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

I'm picking up on a big Judge Jones lovefest here. I'm sorry, but I find it less than coincidental that he said exactly what the plaintiffs put in his mouth regarding ID, and now every ID critic hangs a halo over his head and he can speak no wrong, even if it requires the most nonsensical stretches of grammar and logic to reinterpret the pandering, obedient decision he put the finishing touches on. Some people might find such a coincidence valid, but I don't. (By "valid" I mean "plausible," obviously.)ScottAndrews_{June 24, 2009
June
06
Jun
24
24
2009
07:06 PM
7
07
06
PM
PST}

ScottAndrews:
Then, in an interview, he said
They really didn’t even know what intelligent design was. It was quite clear to me that they viewed intelligent design as a method to get creationism into the public school classroom.
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?
Again, it would never occur to me to see this as a contradiction. I interpreted as I would interpret the following: He joined the Peace Corps, without even knowing what the Peace Corps was. He viewed it as a way to travel abroad.R0b_{June 24, 2009
June
06
Jun
24
24
2009
06:32 PM
6
06
32
PM
PST}

You're grasping at straws ScottAndrews. Here are some passages from the cross-examination of former Dover board member Jane Cleaver:
Q. You never did any research to see whether it was current science, did you? A. No, sir. Q. I think you said that you came back on October 2nd and your sister told you there was a controversy, or did I get that wrong? A. I came back October the 2nd, and it was a day after whenever I called my sister-in-law to say hello and tell her I was home, and in the course of our conversation she said there's quite a big controversy in Dover about the book called Pandas and People, whatever that's about, and that Dover is going to be teaching creationism.
Later:
Q. You said you didn't read all of [Of Pandas and People], but I gather you kind of paged through it, is that a fair description? A. Yes. Q. And when you paged through it, were you looking at anything in particular? For instance were you looking for a use of the term God or creationism? A. Yes, I did look for that. Q. How did you do that, with the index? A. I went through page per page. Q. But skimmed it, right? A. But skipped some of it, but there was no mention of God or the Bible in the book Of Pandas and People.
And later:
Q. Just two more quick questions. When you voted for the curriculum on October the 18th -- A. Yes, sir. Q. -- you yourself didn't really understand intelligent design. You just knew that it was as you put it another theory, is that right? A. Correct. MR. SCHMIDT: That was my only question. Thanks very much.
Stuff like this is all over the lay witness defendant testimony, which is what Judge Jones was discussing at that point (not the expert testimony).David Kellogg_{June 24, 2009
June
06
Jun
24
24
2009
06:32 PM
6
06
32
PM
PST}

David Kellogg: A plausible reason is one that seems valid. That’s the context. It’s really normal usage. Not even close. Plausible means that something appears to be true or valid. It's subjective. Valid is an objective judgment. It takes the first statement, which slants the source quote, and then turns it up a notch. Or, perhaps the ACLU was careless - they actually meant to say something that sounded more in harmony with what Behe meant and oops! it just came out all twisted and misleading.ScottAndrews_{June 24, 2009
June
06
Jun
24
24
2009
06:30 PM
6
06
30
PM
PST}

David Kellogg @280 (about @278) Two points: First, the judge was declaring ID non-scientific by claiming that even Behe didn't think it was scientific. Second, in the decision Jones wrote:
The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.
Then, in an interview, he said
They really didn’t even know what intelligent design was. It was quite clear to me that they viewed intelligent design as a method to get creationism into the public school classroom.
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?ScottAndrews_{June 24, 2009
June
06
Jun
24
24
2009
06:13 PM
6
06
13
PM
PST}

If a person is late for work, does his boss want a valid reason or a plausible one?
A plausible reason is one that seems valid. That's the context. It's really normal usage.David Kellogg_{June 24, 2009
June
06
Jun
24
24
2009
06:08 PM
6
06
08
PM
PST}

StephenB, it takes about five minutes to search the web transcripts for "plaus" (which will cover "plausible" and "plausibility"). It's clear that the conversation never happened. 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. Quotation marks have nothing to do with it. I'd also love to know how you remember a "gasp" (since those are nowhere in any court transcripts).David Kellogg_{June 24, 2009
June
06
Jun
24
24
2009
06:06 PM
6
06
06
PM
PST}

David Kellogg:
I agree with Learned Hand, that “validity” is used in the context of the argumentative plausibility mentioned in the previous sentence.
Validity in the context of plausibility is still validity, not plausibility. A hamburger in the context of hot dogs is a hamburger. If a person is late for work, does his boss want a valid reason or a plausible one? If the judge did not mean "validity," surely he had the opportunity to select a word that conveyed what he meant. (Not accusing him of actually "meaning" any of it.) For what it's worth, if the defendants really were trying to introduce creationism into classrooms using ID, then I can't disagree with the outcome. But that was no reason for a judge to become the ACLU's sock puppet against ID.ScottAndrews_{June 24, 2009
June
06
Jun
24
24
2009
06:02 PM
6
06
02
PM
PST}

ScottAndrews, can you explain what you're trying to say in 278? I don't really get it.David Kellogg_{June 24, 2009
June
06
Jun
24
24
2009
05:59 PM
5
05
59
PM
PST}

---David Kellogg: "Good luck with that. It’s not a matter of quotation marks. The testimony you discuss never happened." It did happen and I did take note of it. I will find it when I can.StephenB_{June 24, 2009
June
06
Jun
24
24
2009
05:57 PM
5
05
57
PM
PST}

Learned Hand @275: The last sentence says that in Behe's view, and in that of other 'prominent ID leaders' (worded to sound like a church) ID "is not a scientific proposition." In other words, not even Behe believes it's science. How does one take that seriously? After writing that ID is creationism relabeled (I grow weary of checking to see which parts were original thought) he said in a 2008 interview of the Dover school board witnesses,
They really didn't even know what intelligent design was. It was quite clear to me that they viewed intelligent design as a method to get creationism into the public school classroom.
That's the trouble with a cut-and-paste decision. You risk issuing a federal court decision you don't even agree with.ScottAndrews_{June 24, 2009
June
06
Jun
24
24
2009
05:44 PM
5
05
44
PM
PST}

Thanks, Learned Hand.R0b_{June 24, 2009
June
06
Jun
24
24
2009
05:36 PM
5
05
36
PM
PST}

Thank you Learned Hand. This also points to what I called its parallel rather than serial reasoning. The points mount up in parallel rather than being connected like beads on a string. It's not as though the argument breaks down if we take issue with one thing. Even if StephenB were correct with his dubious interpretation, that would not affect the conclusion because the conclusion is not based on Behe alone but on a set of parallel points put forward by Behe and many others. StephenB,
Maybe I put a quotation mark in the wrong place or something. I’ll look it up tonight when I get back.
Good luck with that. It's not a matter of quotation marks. The testimony you discuss never happened.David Kellogg_{June 24, 2009
June
06
Jun
24
24
2009
05:20 PM
5
05
20
PM
PST}

ScottAndrews, R0b, I think this conversation has proceeded without enough reference to the context of the passage. The entire opinion, all 100+ pages of it, covers a wide range of topics. This passage is not about whether ID is an actual, valid science. It is about whether an objective observer would perceive ID as a religious thing. (Please see the section heading, on page 18.) I apologize for what will be a very long comment, but I think it's important to quote the entire paragraph, since I think that almost no one who is criticizing the court's meaning is taking it into account:
Phillip Johnson, considered to be the father of the IDM, developer of ID’s “Wedge Strategy,” which will be discussed below, and author of the 1991 book entitled Darwin on Trial, has written that “theistic realism” or “mere creation” are defining concepts of the IDM. This means “that God is objectively real as Creator and recorded in the biological evidence . . .” (Trial Tr. vol. 10, Forrest Test., 80- 81, Oct. 5, 2005; P-328). In addition, Phillip Johnson states that the “Darwinian theory of evolution contradicts not just the Book of Genesis, but every word in the Bible from beginning to end. It contradicts the idea that we are here because a creator brought about our existence for a purpose.” (11:16-17 (Forrest); P-524 at 1). ID proponents Johnson, William Dembski, and Charles Thaxton, one of the editors of Pandas, situate ID in the Book of John in the New Testament of the Bible, which begins, “In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was God.” (11:18-20, 54-55 (Forrest); P-524; P-355; P-357). Dembski has written that ID is a “ground clearing operation” to allow Christianity to receive serious consideration, and “Christ is never an addendum to a scientific theory but always a completion.” (11:50-53 (Forrest); P-386; P-390). 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 the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God. (P-718 at 705) (emphasis added). As no evidence in the record indicates that any other scientific proposition’s validity rests on belief 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.
That is not a paragraph about whether ID is a valid science. It is a paragraph about whether its proponents see it as a religious thing.Learned Hand_{June 24, 2009
June
06
Jun
24
24
2009
05:12 PM
5
05
12
PM
PST}

I'm less comfortable with the sentence that ScottAndrews points out than I am with the previous one -- the term "validity" could certainly be misleading. Like all lawyer speak (sorry Learned Hand), the decision is phrased with the intent to bias the reader to one side. Whether it crossed the line into flat-out inaccuracy is a matter of opinion, and our opinions depend on our preconceived notions of the case.R0b_{June 24, 2009
June
06
Jun
24
24
2009
04:59 PM
4
04
59
PM
PST}

Learned Hand:
I saw the court’s reference to “validity” as being part and parcel of its reference to “plausibility.”
Your interpretation is not valid.ScottAndrews_{June 24, 2009
June
06
Jun
24
24
2009
04:37 PM
4
04
37
PM
PST}

Behe did unmistakably say that. And yes, I agree with Learned Hand, that "validity" is used in the context of the argumentative plausibility mentioned in the previous sentence. Again, Behe responds to a bunch of things in the decision and even refers to this passage, but he never says anything like "I never said plausibility depends on faith in God." He said, rather, "so does the Big Bang."David Kellogg_{June 24, 2009
June
06
Jun
24
24
2009
04:37 PM
4
04
37
PM
PST}

If he didn’t intend to twist the meaning of Behe’s words, then why emphasize that Behe “unmistakably” said it? Because he thought it was unmistakable. Frankly, I concur; I think the arguments here are based on some very tortured, out-of-context readings. More significantly, what was ‘remarkable’ about it? That Behe would admit that the plausibility of ID is entwined with faith, while arguing that it is an empirical science. Why follow with the implication that, based on Behe’s words, the validity of ID rests on belief in God? Because he's not opining on the objective validity of ID, but the subjective validity to those who find the argument plausible. Plausibility and validity are logically connected in these two sentences, especially in the context of the section and paragraph.Learned Hand_{June 24, 2009
June
06
Jun
24
24
2009
04:27 PM
4
04
27
PM
PST}

Sorry, my 6:08 comment was directed to StephenB. ScottAndrews, if it is of any interest to you, I read that passage differently than you did. I saw the court's reference to "validity" as being part and parcel of its reference to "plausibility." Can ID supporters' belief in the validity of ID be separated from their opinion of the plausibility of the arguments for it?Learned Hand_{June 24, 2009
June
06
Jun
24
24
2009
04:19 PM
4
04
19
PM
PST}

But I do want to kick that horse one more time. When Jones said
Consider, to illustrate, that Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God.
If he didn't intend to twist the meaning of Behe's words, then why emphasize that Behe "unmistakably" said it? More significantly, what was 'remarkable' about it? Why follow with the implication that, based on Behe's words, the validity of ID rests on belief in God? That's a bad, bad, judge.ScottAndrews_{June 24, 2009
June
06
Jun
24
24
2009
04:11 PM
4
04
11
PM
PST}

StephenB:
That’s hardly the issue.
It's exactly the issue. I said that the consensus of experts was against you. You said that most experts are not familiar with ID methodology and are therefore unqualified to pass judgment. My response is that if ID methods aren't known to experts in the relevant fields, it's because they're not getting published, which implies that they're being rejected in peer review. If ID is being consistently rejected by experts who are familiar with it, namely its reviewers, then that constitutes a consensus opinion against it.R0b_{June 24, 2009
June
06
Jun
24
24
2009
04:09 PM
4
04
09
PM
PST}

Your characterization of the court's analysis assumes too much and takes no account of the context of the language. You say, for example, that "he was using it in a a broad sense, ID would not have been excluded. It would have been dubbed part empirical, part faith." Continue reading the court's analysis; it did not accept that any other, valid science is "part empirical, part faith." More importantly, "part empirical, part faith" is not good enough for Constitutional purposes anyway. A "science" that was "part faith" would, if taught using government resources, violate at least two prongs of the Lemon test. (At least, that's my first reaction. I'll have to consider the question.)Learned Hand_{June 24, 2009
June
06
Jun
24
24
2009
04:08 PM
4
04
08
PM
PST}

David Kellogg:
No reasonable reader would take it as a strict logical proposition about ID.
There's no other way to take it, because that's what it says. First he cites Behe as saying that the plausibility of ID depends upon one's belief in God. (I'm not beating that horse, just providing context.) Next sentence, italics mine:
As no evidence in the record indicates that any other scientific proposition’s validity rests on belief in God...
He's contrasting ID with the rest of science. Only this proposition's validity rests on belief in God, and no other's. Admit it, that's precisely what he's saying. It won't make you an IDist. :)ScottAndrews_{June 24, 2009
June
06
Jun
24
24
2009
04:03 PM
4
04
03
PM
PST}

---Learned Hand: "Because the dependency of the plausibility on faith neither implies nor requires a rigid one-to-one correlation. The level of the creek depends on recent rainfall, but even in a drought, the creek ain’t dry. See also my comments of 8:38 am and 2:30 pm." You are cheating with the word recent. Judge Jones did not qualify his dependence in that way. The creek depends on rainful, and if it doesn't get it, it will dry up. Jones is using the word "depends on" to exclude ID from the scientific community. If he was using it in a a broad sense, ID would not have been excluded. It would have been dubbed part empirical, part faith. Jones ruled out the middle ground, so he was using the term in a narrow way.StephenB_{June 24, 2009
June
06
Jun
24
24
2009
03:48 PM
3
03
48
PM
PST}

----Rob: "ID methods are familiar to experts to the extent that ID research is published in the technical literature." That's hardly the issue. If they are not familiar with ID methods for whatever reason, their opinion on the matter is uninformed and not worth considering.StephenB_{June 24, 2009
June
06
Jun
24
24
2009
03:41 PM
3
03
41
PM
PST}

ScottAndrews [260], my apologies: I misread which sentence you were referring to. Given the context, though, I don't have any problem with the sentence as written. No reasonable reader would take it as a strict logical proposition about ID.David Kellogg_{June 24, 2009
June
06
Jun
24
24
2009
03:38 PM
3
03
38
PM
PST}

If ID’s plausibility “depends on the extent to which one believes in God,” how is it that some athesits and agnostics accept it? Because the dependency of the plausibility on faith neither implies nor requires a rigid one-to-one correlation. The level of the creek depends on recent rainfall, but even in a drought, the creek ain't dry. See also my comments of 8:38 am and 2:30 pm.Learned Hand_{June 24, 2009
June
06
Jun
24
24
2009
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PST}

StephenB:
Most “experts” are not familiar with ID’s methodology and are not, therefore, qualified to pass judgment on the matter.
ID methods are familiar to experts to the extent that ID research is published in the technical literature. If ID research is consistently rejected in peer-review, that's an indication that experts who familiarize themselves with ID tend to reject it.
In fact, the fact about whether ID is or is not empirically based should be decided solely on its methodology, not on the basis of someone’s perceptions of the scientists motives.
To resurrect my prayer analogy, there are some who study the efficacy of prayer using strictly empirical methods. If the efficacy of prayer is ever legitimately established, I will actively promote it being taught in science classes. Until then, I think it should be regarded as a religious belief, regardless of the methods of those who study it.R0b_{June 24, 2009
June
06
Jun
24
24
2009
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PST}

David Kellogg:
The judge plainly states that [Behe claims that] ID’s validity rests [plausibility depends] on [the extent of one's] belief in God, and uses Behe’s quote [writing] as the basis [for that minor part of the case].
I don't understand the modifications. Here's the quote, from Jones, again:
As no evidence in the record indicates that any other scientific proposition’s validity rests on belief in God…
Those are his words. It contrasts ID with other scientific propositions by stating that it's "validity rests on belief in God." Validity and plausibility are not even related concepts. From what statement in Behe's writing does Jones conclude that the validity of ID rests on belief in God? The answer is none. The plaintiff wrote it, and Jones rubber-stamped it without even considering the evidence. That is a bad, bad judge.ScottAndrews_{June 24, 2009
June
06
Jun
24
24
2009
02:36 PM
2
02
36
PM
PST}

---David: "Another misreading! That’s not what is claimed. Rather, what is claimed is that Behe says that whether ID is plausible — that is, whether is appears reasonable — depends on the extent to which the people to whom the case is made believe in God. And that is quite reasonable." Sorry, you don't get to use synonymns. Your side doesn't allow it so I don't allow it. If ID's plausibility "depends on the extent to which one believes in God," how is it that some athesits and agnostics accept it?StephenB_{June 24, 2009
June
06
Jun
24
24
2009
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PST}

Prev 1 … 15 16 17 18 19 … 26 Next