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

StephenB, "plausible" in the decision does not refer to "plausible" in the testimony but to the article. That's why your fulminations about "plausible" in the testimony are pointless.David Kellogg_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
07:04 AM
7
07
04
AM
PST}

---David: "That would be why not a single quote you provided from the transcript until recently was correct. That would be why you remembered conversations that didn’t happen or happened in the opposite way. (Did you also read the “gasps”?) You read the Biology and Philosophy article in the past but could not get it even when told where it was and refused to believe Jones was referring to anything but the testimony?" That is not true at all. As I pointed out several times, I did, in many cases, abbreviate to save time. So, rather than provided extended phrases, I alluded to "depend on" and "more plausible." It was only when I discovered that petty critics were going to attack that exercise in brevity as an example of my so-called dishonesty that I began to use up more space. Another good example of dishonesty, for example, is the way that you continue to labor over those past objections, while ignoring the evidence I provided at 304, which completely closes that case on this whole matter. That is why you are laboring over past issues. You are running away from the evidence. Here it is 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? Of course you don't. That is why you are tying to make it all about me.StephenB_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PST}

StephenB, how did you get the "Reply to My Critics" article, and why don't you have it now? Did you pay for it? Did you get it through interlibrary loan?
an informal metaphor provided by a pundit passed along by me at a time
Ah, "memory" "passed along" by a "pundit." What moment was the pundit referring to? What was the pundit "remembering"? Second-hand hearsay memories are the best.David Kellogg_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
06:52 AM
6
06
52
AM
PST}

If I had not read the decision with care, I would not have discovered the conflict between Behe’s use of the word, “plausible,” and Judge Jones’ unjustified addition of “depends upon.”
If you had read the decision with care, you would have noted immediately that Judge Jones was not referring to the testimony at that point, because it's obvious. Your reading of "depends upon," however, is a fantasy of your own making. Here's what I think happened. You read the testimony quickly. You read the decision quickly. The word "plausible" occurs in both (though never in the testimony as you remember it). You somehow latched onto that as important, even though "plausible" in the decision does not refer to "plausible" in the testimony.David Kellogg_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PST}

StephenB, How about telling me the answer to the "rock on Mars" question you posed us and then didn't answer?Gaz_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
06:45 AM
6
06
45
AM
PST}

"You are lying again. I have read all that in the past, I just didn’t have access to it." That would be why not a single quote you provided from the transcript until recently was correct. That would be why you remembered conversations that didn't happen or happened in the opposite way. (Did you also read the "gasps"?) You read the Biology and Philosophy article in the past but could not get it even when told where it was and refused to believe Jones was referring to anything but the testimony?David Kellogg_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
06:45 AM
6
06
45
AM
PST}

----"Hey StephenB, where did the audience “gasp” again? And how did you remember that?" It was an informal metaphor provided by a pundit passed along by me at a time when the conversation was a bit [how should it say this] less formal and less petty.StephenB_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PST}

Hey StephenB, where did the audience "gasp" again? And how did you remember that? kairosfocus, I'm sorry, I fell asleep while reading your comment. I recall something about a "truth hurts" moment. On the contrary, I'm enjoying this! Your writing, not so much.David Kellogg_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PST}

----David: "You insisted it was to the testimony when told it wasn’t. The only reason you know it was to an article was because I told you, though you still denied it until I provided the text from the article, which you had not read and, as far as I know, have still not. I told you it was to an article, and you did not believe me. I told you the testimony quotes were wrong, and you insisted they were. I provided the quotes from the article, which you had not even read before making the charge." You are lying again. I have read all that in the past, I just didn't have access to it. You have no way of knowing what I have or have not read. How do you think that I knew the words "depend on" had been added in by Judge Jones.StephenB_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PST}

---David Kellogg: "No I’m not. It’s in the record, in this very thread. In 108, after you had been corrected that Judge Jones was referring not to the testimony. I acknowledged that error already. On the other hand, you are lying when you say that I base my entire case on that one event or a poor reading of the decision. If I had not read the decision with care, I would not have discovered the conflict between Behe's use of the word, "plausible," and Judge Jones' unjustified addition of "depends upon." You certainly didn't catch it. More to the point, you are now running away from it. I base my case on the totatlity of the written record and on Michael Behe's comprehensive testimony, of which I have alluded to and which you studiously avoid.StephenB_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
06:21 AM
6
06
21
AM
PST}

—-”Your belief that Judge Jones is lying will not be moved by knowing that you couldn’t say what he was even referring to!” I think you had better reread @304. You seem to be having a little problem with the facts as presented.
You insisted it was to the testimony when told it wasn't. The only reason you know it was to an article was because I told you, though you still denied it until I provided the text from the article, which you had not read and, as far as I know, have still not. I told you it was to an article, and you did not believe me. I told you the testimony quotes were wrong, and you insisted they were. I provided the quotes from the article, which you had not even read before making the charge.David Kellogg_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
06:14 AM
6
06
14
AM
PST}

StephenB writes:
—- He repeatedly insisted that Judge Jones was referring to testimony rather than Behe’s article, and his entire charge was based on “remembering” a conversation that didn’t happen as compared to an article that he hadn’t read.” That is a lie. My charge is based on the fact that Judge Jones showed complete disregard for Micahel Behe’s explicit expressions of what he believed and didn’t believe.
No I'm not. It's in the record, in this very thread. In 108, after you had been corrected that Judge Jones was referring not to the testimony, you write:
When Judge Jones recalled that testimony [not a citation from somewhere else] he indicated that Behe said that ID explicitly stated that the “plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God.”
"not a citation from somewhere else" are your words. You had already been told it was not to the testimony that Judge Jones was referring (as is clear in the decision itself) yet insisted it was not a citation from somewhere else (even though it was).David Kellogg_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
06:11 AM
6
06
11
AM
PST}

"But the extent to which he did calls into question whether he understood any of the testimony or evidence offered in the trial over which he presided." No. You only say that because - to put your own words back at you - he's not your guy and he can do no right. The extent to which he did so does nothing other than reflect on the fact that the school board lost their case so badly. That wasn't helped by desperately poor case preparation and dubious court performance by the Thomas More Law Centre, for the board, and excellent lawyering by the plaintiffs led by Rothschild. The extent to which Jones took from the plaintiffs is not at all surprising. Let's face it, even Discovery Institute knew that Dover was a losing case - they ran a mile from it.Gaz_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
06:00 AM
6
06
00
AM
PST}

---David Kellogg: "No, StephenB, it’s not the same. It’s completely different. Your entire charge was based on ignorance of the testimony and a poor reading of the decision." I know that this is a stretch for you, but try real hard, now. The point at issue is whether Judge Jones misrepresented Michael Behe's words. ----In the confrontation between belief and evidenced, belief is no pushover." Good quote. Why not learn from its message and acknowledge the truth. Michael Behe clearly does not believe that ID is religion and Judge Jones clearly did him an injustice. I ----"Your belief that Judge Jones is lying will not be moved by knowing that you couldn’t say what he was even referring to!" I think you had better reread @304. You seem to be having a little problem with the facts as presented.StephenB_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
05:58 AM
5
05
58
AM
PST}

---David Kellogg: "So, to sum up: StephenB now agrees that (1) He referred to a conversation that didn’t happen." Not true at all. The conversation did happen, but I got some of the words wrong. I acknowledged that point. ---- He repeatedly insisted that Judge Jones was referring to testimony rather than Behe’s article, and his entire charge was based on “remembering” a conversation that didn’t happen as compared to an article that he hadn’t read." That is a lie. My charge is based on the fact that Judge Jones showed complete disregard for Micahel Behe's explicit expressions of what he believed and didn't believe. The facts are that Judge Jones misrepresented Miohael Behe and the facts are that you sign on to that outrage. Here are the facts that David Kellogg chooses to ignore: 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 do with religion or faith. Judge Jones is without excuse. David Kellogg is without excuse. (StephenB_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
05:51 AM
5
05
51
AM
PST}

Onlookers: We plainly have a "truth hurts" moment with Mr Kellogg, rather like when a boil is lanced. (Sorry for the pain, but the failure to deal with the problem will hurt even more long-term.) So, let us remind ourselves, through Mr Lewontin (remember, a member of the US National Academy of Sciences), of just how a priori commitment to materialism may hamper our ability to perceive the truth on matters related to the design inference:
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. [Lewontin, NYRB, 1997]
This does not sound particularly open-minded to me and can easily account for Mr Behe's observations above (e.g. as cited by SB at 187 [from Mr Kellogg]):
As a matter of my own experience the answer is clearly yes, the argument is less plausible to those for whom God’s existence is in question, and is much less plausible for those who deny God’s existence. People I speak with who already believe in God generally agree with the idea of design in biology (although there are certainly exceptions), those who are in doubt are interested in the argument but often are skeptical, and as a rule those who actively deny God’s existence are either very skeptical or wholly disbelieving (Apparently, the idea of a natural intelligent designer of terrestrial life is not entertained by a large percentage of people).”
That should show, rather directly, just how relevant my citing of Mr Lewontin is. However, as I summarised in 293 - 4, there is a logical dynamic at stake: 1 --> In implications we reason IF P THEN Q, P => Q. 2 --> So, if one is initially inclined to accept P, we would expect him to go on to accept Q. 3 --> But such is not always so, for if such a person ALSO is strongly committed to F, and on F Q is impossible, then there is a different path that may obtain. 4 --> Namely, on observing F => NOT-Q, then such a person may infer F, so NOT-Q. NOT-Q so NOT-P. 5 --> In itself, this is logically valid, but there comes a sting in the tail: When P rejecting P lands one in absurdities, then one has a serious decision to make about F. 6 --> And, in the case of Lewontinian a priori materialism, that worthy already hints of such absurdities:
We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
7 --> In particular, we know the only observed cause of coded (thus, linguistic), functionally specific, complex algorithmic, step by step executed information that works on a matrix of co-adapted parts, the loss of one or more of which makes the process grind to a halt. Namely, intelligence. 8 --> Moreover, we also know on search space exhaustion of probabilistic resources, that to get to islands of function on undirected chance is maximally improbable; and in the case of cell based life as observed, we are well into that range. (Nor is there good reason to accept that the laws of physics and chemistry have "life" written into them.) 9 --> But, if one has an a priori commitment to materialism, one will find some other way . . . "in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs . . ." 10 --> So, on the rejection side we not only see that it is a matter of observation that hose strongly committed to materialistic views often find arguments that point to design implausible, but we see a logical reason why; a reason that has nothing in particular to do with the fact that those who happen to be theists tend -- but not universally -- to be more open to design arguments. 11 --> And, with this we see that Judge Jones and the ACLU are even more plainly unjustified in their assertions (and quote mining to support it) that design theory is a religious not a scientific endeavour. _______________ In short, my remarks at 293 - 4 above -- Mr Kellog's rhetorical dismissals notwithstanding -- were very much relevant to the focus of the thread, and to the secondary issue over the twisting of Mr Behe's words. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
05:50 AM
5
05
50
AM
PST}

Typo in the BHS quote. Corrected:
In the confrontation between belief and evidence, belief is no pushover.
David Kellogg_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
05:49 AM
5
05
49
AM
PST}

—-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.” (It is not a religious belief.)
This is probably where the audience "gasped." No, StephenB, it's not the same. It's completely different. Your entire charge was based on ignorance of the testimony and a poor reading of the decision. Like kairosfocus, I too have a favorite quotation. It's from Barbara Herrnstein Smith, one of my favorite intellectuals and a mentor, from Belief and Resistance: Dynamics of Contemporary Intellectual Controversy (Harvard University Press, 1997, page 38):
In the confrontation between belief and evidenced, belief is no pushover.
Your belief that Judge Jones is lying will not be moved by knowing that you couldn't say what he was even referring to!David Kellogg_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
05:47 AM
5
05
47
AM
PST}

Learned Hand: 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. As has been mentioned, it's permissible for a judge to copy from a proposed finding of fact. But the extent to which he did calls into question whether he understood any of the testimony or evidence offered in the trial over which he presided. If the ACLU says Miller refuted Behe, so be it. It goes in the decision. I don't think the judge could even tell the difference.ScottAndrews_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
05:25 AM
5
05
25
AM
PST}

So, to sum up: StephenB now agrees that (1) He referred to a conversation that didn't happen. (2) He repeatedly insisted that Judge Jones was referring to testimony rather than Behe's article, and his entire charge was based on "remembering" a conversation that didn't happen as compared to an article that he hadn't read. Nevertheless,
It doesn’t matter one whit, however, because the idea is exactly the same, and the testimony shows Judge Jones to be misrepresenting Behe in exactly the way I said.
Huh. Facts? We don't need no stinking facts! (By the way, throughout this conversation, StephenB has said that I am losing the argument, desperate, without evidence, etc. Now he admits that I was right all along on the specifics but none of this matters.) kairosfocus,
Above, It seems DK wishes to challenge me as well as SB on the issue that to those more or less commitetd [sic] to an evolutionary materialistic view, evidence for design will look implausible BECAUSE of their a priori commitments, not he actual strength of the case for design on the merit
What? "Seems" maybe to you, but not in reality. I'm talking about the case, not about your beliefs, about which I give two figs. I have no interest in giving you yet another excuse to quote Lewontin in a multi-part off-topic discourse.David Kellogg_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
04:32 AM
4
04
32
AM
PST}

Correction @297: ----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." (It is not a religious belief.) And on page 89 Behe [SAYS], “Creationism is a religious idea…..ID relies rather on physical and observable evidence plus logical inference for the logical argument."StephenB_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
04:20 AM
4
04
20
AM
PST}

----David Kellogg: "You may be misremembering a conversation in which precisely the opposite question was raised: not whether belief in God made ID more plausible, but whether ID made Christianity more plausible. On looking back, it was not a perfect parallel to the words Judge Jones used in rendering his decision. Behe did not use the word, "yes," nor did he speak of plausibility with respect to "God," nor was there any language concerning "extent to which." So, your specific objection [and Learned Hand's specfic objection] about the exact formulation of the words] is duly noted. It doesn't matter one whit, however, because the idea is exactly the same, and the testimony shows Judge Jones to be misrepresenting Behe in exactly the way I said. 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. At another time, on page 87 he writes, “Do you have an opinion as to whether Intelligent design is a religious belief? Answer, No. And on page 89 Behe writes; “Creationism is a religious idea…..ID relies rather on physical and observable evidence plus logical inference for the logical argument. 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 do with religion or faith. Judge Jones is without excuse.StephenB_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
04:05 AM
4
04
05
AM
PST}

PS: Re SB, 242:
The court’s reasoning is largely justified by the claim that Behe himself admitted that ID is faith based. Since Behe admitted no such thing, the court, with the help of ACLU reasoning, had to make him say that. The strategy is to reduce ID’s empirically-anchored methodology to a faith based ideology. There is no way to extract that from Behe’s well-nuanced statement. It has to be added. Hence, the injection of the words, “depend on.”
Correct. Plainly correct. There is no just basis for that insertion of "depend[s] on." And, that meaning-twisting false assertion is based on a longstanding insistent and agenda-serving strawman mischaracterisation that is so patently based on distortion of history [down to omitting the actual origins of ID as a modern scientific movement in Thaxton et al's TMLO in 1984 -- not post 1987 . . . "effects cannot precede their causes"] that at least one advocate in the court, Ms Forrest, has made much of a career over. LH's attempted excuses for such just now, simply do not pass the smell test. 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. Plain and simple. And, utterly indefensible and inexcusable. The real issue is to acknowledge and correct this blatant injustice, not to find rhetorically clever excuses for it. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
12:55 AM
12
12
55
AM
PST}

Learned Hand, I appreciate your knowledge of legal issues. However, justice is supposed to be blind. If Behe's views were not in fact driven by his religious convictions - and regardless if they were, he did demonstrate that he was doing science by showing and demonstrating how he came to support ID in the first place - out of problems with the explanatory power of evolution in an area of science where he has expertise. Then he demonstrated how preliminarily, ID has a better explanation for complexity in molecular machines. There's nothing in that analysis, which precludes a religious commitment. That is the issue. Can the law make errors? Absolutely, because essentially the law is determined by human beings who are cabable of errors. I read an interview with Judge Jones from 2008 - I think it was cited on this blog elsewhere in the last few days. In that interview (and I'm paraphrasing from memory here to save time) he stated that prior to the case he did not really know anything about ID. He stated that he had found no reasons to doubt Darwinism. Fair enough. Now Judge Jones is not a scientist, so I would expect that he would not know certain things about science. However, in that interview his honor stated that once he knew he was going to be presiding over the case, he made no effort to educate himself on ID nor on evolution. His reason for this was that - I guess based on traditional practice, and in order to be impartial - he preferred to allow whatever evidence was presented in the court to inform him of these issues. Also, Judge Jones aknowledged the enormity of this case, and what his ruling would mean for future cases involving this issue. Now, here's where I have a problem. Clearly Judge Jones admitted that he had a prior bias in favor of evolution, and understandably so. I wouldn't expect otherwise. But don't you think it would have been prudent, since "justice is blind," to have really educated himself on both sides of the issues prior to hearing the testimony in court? And I also understand that he stated he had viewed the film "Inherit The Wind" in order to prepare him for this case - so if true, he did SOME preparation by further confirming his bias. If he had done an educational preparation, then perhaps he could have avoided creating a contention between Darwinists and IDists, by fairly balancing his prior-commitments to Darwin with the literature that was available at the time regarding ID? And I ask this because this was no ordinary case, and the rendering of ID as not science has enormous implications for science - not just for Darwinian science and ID alone, but for all of science. If Judges out of their ignorance and bias can determine the validity of a scientific hypothesis or theory - and I grand you that he did have expert witnesses on both sides - don't you think it would have been reasonable for him to take himself outside of his pre-commitments and weighed this issue a little better? 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. There are people who disagree with ID who have made this same observation. I don't believe justice acted blindly in Dover. It was tainted a prior commitment to the status quo. 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. Such a verdict and opinion would not in the least have weakened evolution, and would have demonstrated judicial restraint, rather than activism. I think he would also have been seen as heroic on both the ID side and on the Darwin side. 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. And surely you can see why IDists, who really do believe they have a better explanation for the complexities of life - based on their doing science, and who are a minority among academia; feel that they have been cheated out of an opportunity to legitimately communicate the merits of ID in the larger scientific community based on the ill-infomred and intellectually vacuous opinion that it is simply religion or "creationism in a cheap tuxedo."CannuckianYankee_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
12:39 AM
12
12
39
AM
PST}

7 --> For relevant instance, we have excellent reason to see that codes and languages and algorithms do not plausibly arise out of lucky noise, so that algorithmically functional (thus extremely specific) complex information is -- not only on direct observation but also on utter implausibility of rival explanations [cf the recent Meyer video lecture linked in another recent UD thread . . . ] -- a strong sign of intelligent cause. 9 --> But, if one is committed to a view that such intelligent cause cannot be permitted -- cf US NAS member in good standing Lewontin's "a priori" materialism and associated methodological naturalism -- then one will insist all day on the most utterly unlikely, having eliminated from one's consideration the obvious best explanation. 10 --> And, one will go further, to reject the actual valid chain of evidence -- from observed intelligence and its artifacts and their tested, reliable signs to the inference to intelligent action in cases that one has not directly observed -- in favour of the bald assertion that one who remains open to such a chain is doing that because of a priori commitments to "the supernatural." 11 --> In short, we end up with the absurdity of patently closed-minded a priori materialists persuading themselves that the open-minded are the "real" closed minded. (But, in fact for instance Behe was previously comfortable with Darwinism as his commitments to his Christian worldview hinged on events in and around the life death and resurrection of Jesus; it is on evidence of design that he has changed his stance. That is -- contrary tot he agitprop -- his stance was taken for SCIENTIFIC, not theological reasons. [For me, I could live with a Darwinist world (after all as Ac 17 makes plain the core warranting argument for the Christian worldview is the resurrection of Jesus, not debates on methods God may or may not have used in creation), but find the evolutionary materialist account of the origin of information in both first life and novel body plans utterly implausible on INFORMATION THEORY AND THERMODYNAMICS GROUNDS. As I have laid out in reasonable details in the always linked, just one click away through my handle in the LH column. Grounds that have often been dismissed or strawmanned, but which in aggregate are plainly decisive. Noise simply does not on teh gamut of our cosmos invent codes/languages, algorithms, programs and the organised mutually adapted complex machinery to store and to act on it in step by step algorithms. We have stumbled across, not Paley's watch in afield but a computer in the cell. And, we know where computers credibly come from.) 12 --> In short, we now see the classic turnabout accusation in action, a manifestation of selective hyperskepticism. _____________ A sad pass indeed. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
12:29 AM
12
12
29
AM
PST}

A further footnote: Above, It seems DK wishes to challenge me as well as SB on the issue that to those more or less commitetd to an evolutionary materialistic view, evidence for design will look implausible BECAUSE of their a priori commitments, not he actual strength of the case for design on the merits. On points: 1 --> My analysis (following good old Prof Neiderriter back in M 100 and "Ex falso quiodlibet") has to do with the logic of the implication argument P => Q. 2 --> If one initially accepts P, and then sees that it leads to Q, then realises that s/he is more opposed to Q than inclined to accept P, one may then decide to deny Q and thereby reject P. 3 --> The logic in this -- is it the Moore shift in phil circles? (I forget for the moment) -- is that denial of the consequent is a valid logic form: P => Q, Not-Q, so Not-P. 4 --> Here is where the trick comes in: what happens if one has accepted a false idea (say F) and uses it to reject the truth that cuts across it and/or its implications? That is, P => Q, but F => Not-Q, so not-P. If one is committed to falsehood [adn evolutionary materialism is necessarily false as it ends in inescapable self-referential absurdity], truth can look wrong or even absurd. And, we know from Lewontin's moment of candour in his 1997 NYRB article, the degree of commitment to that necessarily false proposition among evolutionary materialists:
Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door . . .
5 --> In short I am raising an issue that Jesus warned about in Jn 8: 45 . . . because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! 6 --> This brings in the crucial role of self-evident truth (which of course the Anti-Evo advocates here at UD have been hot to reject in recent discussions). For, when the denial of P on accepting F leads one into absurdities, then that should serve as a wake-up call. [ . . . ]kairosfocus_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
12:28 AM
12
12
28
AM
PST}

ScottAndrews, Validity in the context of plausibility is still validity, not plausibility. A hamburger in the context of hot dogs is a hamburger. But your criticisms are based on the premise that Jones is saying, in that paragraph, that ID is objectively invalid. It clearly is not; look to the topic and conclusion sentences of the paragraph. The court is looking to what an ID proponent would see as valid, and why. This paragraph it is not about whether ID is valid science. The section overall is about whether an objective observer would perceive ID as religious; the paragraph is about the various evidence the court has that ID's leading figures see it in that light. The court isn't talking about its opinion of ID's validity, but about the opinions of Behe, Dembski, Johnson, and others who see it as plausible. It's a single paragraph, with a single topic. Pulling one clause out of one sentence out of one paragraph out of one section is fun, but it's no foundation for a rigorous discussion of the court's reasoning. You can't extract an accurate picture of that reasoning from one out of context clause. You also complain that: First Jones says ID is creationism. Then he says the school board didn’t know what ID was - they thought it was creationism. Is it or isn’t it? This complaint is sympomatic of the way you're pulling little bits and pieces from the opinion to criticize, without addressing the entire document. The court explains why it is necessary to explore the nature of ID, even assuming that the board was ignorant of that nature. The court analogizes the case to McLean in that respect. In any event, even if the court hadn't done so, the reason would be obvious to an attorney: the school board's understanding of ID is relevant to some of the Lemon test, but not all of it. Part of the test has to do with the objective effects of the board's actions, which are independent of the board's knowledge of those effects. It seems that you're not a lawyer, so I wouldn't expect you to know that--but you might do the judge the decency of stopping to consider, when you think you've found a critical error, "Is there something I'm missing? Do I know enough about this to reasonably assume that the court is stupid or dishonest?" In this case, the court was neither - it followed the law and the guiding precedent in analyzing ID independent of the board's comprehension of the movement. It also explained all of this in the opinion. Upright BiPed, At this point virtually everyone from all sides have made at least one comment about Judge Jones getting a little squirrelly on his choice of words (and where he got them) I know a large number of brilliant legal writers, from grizzled courtroom vets to spitshined Ivy League wunderkinder. I don't know anyone who can put together over dozens of pages of dense legal reasoning, on a deadline, without writing a few paragraphs that the opposing party can point to as proof that the author was wrong (or lazy or dishonest or stupid).Learned Hand_{June 24, 2009
June
06
Jun
24
24
2009
11:51 PM
11
11
51
PM
PST}

I recommend Judge Jones's upcoming book, The Jones Revolution, which will answer many of your concerns. - A reader from HarrisburgR0b_{June 24, 2009
June
06
Jun
24
24
2009
07:55 PM
7
07
55
PM
PST}

Well...there have been almost 31,000 words posted on this thread SINCE the word "transcript" first appeared with the word "said" in the same sentence with the words "Judge Jones" (and that was way way deep into the thread). At this point virtually everyone from all sides have made at least one comment about Judge Jones getting a little squirrelly on his choice of words (and where he got them). That’s a great judge, eh? Good for us!Upright BiPed_{June 24, 2009
June
06
Jun
24
24
2009
07:31 PM
7
07
31
PM
PST}

I’m picking up on a big Judge Jones lovefest here.
Not true. We only went ~~hiking the Appalachian Trail~~ on a trip to Argentina.David Kellogg_{June 24, 2009
June
06
Jun
24
24
2009
07:16 PM
7
07
16
PM
PST}

Prev 1 … 14 15 16 17 18 … 26 Next