you insist on a religious antecedent, a one word answer is: Paley (who Natural Theology is an acknowledged precedent for both Behe and Dembski.)David Kellogg_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT}

----Learned Hand: "It’s not at all clear to me that Michael Behe thinks that ID is not religion. He clearly does think that it’s intertwined with religious belief, as is evidenced by the article and the first excerpt in your comment. Although they are logically distinct comments, they both rely on the assumption that there is a strong connection between ID and faith." Well, then, please explain these statements that, so far, you have not been willing to touch with a ten foot pole. Here they are again. From section 1: ----“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.” What is it about this distinction that you are having problems with. Perhaps I can help. At another time, on page 87, the ----attorney asks Behe, “Do you have an opinion as to whether Intelligent design is a religious belief?” ----He does have an opinion. ----The answer is, “No.” Are you saying that Michael Behe is lying, confused, or otherwise insufficiently in tune with his own feelings to vebalize his position. ----And on page 89 Behe states, “Creationism is a religious idea…..ID relies rather on physical and observable evidence plus logical inference for the logical argument.” What is it about this distinction that you are having problems with. Do you not understand the difference between a religious presupposition and a design inference. I know that Judge Jones does not understand the diffference. My question is, do you understand the difference.? If not, I can explain it very easily. In that same general area, he goes into great detail explaining “irreducible complexity” and makes it clear that he draws his inferences from the patterns. He makes it doubly clear that it has nothing to religion. What is "religious" about drawing inferences about patterns in nature? Can you provide me with any semblance of a rational answer to any of these questions?StephenB_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
08:50 AM
8
08
50
AM
PDT}

----David Kellogg: "Another made-up quote. He doesn’t say that. The “antecedents” paragraph is this:" This isn't complicated, David. Judge Jones declared that ID "cannot uncouple itself with creationism and its religious antecedents." He is talking about all ID. Irreducible complexity is a subset of ID so it too is implicated. So, tell me how irreducible complexity is coupled with creationism and religious antecedents. ---"The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents." That's right. ID includes irreducible complexity. So, please answer the question. ---"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))." I didn't ask you if other scientists tried to refute irreducible complexity, I asked you about Judge Jones decision, which associated ID, which includes irreducible complexity, with creationism and religious antecedents. Please stop stalling.StephenB_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PDT}

Tell me how the methodology of “irreducible complexity” is, as Judge Jones put it, coupled with “creationism and religious antecedents”
Another made-up quote. He doesn't say that. The "antecedents" paragraph is this:
The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents
His conclusions about irreducible complexity are different and about thirty pages earlier:
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)).
David Kellogg_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
08:26 AM
8
08
26
AM
PDT}

Learned Hand:
Can you rephrase it, from the first sentence to the last, using your interpretation of the comment? I’m curious to see how that paragraph would preserve the flow of the section.
Yes, I can. And it won't make any sense. (I must look up arguendo.) Here's my version. The first sentence is untouched. "Moreover, in turning to Defendants' lead expert, Professor Behe, his testimony at trial indicated that ID is only a scientific, as opposed to a religious, project for him; however, considerable evidence was introduced to refute this claim. Consider, to illustrate, that Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that people who believe in God are more likely to find ID believable. (P-718 at 705) (emphasis added). As no evidence in the record indicates that any other scientific proposition is more believable to those who believe in God, nor is the Court aware of any such scientific propositions, 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." The first statement says that Behe believes ID is science.Then, remarkably, Behe says that people who believe in God are more likely to accept ID. In the context of what he actuall said, why is that remarkable?Based on that statement, Behe is wrong - he thinks he believes ID is science, but that's not really his view. The court hasn't found that Behe is wrong, it has found that Behe doesn't really think what he thinks he does! Why use "remarkably" and "unmistakably" to draw attention to the sentence if only states the obvious, unless the reader is meant to read more into it? And how twisted is it to claim that Behe doesn't even believe ID is scientific, even if he thinks he thinks so? Imagine if I said that you're not wrong about evolution - you don't even believe it, even if you think you do. Someone got a good laugh out of that. And you cannot ignore that these words were not written by a neutral party. Like I said to DK, admit it. It doesn't make you an IDist.ScottAndrews_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
08:18 AM
8
08
18
AM
PDT}

Stephen, You omitted the portion of my comment in which I responded to your argument. The "conversation that [you] have been referring to" is not the same as the comment in the article; (A makes B more plausible) is distinct from (B makes A more plausible). The court was talking about the statement in the article, and had no reason to contrast it to a totally different statement from the testimony. Clearly, Michael Behe does not think ID is religion and clearly Judge Jones claimed otherwise. It's not at all clear to me that Michael Behe thinks that ID is not religion. He clearly does think that it's intertwined with religious belief, as is evidenced by the article and the first excerpt in your comment. Although they are logically distinct comments, they both rely on the assumption that there is a strong connection between ID and faith. That intertwining is the relevant Lemon element, and sufficient for the legal analysis. Even if your reading were correct, the court is not required to believe an expert's testimony. Especially not when that testimony is contradicted by a prior writing.Learned Hand_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
08:17 AM
8
08
17
AM
PDT}

---David: "How quickly we forget. I responded about irreducible complexity, not ID in general. You can’t conflate something now that you asked me to distinguish ten minutes ago." It appears that your memory is failing you. I wrote: "I will ask you the same question that I asked Rob: How do you get religion from “irreducible complexity?” -----"You responded, I don’t think the question of whether ID is really religious is answerable (this has to do with my views of definition itself).” It was you who shifted from the specific to the general. I thought you were a big fan of "specifics." You think Judge Jones decision was rational, so so me some rationality. Tell me how the methodology of “irreducible complexity” is, as Judge Jones put it, coupled with “creationism and religious antecedents”StephenB_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT}

----Learned Hand: "I won’t address your points in detail; I have little to say that would be productive at this point. I will add only one thing to add to David Kellog’s comments on your quotations of nonexistent testimony: Why not? If you think that Judge Jones was fair with Michael Behe, you should be able to address these points. Here they are again: From section 1: “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.” It is this conversation that I have been referring to, and its point is clear enough. At another time, on page 87, the attorney asks Behe, “Do you have an opinion as to whether Intelligent design is a religious belief?” He does have an opinion. The answer is, “No.” And on page 89 Behe states, “Creationism is a religious idea…..ID relies rather on physical and observable evidence plus logical inference for the logical argument.” That’s clear enough. In that same general area, he goes into great detail explaining “irreducible complexity” and makes it clear that he draws his inferences from the patterns. He makes it doubly clear that it has nothing to religion. Do you have an answer for this? Clearly, Michael Behe does not think ID is religion and clearly Judge Jones claimed otherwise. I don't think that there is any way around this. If there were, I am sure you would find it.StephenB_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PDT}

StephenB, remember this?
I didn’t ask you about ID in genral. I asked you specifically about “irreducible complexity,” which is Michael Behe’s formulation.
How quickly we forget. I responded about irreducible complexity, not ID in general. You can't conflate something now that you asked me to distinguish ten minutes ago.David Kellogg_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PDT}

=--David Kellogg: "No he didn’t. I just searched the decision for “irreducible” and found critiques of its logic and power but no assertion that it is religious." ----Here is the Judge's decision: "In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious,antecedents." Tell me how the methodology of "irreducible complexity" is coupled with "creationism and religious antecedents"StephenB_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
08:00 AM
8
08
00
AM
PDT}

ScottAndrews, I could go so far as to allow just for the sake of discussion that perhaps Jones wasn’t specifically addressing the objective validity of ID. (Not that I believe it.) But the sentences were plainly written to be understood that way. If you can’t admit to that, then you’re just siding with him because he’s your guy and he can do no wrong. In legal jargon, you’d say, “Assuming arguendo that Jones wasn’t ….” I mention that only because “arguendo” is one of my favorite words ever, and I think more people should use it more often. Anyway, I disagree completely. The sentences were not written to be understood that way. They were written to be read in context, and in logical connection with the preceding sentence, the surrounding paragraph, and the overall section. Your reading is nonsensical in that context, while mine preserves the flow and reason of the contextual material. And if you can’t admit to that, then you’re just siding with him because he ruled against ID and he must be shown to be wrong. Etcetera. Obviously we both have our preexisting conclusions, and we can both go around in circles accusing each other of defending them. That’s not as fun, informative, or dignified as sticking with actual arguments. So let’s try this: how does the logic of the paragraph work, using your reading? Can you rephrase it, from the first sentence to the last, using your interpretation of the comment? I’m curious to see how that paragraph would preserve the flow of the section. StephenB, I won’t address your points in detail; I have little to say that would be productive at this point. I will add only one thing to add to David Kellog’s comments on your quotations of nonexistent testimony: The quote you now say was the testimony you meant to cite is totally different from the Response to My Critics article. The article says that faith makes ID more plausible; the testimony says that ID makes faith more plausible. Those are not equivalent statements. They only sound alike. They are so logically distinct that an analysis of one could proceed entirely without reference to the other.Learned Hand_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT}

Just Jones ruled that [irreducible complexity] is religious.
No he didn't. I just searched the decision for "irreducible" and found critiques of its logic and power but no assertion that it is religious.David Kellogg_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT}

It isn't clear [to] me.StephenB_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
07:42 AM
7
07
42
AM
PDT}

----David Kellogg: "StephenB, I don’t think the question of whether ID is really religious is answerable (this has to do with my views of definition itself)." I didn't ask you about ID in genral. I asked you specifically about "irreducible complexity," which is Michael Behe's formulation. Just Jones ruled that it is religious. You said you agree with Judge Jones. So, tell me how you get from "irreducible complexity" to religion." ----"It’s clear, though, that ID proponents have described it in religious or in scientific terms depending on their audience." It isn't clear me. Tell me how Michael Behe can describe "irreducible complexity" in religious terms.StephenB_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
07:40 AM
7
07
40
AM
PDT}

Lost though I am in who did or did not say what when, Jones did include in the decision that
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.
Did Jones need expert testimony to conclude that Behe doesn't think ID is science? These words depict him as incompetent. Did he not understand what Behe said, or did he not understand the words given him to enter into the decision?ScottAndrews_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
07:28 AM
7
07
28
AM
PDT}

StephenB, I don't think the question of whether ID is really religious is answerable (this has to do with my views of definition itself). It's clear, though, that ID proponents have described it in religious or in scientific terms depending on their audience.
—”The paragraph illustrates the contradictions between the testimony and other materials.” What are you talking about?
See my explanation of the Jones passage above.David Kellogg_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
07:27 AM
7
07
27
AM
PDT}

----David Kellogg: "That’s why Behe’s testimony is contradicted by his other writings and by the writings of many other ID supporters suggesting that ID is religious." Oh, so now the truth comes out. You agree with Judge Jones that Micheal Behe's conception of intelligent design is religious in spite of his own testimony. I will ask you the same question that I asked Rob: How do you get religion from "irreducible complexity?" ----"Jones’s point is not that Behe testified that ID is religious. His point is that Behe’s testimony that it’s not religious is belied by many other (pro-ID) sources, including Behe. That Behe answers “no” in the testimony agrees with Jones’s decision." No, that was not Judge Jones's point. His point was that Michael Behe had incriminated himself with his own words and unwittingly admitted that his methodology is faith based, which it clearly is not. ---"The paragraph illustrates the contradictions between the testimony and other materials." What are you talking about?StephenB_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
07:19 AM
7
07
19
AM
PDT}

That’s clear enough.
Yes. That's why Behe's testimony is contradicted by his other writings and by the writings of many other ID supporters suggesting that ID is religious. Jones's point is not that Behe testified that ID is religious. His point is that Behe's testimony that it's not religious is belied by many other (pro-ID) sources, including Behe. That Behe answers "no" in the testimony agrees with Jones's decision. The paragraph illustrates the contradictions between the testimony and other materials.David Kellogg_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PDT}

CannuckianYankee, I appreciate your knowledge of legal issues. Thank you. This bears on the rest of your comment. You are correct when you say Judge Jones let himself be educated by the experts – that is exactly how it is supposed to work. He is not allowed to do his own, independent research in factual matters. The court was confronted with conflicting experts. One set that was backed by the full weight of the scientific community, and the other was made up of outsiders with essentially no record of publication or experimentation. As the court explained in its opinion, it simply couldn’t go with Behe’s testimony over the consensus of the entire scientific community when Behe had failed to engage with the professional literature or test his own ideas. The court’s conclusions would have been correct even if it had turned out the next day that Behe’s theories were provably correct. The court just can’t pick up a tiny fringe viewpoint and say, “I believe you’re science, based on the two days of testimony you’ve given.” It has to go with the experts, and frankly, one or two scientists up against every major university in the world is no contest, credibility-wise. Once again, it’s not a question of what’s true as much as it is what’s credible. If it were otherwise, we’d have courts doing our science for us, and we all agree that would be bad. As I stated before, the verdict on ID did not end in Dover, and I think you agreed with me; but Dover swayed some opinion regarding ID that has a huge impact on science. I agree with both points. I don’t believe justice acted blindly in Dover. It was tainted a prior commitment to the status quo. Here we disagree. Again, the court was comparing Behe’s testimony that he’d overturned hundreds of years of scientific endeavor with that of witnesses who were representative of the entire scientific community. It would have been incredibly inappropriate for the court to lead the way in calling ID “science.” ID needs to convince scientists first (and not just a few computer scientists or engineers – biologists, who are experts on the evidence at hand). If it does that, courts will follow, which is how the system should work. And lastly - If Judge Jones had left ID alone, he still could have come to a verdict regarding the Dover School District, showing that they violated the 1st amendment. There is an argument to be made for this point, although I disagree. For legal reasons, the nature of ID is an important point in the Lemon test. The argument would be that the board’s conduct was so egregious that the test didn’t need to be fully analyzed. It’s not a bad argument, but it’s not persuasive to me. “Judicial restraint” doesn’t mean answering half a question and then giving up, even if the answer seems very easy. It’s appropriate for courts to fully analyze the issues presented, especially when both parties ask it to, which was the case in Dover. So despite your knowledge of law and all of the intricacies of how it is practiced, surely you can see why those on the ID side see this ruling as a biased opinion, and not a reasoned judgment based on all that can be known about these issues. Absolutely. But I also see that their arguments are not based in knowledge of the law, or a careful reading of the opinion. So when I read arguments that rely on taking clauses out of context, or ignoring the structure of the opinion, I see justification rather than analysis. It’s very familiar, because we all do the same thing when we lose a case. It’s fun. But it’s not persuasive, without a careful analysis, which isn’t being done here. KF, LH, when a keystone plank of a Judge’s decision rests on the use of a frankly dishonest mischaracterisation that depends on not doing basic homework, we have a case of injustice. Obviously I disagree that there was any mischaracterization, much less a dishonest one. But leaving that intractable point aside, you are objectively incorrect when you call the remark “a keystone plank” of the decision. Please read the opinion in its entirety. The court’s comment about Behe’s article comes in a section about objective observers’ perception of ID, in a paragraph about the opinions of ID supporters. Because the ID supporters are not objective, the nature of their opinions can only be a buttress to the section’s conclusions, not a “keystone plank.” And, of course, the remark about Behe is just one of three or four examples of ID supporters’ opinions given to buttress the section’s conclusions. If the paragraph were omitted entirely, it would make no difference whatsoever to the logical flow of the court’s argument. There is no basis for calling it a “keystone plank.”Learned Hand_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 13 14 15 16 17 … 26 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply