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

Clive: Thank you again. I note to you that the history is still the history; unpalatable though it is. And, we may all see for ourselves how this thread shows -- all too well -- just where the pattern of distractions, evasions, distortions, demonisation and dismissals by Darwinists points. Good day sirs. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{July 1, 2009
July
07
Jul
1
01
2009
02:47 AM
2
02
47
AM
PDT}

----David Kellogg: "Hey dude, you’re the one who thinks anybody who disagrees with you is stupid, ignorant, or dishonest. I’m the relativist: perspective is my bread and butter. Lack of perspective, like the grand statement (”Darwinists typically don’t understand” etc. — a statement woefully void of perspective itself) is yours." Your confusion is so complete that you may never make it back to the rational world if, indeed, you ever inhabited that place. Clearly, you don't understand the meaning of perspective or you would understand the difference between a scientific and philosophical perspective, which is why you were so scandalized by Behe's very mild nuance. The ideology of relativism has absolutely nothing to do with the meaning of “perspective.” Relativism denies the existence of absolute, objective truth, reducing it to personal opinion and dividing it into as many pieces as there are people and topics. To view truth from a different “perspective,” however, means to consider that same truth, which is indivisible and one, from another vantage point. Thus, religion, philosophy, and science all consider different aspects of the same unified truth. That you would associate relativism with “perspective” demonstrates, once again, that your orientation to truth, which you obviously detest with all you might, is radically and violently skewed. Unless you change your reading habits, and change them soon, there is very little hope for you.StephenB_{July 1, 2009
July
07
Jul
1
01
2009
01:17 AM
1
01
17
AM
PDT}

-----Learned Hand: “You publicly declared to us all that you refuse to read the law behind the Dover decision, and you’ve demonstrated several times that you’ve not familiar with the contents of the decision itself. Are you in a position to credibly criticize any other person for not reading something?” No, I did not say that. You should not tell tall tales like that. I said that it is irrelevant to the points I am making and that I didn’t want to discuss the Lemon test because it is a distraction, and totally arbitrary. It applies only the religious intent of the school board and has nothing at all to do with the subject of intelligent design. In fact, there was no useful precedent for Judge Jones to work with in that context, because the 1987 Supreme Court decision was made without an awareness of the existence of intelligent design. Further, the Supreme Court was deciding between two extremes, Darwinian evolution and Creation science, both of which are ideologically based. Even at that, there is nothing in the Lemon test that requires a judge to do what Judge Jones did. Basically, he should have made himself aware of these facts. First, creation science refers to anyone who begins with a belief in the Bible and tries to harmonize his science with that belief. It is as simple as that. Intelligent design refers to anyone who begins with an empirical observation and draws inferences based on those observations. I am familiar enough with the decision to explain its significance and to point out to those of you who didn’t know any better that a sitting judge misrepresented the view of one witness and whole community of scientists. I could talk about the Supreme Court’s 1987 decision and the Lemon test all day long. On the other hand, you are not familiar enough with the subject of intelligent design to keep up your end of the dialogue. ----“The “letter of the law” is what the law says. The “spirit of the law” is what people who don’t know what the law says insist that it really means. Arguing the “spirit of the law” is much, much easier than attempting to engage the letter, because the “spirit of the law” is whatever the declarant wants it to be.” No, that is not correct. The spirit of the law has to do with the intent behind the law, while the letter of the law relates to its literal interpretation, hence the word “literal.” In other words, the spirit of the law is the “why,” it’s the reason the law was conceived in the first place. This is a very serious thing for a legal person not to know. (Not to deprive Clive of his bon mot, but in the parts where I was raised, we would not have been praised for calling others stupid or dishonest.)” How exactly did you handle stupid and dishonest people? ----“You say that to do a “proper legal analysis, it is importnat [sic] to understand the nature of,” inter alia, “what the law does and what it is supposed to do.” Does it make you feel more analytical to highlight a typo? ----“And yet you tell us that you don’t know what the law is, and you don’t mean to read it.” I didn’t say I don’t know what the law is. You should not tell outright lies. It tends to ruffle my feathers and prompt me to behave less respectfully. I do know what the law is. It isn’t that hard, and the Lemon standard is not all that esoteric. The point is that the Lemon test does not address my concerns or have anything to do with a corrupt judge who allows the ACLU to do his thinking and violates the public trust by misrepresenting the views of a large number of people. ----“Because you don’t understand “what the law does,” you’ve been hoist’ on your own petard. You have disqualified yourself from any responsible role in a conversation about Dover.” You like to keep saying that as a distraction, but I do know what the law is and does. I am just trying to find out if you understand what it means. I am well aware of the Church/State formulations that you refer to, but they have nothing to do with the questions that I am asking you. You assume way too much. ----“All you know for sure is that you don’t like the result, but you can’t tell us either that the court disobeyed the law or that the law was wrong, because you don’t know what the law is. All you’re left with is your deeply-felt disconent, which is genuine and galling, but meaningless to people who don’t already share your opinions.” Quite the contrary, all you know is that you do like the result. You don’t have any idea whether justice was done because you have no idea about what justice might consist of. I can explain in very simple terms why the decision was unjust, but you cannot explain why you think it was just. All you know is that it came out of a court, and, in your judgment, anything that comes out of a court if just. Doesn’t that make you feel a little premature in your analysis? ----In lieu of a legal analysis, you keep telling us that, whether or not the court’s actions were legal, they were unjust.” It is not in lieu of legal analysis. It is in addition to legal analysis. I am familiar with all those things you keep assuming I am not familiar with. No matter how many times you repeat that mantra about my not knowing the law, it will not become true. I suspect that I know more about the law than you do. The sad fact is that I can keep up the legal part of the discussion, but you cannot hold up the analytical part of the discussion. ---- Being without a king, however, the United States of America has no single arbiter of “justice.” We have, instead, a system of laws and courts that has grown through evolution and intelligent design to moderate the affairs of men. It approximates justice to what most Americans, myself included, believe is the closest degree ever achieved by humans. It is not, in and of itself, justice, but it tries. No court or judge may disregard the system in favor of what he wants to do, because then there is no system. The “spirit of the law” is part and parcel of the letter of the law; you cannot have one, in a plural America, without the other. In order to have an educated, informed conversation about the “spirit of the law,” therefore, one must know what the law is.” For the umpteenth time, I do know what the law is. Unfortunatrely, you don't know what it is supposed to do. Again, if you don’t have a standard of justice or, if you don’t know what the standard of justice ought to be for a court system, then you should just say so. It has nothing to do with kings. How do you know if something “approximates justice” if you have no standard for justice. You are not thinking this thing through. ----“You’ve announced that you don’t want to know what the law is.” Here we go again, the LH mantra. I do know what the law is, and if it will please you, I will talk about the Lemon test. I will be happy to explain to you why it is a bad standard and ought to be abandoned. You, on the other hand, think it is a good test because you think that anything a court decides is good. As I said, though, courts should stay away from all religious issues. It is not of their business. They should not be meddling with religion---period. ----““But you do want to have a voice in the discussion. Without a grounding in the complicated facts that led to the result at hand, your only contribution to that discussion is to tell us with ferocious energy that the result was wrong because it feels wrong, and to hurl spite at anyone who disagrees.” I am aware of those facts. -----“If you want to have a more authoritative voice, you really must learn a little something about the topic at hand. Here, that’s the facts and the law of Kitzmiller. (Was it always?” I do have an authoritative voice; it’s called the voice of reason. Your authority is much less than mine, because you believe that every decision that comes out of a courtroom is a just decision. Again, you have no standard of justice, no way to discern a just law from an unjust law. You labor over the process but you don’t know what the process is supposed to produce. I know what the law is and what it is supposed to do. You only know what it is---maybe. I am still not sure about that given your knowledge gap concerning the "spirit of the law." ----“Demanding that your opinion regarding the “spirit of the law” be somehow privileged over your neighbor’s is fruitless.” I didn’t demand that my opinion of the spirit of the law be privileged. I asked you if you knew what it was, and you did not. ----“We all have an opinion about the “spirit of the law,” and unless your name is Locke or Jefferson or Scalia, yours is just one more in the pile.” I am trying to find out if you have any conception about what the law is supposed to do, and it is obvious that you don’t have a clue. -----“ Your neighbors might listen politely when you lecture them on what justice really means, but unless you have some sort of analysis to go with that opinion, you won’t persuade them. It doesn’t mean that they’re “guilty of dishonesty, stupidity, or ignorance” because they ignored you. It just means that there isn’t anything of substance for them to respond to. We already have opinions about the “spirit of the law,” and don’t really need another. Since you don’t yet know what the spirit of the law is, you comments are premature. In any case, I have analyzed the case, and I know why it was an unjust decision. I can point out the difference between what Behe said and what Judge Jones said he said. On the other hand, you seem to have given the matter no thought at all. Apparently, you have no tools with which to analyze what actually happened or to even evaluate the meaning of the terms employed, such as “creationism.”or “intelligent design.” Can you explain in any rational sense how Michael Behe, who believes in common descent and macro evolution, can be placed in the same category as Ken Ham, a young earth creationist who thinks God created humans perfectly formed. If you can’t approach that question with some intellectual integrity, then you cannot begin to analyze anything. Have you even read the side bar on this site to learn the difference between creationism and intelligent design? No, you haven’t. In spite of your protests to the contrary, I do know the law and I understand the process by which it is administered. You, on the other hand, have not familiarized yourself with any of the concepts and principles associated with intelligent design, nor do you have any standard by which you can discern a just law from an unjust law. Indeed, you don’t even know what the law is supposed to do.StephenB_{July 1, 2009
July
07
Jul
1
01
2009
12:49 AM
12
12
49
AM
PDT}

DK:"What is the referent of “it”? “The idea of a beginning to the universe” in the view of Walter Nernst in the sentence you skipped." The referent of "it" is clear in the context and to anyone who who is not trying to distort and demonize those they disagree with.The it refers to that which caame before it. 4)“And it wasn t because the data were inconsistent with it, it’s because it was philosophically unacceptable.” 5) “Walter Nernst hated the idea of a beginning to the universe.” 6)” It was unscientific.” The 'it" that is not scientific were the philosophical biases of Maddox and Nernst. That is unless you want to say that Behe now claims that the Big Bang is unscientific? DK:"Do you remember what you accused me of in your 720 temper tantrum, and the evidence? You continue to hold to it though the evidence is out the door?" Another distraction I see. You want to portray yourself as the victim. The problem is two fold. Your clarification was just as bad as your first allegation ie interpretation. Secondly by making another unjustified "interpretation" you demonstrated once again that your are incapable of dealing fairly with those you disagree with. One need only to look at the efforts you were willing to go to to defend Lewontin's comments in order to justify your claims of quote mining. Yet in the case of Behe not only do you cut him no slack at all you imagine things that are not there. Furthermore you "do" constantly employ fallacious arguments especially as it relates to any pro ID writings, books or essays. A case in point is the ongoing back and forth between you and KF over TMLO. You "poison the well" and employ a form of ad hominem with the use of the term "creationist" This is a well worn fallacy that many anti ID's employ in order to not deal with the arguments presented. You do it early and often but refuse to address the merits of what they wrote. So the poor victim card is not going to play well with me. You want me to change my view of you you need to earn it so far you have not done so. Vividvividbleau_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
09:58 PM
9
09
58
PM
PDT}

"6)It was unscientific." What is the referent of "it"? "The idea of a beginning to the universe" in the view of Walter Nernst in the sentence you skipped. Do you remember what you accused me of in your 720 temper tantrum, and the evidence? You continue to hold to it though the evidence is out the door?David Kellogg_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
09:28 PM
9
09
28
PM
PDT}

Like your friends, LH and EL, you are too lazy to read the UD sidebar to discover the historical difference between ID and creationism. You publicly declared to us all that you refuse to read the law behind the Dover decision, and you've demonstrated several times that you've not familiar with the contents of the decision itself. Are you in a position to credibly criticize any other person for not reading something? You have yet to demonstrate that you understand the difference between [A] the letter of the law and the spirit of the law, [B] what the law does and what it is supposed to do, [C] the standard for a just law or an unjust law. To do proper legal analysis, it is importnat to understand the nature of these distinctions and the reasons why they are important. The "letter of the law" is what the law says. The "spirit of the law" is what people who don't know what the law says insist that it really means. Arguing the "spirit of the law" is much, much easier than attempting to engage the letter, because the "spirit of the law" is whatever the declarant wants it to be. Everyone believes that the "spirit of the law" supports his position. But because we live in a society made up of more than one person, we must write the law down, so that more than one person at a time can use it. One characteristic of that written law is that it is accessible to all people who are willing to read and study. Having publicly declared that you will not read or study the law, all that is left to you is to angrily announce that you know what's right, by virtue of being right, and that's that. And because you're right, it seems that everyone who disagrees with you "guilty of dishonesty, stupidity, or ignorance." (Not to deprive Clive of his bon mot, but in the parts where I was raised, we would not have been praised for calling others stupid or dishonest.) You say that to do a "proper legal analysis, it is importnat [sic] to understand the nature of," inter alia, "what the law does and what it is supposed to do." And yet you tell us that you don't know what the law is, and you don't mean to read it. Because you don't understand "what the law does," you've been hoist' on your own petard. You have disqualified yourself from any responsible role in a conversation about Dover. All you know for sure is that you don't like the result, but you can't tell us either that the court disobeyed the law or that the law was wrong, because you don't know what the law is. All you're left with is your deeply-felt disconent, which is genuine and galling, but meaningless to people who don't already share your opinions. In lieu of a legal analysis, you keep telling us that, whether or not the court's actions were legal, they were unjust. Being without a king, however, the United States of America has no single arbiter of "justice." We have, instead, a system of laws and courts that has grown through evolution and intelligent design to moderate the affairs of men. It approximates justice to what most Americans, myself included, believe is the closest degree ever achieved by humans. It is not, in and of itself, justice, but it tries. No court or judge may disregard the system in favor of what he wants to do, because then there is no system. The "spirit of the law" is part and parcel of the letter of the law; you cannot have one, in a plural America, without the other. In order to have an educated, informed conversation about the "spirit of the law," therefore, one must know what the law is. You've announced that you don't want to know what the law is. That's fine; no one is interested in all topics. But you do want to have a voice in the discussion. Without a grounding in the complicated facts that led to the result at hand, your only contribution to that discussion is to tell us with ferocious energy that the result was wrong because it feels wrong, and to hurl spite at anyone who disagrees. But sooner or later everyone will disagree, because we all have different opinions about the "spirit of the law." If the conversation is rooted in an understanding of the law, then that disagreement can be fertile and productive--it can turn into a discussion about why the law is right or wrong, and how it could be fixed. Without that basis, the conversation can only turn in on itself. All that you have to argue with here, for example, is your own outrage. You can hurl invective at the court and your opponents, but you haven't identified flaws that support a serious and rigorous analysis of the opinion. Although I think lamarck's approach is deeply flawed, I acknowledge that he's working to understand the facts at hand. By contrast, all you've done is pick at excerpts and extracontextual snippets. Not only is that approach unpersuasive in and of itself, eventually readers who do read the entire opinion will discover how badly you've misrepresented it by not understanding the context of the pieces you've inaccurately quoted. If you want to have a more authoritative voice, you really must learn a little something about the topic at hand. Here, that's the facts and the law of Kitzmiller. (Was it always? I forget.) Demanding that your opinion regarding the "spirit of the law" be somehow privileged over your neighbor's is fruitless. We all have an opinion about the "spirit of the law," and unless your name is Locke or Jefferson or Scalia, yours is just one more in the pile. Your neighbors might listen politely when you lecture them on what justice really means, but unless you have some sort of analysis to go with that opinion, you won't persuade them. It doesn't mean that they're "guilty of dishonesty, stupidity, or ignorance" because they ignored you. It just means that there isn't anything of substance for them to respond to. We already have opinions about the "spirit of the law," and don't really need another.Learned Hand_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
09:05 PM
9
09
05
PM
PDT}

DK: "He draws it back to science in the part you number 2. The words “in science” are a clue." Here is your interpretation followed by line 2. DK: DK: “Let me put it another way then. First he tries to locate the “God-friendly” question outside of science, but then he specifically draws it back in to science (via the Big Bang).” Line “And it’s happened time — many times in science, and, again, I’ll just refer back to John Maddox’s article Down With the Big Bang.” Now DK exactly what is Behe referring to here? Let Behe speak for himself 3)“He didn’t like the Big Bang theory“. 4)“And it wasn t because the data were inconsistent with it, it’s because it was philosophically unacceptable.” And what does he say about doing this, is it scientific? 6)” It was unscientific.” Behe does not bring anything you say back to science. Any reasonable person who does not have an agenda to demonize those who apparently threaten your world view. The "science" Behe is talking about are the scientists themselves which is why he then names specific scientists who did not embrace the big bang based on their philosophical distaste for it implications. DK: "I see you haven’t withdrawn your little temper tantrum at 720 (as of now). How lovely." Not only do I not withdraw your latest "interpretation" is just one more demonstration of your hypocrisy and your double standards. Vividvividbleau_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
09:03 PM
9
09
03
PM
PDT}

Something is wrong with either this thread, with UD's wordpress or with my computer: The original post and the background of the sidebars appear black on my computer. Or is this an issue of the latest firefox version I installed yesterday. However, other threads like the new "Zogby Poll" thread appear normal.sparc_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
08:42 PM
8
08
42
PM
PDT}

StephenB,
Darwinists typically don’t undersand the meaning of the word, “perspective,” because to them, there is only one possible way of looking at the world.
Hey dude, you're the one who thinks anybody who disagrees with you is stupid, ignorant, or dishonest. I'm the relativist: perspective is my bread and butter. Lack of perspective, like the grand statement ("Darwinists typically don't understand" etc. -- a statement woefully void of perspective itself) is yours.David Kellogg_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
08:39 PM
8
08
39
PM
PDT}

Vividbleau, It's not an allegation, it's an interpretation. And a reasonable one. There can be more than one reasonable way to interpret a statement. He draws it back to science in the part you number 2. The words "in science" are a clue. I see you haven't withdrawn your little temper tantrum at 720 (as of now). How lovely.David Kellogg_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
08:35 PM
8
08
35
PM
PDT}

DK: “Let me put it another way then. First he tries to locate the “God-friendly” question outside of science, but then he specifically draws it back in to science (via the Big Bang).” Ok so your first allegation was wrong and now you are making a new allegation after getting called on it.. However your second allegation is wrong also. Lets go line by line again. 1)“And again, my statement as written is certainly correct.” He is correct ID is God friendly. He does not specifically draw it back to science here 2)“And it’s happened time — many times in science, and, again, I’ll just refer back to John Maddox’s article Down With the Big Bang.” Here he is referring to an article written by John Maddox regarding something that has happened many times in science. He does not specifically draw it back to science here 3)“He didn’t like the Big Bang theory“. Evidently he did not like the Big bang theory. He does not specifically draw it back to science here 4)“And it wasn t because the data were inconsistent with it, it’s because it was philosophically unacceptable.” He did not like it because it was philosophically unacceptable. He does not specifically draw it back to science here 5) “Walter Nernst hated the idea of a beginning to the universe.” Evidently Nernst hated the idea of the big bang for the same reasons. He does not specifically draw it back to science here 6)” It was unscientific.” Their reason for rejecting the Big Bang were unscientific. Why? Because they were rejecting he Big bang not for scientific reasons rather based on philosophical reasons. Philosophy is not science. “God friendly” is not science. He does not specifically draw it back to science here in fact does the opposite. 7)“So — and other people have said similar things.” Other people have said similar things to the things Maddox and Nernst have said. He does not specifically draw it back to science here Once again I have just gone line by line of the collection of Behe’s testimony that you say he says that philosophy is science after saying it wasn’t. Your assertion cannot be found. In fact he says the exact opposite. Shall I expect a third new allegation? Keep at it long enough and eventually you might get it right. What one can conclude by your tacit admission that your first allegation was and is baseless is that you are prone to throw out criticism’s with little thought or examination, especially when it comes to those who disagree with you. This does not speak well of your intellectual honesty when dealing with those whose views are contrary to yours. Once again please substantiate your new allegation. Vividvividbleau_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
08:22 PM
8
08
22
PM
PDT}

----David: Let me put it another way then. First he tries to locate the “God-friendly” question outside of science, but then he specifically draws it back in to science (via the Big Bang)." That just might be because he is talking about both science and philosophy in order to explain the difference between a scientific theory and its philosophical implications. Darwinists typically don't undersand the meaning of the word, "perspective," because to them, there is only one possible way of looking at the world. They cannot, in their wildest imagination, conceive of analyzing the same topic from a theological, philosophical, or scientific perspective. So, if Einstein was alive today and said that he can't believe that "God would play dice with the world," Barbara Forrest would keep a journal on him, claim that his theology had leaked into his methodology and insist that he was a creationist. Her lap dog, Judge Jones, would have agreed.StephenB_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
08:17 PM
8
08
17
PM
PDT}

---"StephenB, if you take a breath and look, you’ll see that I was responding to a baseless accusation by vividbleau, based on a misperception that comment numbers are stable. That’s all." Duly noted.StephenB_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
07:55 PM
7
07
55
PM
PDT}

----David: "None of the three things you mention are taught in the law schools with which I’m familiar. Were they taught in your law school, StephenB?" So, I gather that means that we can add your name to LH's name as one that cannot provide a rational answer to three simple questions about the law. Have you ever given any thought to abandoning your irrational post-modernist paradigm and entering into the world of rational thought?StephenB_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
07:54 PM
7
07
54
PM
PDT}

StephenB, if you take a breath and look, you'll see that I was responding to a baseless accusation by vividbleau, based on a misperception that comment numbers are stable. That's all.David Kellogg_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
07:48 PM
7
07
48
PM
PDT}

----David: "Confirmation: note StephenB’s comment in 707 correcting a typo referenced “705,” when the item is actually 706. See? An item was added, changing the numbers." How entertaining can this get? I ask David to justify his whacked out interpretation of Michael Behe’s words, defend his uninformed accusations against Philip Johnson, define “creationism.” and explain how ID methodology is tied to creationism. And how does he respond? He broods about my typo correction aimed at 705 instead of 706. Now there is a man who really knows how to step up to the plate. I have an idea. Why not e-mail your Darwinist friends and ask them for a few ideas. They haven't ever been much help to you, but they did at least provide you with a few talking points, albeit useless ones.StephenB_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
07:45 PM
7
07
45
PM
PDT}

None of the three things you mention are taught in the law schools with which I'm familiar. Were they taught in your law school, StephenB?David Kellogg_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
07:39 PM
7
07
39
PM
PDT}

---David: "Moreover, Learned Hand has been incredibly patient with you (more than I have been) while repeatedly handing you your behind on a platter in all things related to law." Like you Learned Hand is getting killed, having avoided all my hard questions, such as those at 585 and having no response to my refutations of his remarks. Here are few that he has left untouched: "You have yet to demonstrate that you understand the difference between [A] the letter of the law and the spirit of the law, [B] what the law does and what it is supposed to do, [C] the standard for a just law or an unjust law. To do proper legal analysis, it is importnat to understand the nature of these distinctions and the reasons why they are important. Further, you seen to elevate symbolism over substance. Nothing Michael Behe said, inside or outside court, incrimininated him. You cannot present to me a quote of his in its original form [untwisted by Barbara Forrest, the ACLU, or Judge Jones] that suggests that ID is “intertwined” (your word) with religion. That fact alone destroys your entire argument.?StephenB_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
07:34 PM
7
07
34
PM
PDT}

Confirmation: note StephenB's comment in 707 correcting a typo referenced "705," when the item is actually 706. See? An item was added, changing the numbers. Try not to pop off with accusations like that. I'll accept an apology now.David Kellogg_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
07:03 PM
7
07
03
PM
PDT}

Vivid, nothing disingenuous. There is a quirky feature of UD moderation: reference numbers change when a person in moderation has a comment added in midstream. A moderated comment must have been added in the interim. What was 680 is now 681:
Let me put it another way then. First he tries to locate the “God-friendly” question outside of science, but then he specifically draws it back in to science (via the Big Bang).
That's my answer.David Kellogg_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
07:00 PM
7
07
00
PM
PDT}

David Kellog, How disingenuous can you get? I wrote Vivid: “Furthermore he has not substantiated his allegations regarding Behe that I highlighted in my post of 609 where I went line by line through the paragraph of interest to me.” You responded DK: “I don’t have anything to add to 609.” When I asked you if you now would retract your baseless allegation you said. DK: “I thought it was a silly reading. I clarified my point above” Since I did not recall any clarification or anything about it being a silly reading I asked. Vivid: “Where? What number?” You responded DK: “Vivid, 680” So I go to 680 and here is what you said“DK: I don’t have anything to add to 609.” You are one peace of work. You throw out baseless allegations, accusations, constantly employ fallacious arguments and pass off tripe like this when you get your hand caught in the cookie jar. To morph “I don’t have anything to add to 609.” to “I thought it was a silly reading. I clarified my point above” is the best evidence one could marshal to demonstrated your hypocrisy and your double standards. Vividvividbleau_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
06:54 PM
6
06
54
PM
PDT}

Well, we'll disagree both about his temperment and his success. But I'm comfortable with that.David Kellogg_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
06:15 PM
6
06
15
PM
PDT}

David Kellogg, StephenB has incredibly patient with you (more than I have been) while repeatedly handing you your behind on a platter in all things whatsoever. But have you thanked him? Not hardly.Clive Hayden_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
06:10 PM
6
06
10
PM
PDT}

Clive @709. Thank you. That's all I wanted.David Kellogg_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
05:30 PM
5
05
30
PM
PDT}

Interesting that you and Richard Dawkins share a certain arrogant attitude: that people who disagree with you on an issue you care about must be either ignorant, stupid, or dishonest. (Well, Dawkins adds insane.) Could it be that both of you are wrong?David Kellogg_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
05:28 PM
5
05
28
PM
PDT}

Well, I found 355 to present not "information" but ideology. Moreover, Learned Hand has been incredibly patient with you (more than I have been) while repeatedly handing you your behind on a platter in all things related to law. But have you thanked him? Not hardly.David Kellogg_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
05:17 PM
5
05
17
PM
PDT}

----David: "StephenB, I am not sure, but Echidna may be snarky rather than ignorant. She may have read the FAQ (and/or other ID self-descriptions) but just not believe or trust the FAQ (etc.)." I presented the same information [with updated names] @355 on this very thread. So, she, and you, and LH all made it a point to strategically ignore it. So, when people ignore information, I have no way of knowing whether they are guilty of dishonesty, stupidity, or ignorance. So, I usually go with "ignorance" until they prove their intellectual dishonesty. I do a lot of nice things like that.StephenB_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
05:08 PM
5
05
08
PM
PDT}

---David: "Unlike you, when making points about others’ writing, I prefer to have their writing at hand." More excuses. Well, let's review. David fails to justify his whacked out interpretation of Michael Behe's words. David fails to defend his uninformed accusations against Philip Johnson. David fails to define "creationism." David fails to explain how ID methodology is tied to creationism. David fails to present any kind of reasoned argument about anything. David just goes around twisting and lampooning others' ideas, ignoring their substance, searching for distractions, and avoiding main points, while, at the same time, refusing to present any ideas of his own. ----David: " In my view, at the very least, a creationist must think that science “points to a supernatural origin for life.” That will not do. If you are going to go around calling people "creationists," you ought to be able to define what you mean. I don't recall that you have ever said that someone was a creationist, "at a bare minimum." If, like Judge Jones, you think that ID is tied to creationism, and, if you agree with his intrusive decision that stigmatized a whole community of people with that brand, you ought to at least have the intellectual integrity to tell us what the hell you are talking about. Like your friends, LH and EL, you are too lazy to read the UD sidebar to discover the historical difference between ID and creationism. Thus, you make one categorical mistake after the other without even having bothered to acquire the miminum amount of information necessary for responsible dialougue.StephenB_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
04:56 PM
4
04
56
PM
PDT}

StephenB, I am not sure, but Echidna may be snarky rather than ignorant. She may have read the FAQ (and/or other ID self-descriptions) but just not believe or trust the FAQ (etc.).David Kellogg_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
04:53 PM
4
04
53
PM
PDT}

----Echidna-Levy: "Which is what, exactly?" [The demonstrable distinction between ID and creationism.] Thank you for showing the world that, like your Darwinist colleagues, you lack the intellectual curiosity to even read the FAQ on the UD sidebar. Thus, you confess to the world that not only are you are willfully ignorant of the subject being discussed, and not only that you are proud of your ignorance, but also that you plan to remain in that condition. Remarkable!StephenB_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
04:20 PM
4
04
20
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 26 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply