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

David Kellogg:
There is, in Behe’s view, a proportional relation between a person’s belief in God and the plausibility of ID. The plausibility of ID, in Behe’s view, “depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God.”
You're missing the point entirely. Plausibility is subjective. Otherwise the theory could not be both plausible and implausible, more plausible or less plausible. Are you disputing that people who believe in God are more likely to find ID reasonable than atheists? Behe is not describing the nature of ID or its evidence. He explains that individuals accept or reject theories for various personal reasons, and in this case religious beliefs are a factor:
This is unsurprising; it is frequently the case in science that when new theories are proposed people judge the evidence differently. The only unusual (but not unprecedented) feature here is that a person’s judgment on the existence of God enters into the balance.
Nowhere in this text does Behe contradict himself by claiming that belief in God is required to accept ID. Ironically, he is describing the prejudicial effect of one's religion or atheism. So why did Judge Jones parrot the plaintiff's distortion in "his" decision?ScottAndrews_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
10:57 AM
10
10
57
AM
PST}

Where are you getting "influenced by"? Is that another made-up quote?David Kellogg_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
10:56 AM
10
10
56
AM
PST}

---"David Kellogg: "You have, by your own admission, read both the decision and the transcript only once. You misread the decision by thinking Jones was referring to the transcript when he was referring to an article. Not one of your citations of Behe’s testimony was accurate. You’ve been corrected on every specific yet cling to your conclusion." Nice try, but you and your Darwinist friends, Learned Hand, and Paul Burnett are busted again. To be "influenced by" is not the same as to "depend on." ID's plausibility is "influenced by" the extent to which one believes in God. Darwinism's plausibility is "influenced by" the extent to which one is an atheist. On the other hand, ID's plausibility does not DEPEND ON the extent to which one believes in God, and Darwinism does not DEPEND ON the extent to which one believes in God. Some ID advocates do not believe in God, and some Darwinists do. Behe made the proper distinction; Judge Jones made it a point not to. He lied by attributing to Michael Behe something Michael Behe didn't say. Further, he subjected Behe to public humiliation by allowing others to think that he was stupid enough to say something that he clearly didn't say. Jones dishonored his role as a judge. He is a disgrace.StephenB_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
10:51 AM
10
10
51
AM
PST}

You have, by your own admission, read both the decision and the transcript only once. You misread the decision by thinking Jones was referring to the transcript when he was referring to an article. Not one of your citations of Behe's testimony was accurate. You've been corrected on every specific yet cling to your conclusion.David Kellogg_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
10:40 AM
10
10
40
AM
PST}

Again, Behe:
But what if the existence of God is denied at the outset, or is in dispute? Is the plausibility of the argument to design affected? 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.
There is, in Behe's view, a proportional relation between a person's belief in God and the plausibility of ID. The plausibility of ID, in Behe's view, "depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God."David Kellogg_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PST}

Wow. That response, StephenB, is so screwed up I don't even know where to start. I have, however, eliminated "law professor" from your possible academic fields.David Kellogg_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
10:33 AM
10
10
33
AM
PST}

David Kellogg: Thanks for the quotes. That is exactly what Behe said at the trial. I now feel no hesitancy. Judge John Jones clearly put words in Micheal Behe's mouth. grossly misrepresnting what was said and rewriting it to fit his own agenda. In no way did Behe ever say that ID or "irrreducible complexity" DEPENDS on belief in God. He simply said that people who already believe in God will find it more compelling, and that a person's judgment will color their interpretation. On the other hand, Jones said, "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." That is a lie.StephenB_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PST}

I provided both quotes and they don’t match.
What quotes did you provide? You said
In one very important reference, Judge Jones put words in Behe’s mouth when writing the decision. During the Behe’s testimony, the attorney ask him if ID “would be “more plausible” for those who believe in God than those who do not. Behe gave the reasonable answer, which is yes.
You don't even get that right. In the transcript, the question is whether ID makes Christianity more pleasible, not the other way round (read the October 19 transcript above). You're citing a question and answer that never happened.David Kellogg_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
10:29 AM
10
10
29
AM
PST}

He didn't get a quote, he got a claim. A claim that Judge Jones cited, and that Behe demonstrably made.David Kellogg_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PST}

It was reported to be right near the end, as if to say, “Aha, we finally have the smoking gun.” I have no sources, I am just going from memory.
Your memory is faulty, and the transript is freely available online. The only thing that remotely resembles it is on the morning of October 19, when discussing the Big Bang and the compatibility of ID with Christianity. But, coupled with the passages I cited above, this merely confirms that Judge Jones is right:
his testimony at trial indicated that ID is only a scientific, as opposed to a religious, project for him,
but other evidence (the "Reply to my Critics" article, which is cited) shows 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.
David Kellogg_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PST}

---David: "You’ve already distorted the context of Judge Jones’s passage, which doesn’t make the claim you said it made. You’ve done this on a single reading of the testimony and decision, which caused you to make very strong claims including that Judge Jones is lying." I provided both quotes and they don't match. That is evidence. So, as far as I can tell Judge Jones put words in Michael Behe's mouth. I call that lying. If someone can show me that this is not the case, I will humbly retract. I don't want to get into a flame war over this. I just want to know where Judge Jones got a quote that did not appear in the testimony. I am asking for evidence to the contrary, and so far, no one has stepped up to the plate.StephenB_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
10:15 AM
10
10
15
AM
PST}

---David: "What section was that?" It was reported to be right near the end, as if to say, "Aha, we finally have the smoking gun." I have no sources, I am just going from memory. Ostensbly, everyone was shocked that Behe would unload such a bomb and incriminate himself. Then, when I checked, Behe's comment was not at all of that texture, but Judge Jones' characterization of it was. That's all I have.StephenB_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
10:10 AM
10
10
10
AM
PST}

"Surely, someone has read it, and surely someone can provide me with the quote AND THE CONTEXT, which can easily be distorted." You've already distorted the context of Judge Jones's passage, which doesn't make the claim you said it made. You've done this on a single reading of the testimony and decision, which caused you to make very strong claims including that Judge Jones is lying.David Kellogg_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
09:58 AM
9
09
58
AM
PST}

I received a copy quickly! Here is the first paragraph of page 705:
What if the existence of God is in dispute or is denied? So far I have assumed the existence of God. But what if the existence of God is denied at the outset, or is in dispute? Is the plausibility of the argument to design affected? 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).
And the last paragraph on the same page:
To many theists such as myself, the state of the biological evidence is such that the hypothesis of design is more compelling than that unintelligentprocesses produced the irreducibly complex systems seen in the cell, like the shipwreck survivor who thought someone else might be on the island. However, like the survivor of the shipwreck who thinks no one else is on the island, many (although not all) agnostics and nontheists draw the line differently, and reach the opposite conclusion. This is unsurprising; it is frequently the case in science that when new theories are proposed people judge the evidence differently. The only unusual (but not unprecedented) feature here is that a person’s judgment on the existence of God enters into the balance.
David Kellogg_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PST}

---Learned Hand: "Your summary isn’t just confusing, StephenB, it’s baffling and utterly wrong. Please review David Kellog’s comment immediately preceding your own (which I realize you may not have seen before posting your latest comment). The court did not say that Behe made that comment during his trial testimony; it said his testimony was contradicted by that statement, and then cited precisely the source of that statement. I honestly don’t understand why you keep misrepresenting the ruling." I am simply trying to get more information. I remember how everyone supposedly gasped during this section of Behe’s testimony and characterized it as an on-the-spot confession about ID being religion dependent. Something is not making sense here. ----"I’m not going to buy the article for you; if you aren’t willing to read one paragraph of the opinion, why would I spend good money giving you additional reading material?" I am willing. I am willing. Surely, someone has read it, and surely someone can provide me with the quote AND THE CONTEXT, which can easily be distorted. Why should I spend money to verify your assertions? ----"If you’re so curious, purchase the article, or write to Behe and ask for a copy." I asked you to provide evidence for what you say, and then you ask me to go find it for myself. I don't understand that. Did you read the article? If not, then how do you know what it says? If so, why not just tell me? I am not getting this. All I have is Behe's testimony and Judge John Jones decision. They don't match as I have made clear. I think that my questions are valid and I am receiving no answers.StephenB_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PST}

One the other hand, I remember how everyone supposedly gasped during this section of Behe’s testimony and characterized it as an on-the-spot confession about ID being religion dependent.
What section was that?David Kellogg_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PST}

For clarification, from the trial transcript:
THE COURT: On cross, I have P140, which is The Wedge Strategy; P256, the Zhou article. P279 is the van Gent article. P280 is the Clatworthy article. P281 is the Messier article. P283 is the Kapitonov article. P602 is the Behe report. P621 is the Dembski report or a portion thereof. P718 is the Reply to My Critics article. P721 is the Behe-Snoke article. P722 is the Young/Edis book, Chapter 8. P723 is a Behe article. P724 is the Minnesota Daily article. P726 is the Tulips and Dandelions article. P742 is the Lehigh University statement. P743 is the Behe immune system articles. P747 is the Agrawal article. P748 is the Bartl article. P751 is the Paley book. P754 is the Muster Seeds article. P755 is the Vaandrager article. P756 is the Curtis/Sloan article. And P775 is the excerpt from the draft of the Design of Life. Any others, Mr. Rothschild?
LinkDavid Kellogg_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PST}

---David Kellogg: "He did not say those words during the trial. The reference is to other evidence introduced (apparently Behe’s 2001 article “Reply to my Critics” from Biology and Philosophy. I’ve ordered a copy from interlibrary loan.) It’s clear from the paragraph I cited above that Jones doesn’t claim Behe made that claim during the trial." I understand, and I acknowledge that I don't have all the information. However, I find it difficult to believe that Michael Behe would say that ID "depends on a belief in God" anytime, or anyplace, since it obviously doesn't. The methodology is empirically based, as I am sure you know. You don't get divinity from "irredicible complexity. So, it sounds like someone is doing some motive mongering. Something tells me that the context of whatever he might have said at another time and another place is being distorted. I only read the transcript one time, and I only read the Judge's decision once. So, I may have missed something. One the other hand, I remember how everyone supposedly gasped during this section of Behe's testimony and characterized it as an on-the-spot confession about ID being religion dependent. Something is not making sense here. Any further information will be appreciated and I will not resist it if it sounds reasonable. So far, it doesnt'StephenB_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PST}

Learned Hand, Thanks!David Kellogg_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PST}

It's shorthand; "P-718" is a reference (I think) to Plaintiff's Exhibit 718, and "at 705" is a standard way of saying "at page 705." ("Page" is usually omitted. If it was "section 705" or "paragraph 705," it would say so.) Courts do it that way to keep the record straight for the reviewing court, if any. (I prefer when courts annotate their citations by citing it in full the first time, with a note that future citations will be abbreviated. I don't think that this opinion does that, unfortunately.) I confirmed that P-718 is the article by searching "P-718" in the opinion; the court cites it in a few other places, identifying it as the article. I wish StephenB had done the same, instead of misleading readers here.Learned Hand_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PST}

Learned Hand, quick question: how do legal citations like that work? How is "P-718 at 705" a reference to that article? Thanks.David Kellogg_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PST}

Learned Hand, I should get a PDF of the article in a few days, so I'll be able to cite it then.David Kellogg_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PST}

Your summary isn't just confusing, StephenB, it's baffling and utterly wrong. Please review David Kellog's comment immediately preceding your own (which I realize you may not have seen before posting your latest comment). The court did not say that Behe made that comment during his trial testimony; it said his testimony was contradicted by that statement, and then cited precisely the source of that statement. I honestly don't understand why you keep misrepresenting the ruling. I'm not going to buy the article for you; if you aren't willing to read one paragraph of the opinion, why would I spend good money giving you additional reading material? If you're so curious, purchase the article, or write to Behe and ask for a copy.Learned Hand_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PST}

Please provide your evidence that it was not judicial misconduct and that Behe really said those words, either elsewhere or during the trial.
He did not say those words during the trial. The reference is to other evidence introduced (apparently Behe's 2001 article "Reply to my Critics" from Biology and Philosophy. I've ordered a copy from interlibrary loan.) It's clear from the paragraph I cited above that Jones doesn't claim Behe made that claim during the trial.David Kellogg_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PST}

----Learned Hand: "We just had a discussion in which I and another commenter gave you exact references to the article the court cited for Behe’s comments; StephenB, who like yourself appears to be more comfortable denouncing the opinion than reading it, is mistaken when he claims the court was citing Behe’s trial testimony." So, you keep saying. But Judge Jones expressed surprise that Behe would admit such a thing during his actual testimony and it is to that section that the Judge writes. As I have said, I simply don't believe that Michael Behe ever said or wrote those words. If you can provide me with evidence to the contrary, then I will express effusive gratitude for that information. However, sending me back to Judge Jones' written decision, which already contains the contradictions that I allude to, doesn't help. I am, in fact, questioning Judge Jones' account of what Behe said, and excuse me, your account of what Behe said. I do need evidence, so I can put this behind me. I have provided my evidence: [In summary form] Behe used the words "more plausible." Judge Jones, seriously misrepresenting what was said, rewrote that as "depends upon." [Take note of the full sentences I provided elsewhere if the summary is confusing.] I have provided my evidence for Judicial misconduct. Please provide your evidence that it was not judicial misconduct and that Behe really said those words, either elsewhere or during the trial. Again, please don't send me somewhere, bring the evidence to me, since I brought my evidence to you.StephenB_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PST}

The relevant part of the opinion is this:
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.
The opinion explicitly states that Behe's trial testimony said ID was scientific and not religious but other evidence refuted this claim (of the trial testimony). The claim about plausibility and God is linked to the other evidence and not to Behe's testimony. In fact, that evidence is said to refute Behe's testimony, so it obviously doesn't come from that testimony!David Kellogg_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PST}

I did read the opinion and I did read the transcript and I notice that they didn’t match with regard TO THAT PORTION OF THE TESTIMONY that I allude to. I provided both quotes and explained the discrepancy. If you have more information that has Michale Behe saying that ID DEPENDS ON belief in God, then please provide it. The opinion cites explicitly to an article Behe wrote, not to his testimony. That article was in evidence; the court is entitled (and required) to consider it in addition to Behe’s testimony. Apparently the court found Behe’s written statement more significant than his testimony on that point. I have not read the article, though. Have you? 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.” I don’t understand why you keep saying this; it’s obviously not true. The language you quote is immediately followed by a citation, which you curiously omit: “(P-718 at 705).” P-718 is Behe’s 2001 article “Reply to My Critics.” (See, for example, page 73 of the opinion.) Why on earth do you keep telling readers here that the court was referring to the trial testimony? Did you think that no one would bother looking at the opinion, to see what the citation was? That is a lie. Further, I don’t believe that Behe would be stupid enough to say that in court or out of court. If you have any information to the contrary [not a reference to a number of some kind or a rumor of some kind] in the form of an exact quote, please provide it for me and indicate its source. Otherwise, I have no reason to believe you. Do you have the goods or don’t you? My “information to the contrary” is the court’s helpful reference to the source, down to the exact page. That’s the “number of some kind” that you don’t want to hear about. (Not to aggravate you, but I’ll repeat it: page 705.) Google informs me that the article is available for about forty dollars. You’re welcome to buy it and tell us what it says.Learned Hand_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PST}

Michael Behe was asked if he belived that ID would be “more plausible for those who believe in God than those who do not. He answered, “Yes.”
It's a clever choice if words, exactly what lawyers are paid for. One could just as easily ask if ID is less plausible for atheists, and then point out that their critique of ID is motivated by dogma. It's reassuring to know that I ever commit a crime, I can hire a person to defend me who is skilled at creating confusion and doubt and prefers spin over truth.ScottAndrews_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
08:26 AM
8
08
26
AM
PST}

---Scott Andrews: "See my post at 90. After having inserted some confusion, I’ll avoid adding to it by speculating on exactly what he did or didn’t say." Scott, I appreciate it, but I still need the infromation that you and others say I don't have. Judge Jones indicated that he was surprised by Behe's testimony and made a big deal out of the supposed admission that ID "depends on belief in God." Behe clearly did not say that at the critical time. I don't believe he ever said it. If someone can show me otherwise, I will, of course, acknowledge my error. Indeed, as far as I can tell, I am the first one who has discovered the discrepancy between the testimony and Judge Jones' account of it. So, until someone provides this mysterious quote from another time and another place, I will have to assume that my information is more reliable, inasmuch as it is a fact and I have provided the relavant contrasts. I need counter evidence from Learned Hand and Paul Burnett, not invitations to reread what I have already read.StephenB_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
08:18 AM
8
08
18
AM
PST}

Joseph, What else does it require before it is considered scientific? I am not a scientist, and will restrict my comments to the field of law. In general, and oversimplifying quite a bit, a court will not perform a de novo analysis of what is “scientific.” It will hear expert testimony and rely heavily upon those experts. ID’s problem is that its experts are not credible when they argue that their work is scientific, partly because they are overwhelmingly rejected by the scientific community. If ID wants to succeed in court, the most effective step would be to start behaving like science. Participating in the scientific literature, making discoveries that are used by nonbelievers (not merely pointing to other peoples’ discoveries and claiming them for ID), and becoming a field of study at major universities would be important milestones. While ID is composed of outsiders who refuse or are unable to participate in mainstream science, it will have difficulty convincing a court that it is actually scientific. I realize that ID argues that its outsider status is the result of prejudice and/or conspiracies among the scientific community, but I doubt (and this is speculation) that a court would be persuaded of that. If ID wants courts to treat it like science, it has to succeed as a science and become more mainstream. Courts won’t, and shouldn’t, promote it from the minors because they think it should be treated like a science. If a court did that, it would be doing exactly what you oppose: adjudicating science. In effect, what they do instead is determine what is and isn’t in the mainstream, and let professional scientists do the science. IOW Learned Hand, to this day neither Judge Jones, the plaintiffs nor the ACLU and NCSE even understands ID. Welcome to the wonderful world of law. Judges never, ever make the right decision. Every ruling leaves at least one party bitterly complaining that the court just didn’t understand the issues. ScottAndrews, This is a scientific judgment, not a legal one. It’s obvious that these papers disagreed with Behe’s claim. But to refute those claims means to prove them wrong. In making that statement, the court compares conflicting research papers and judges which ones drew the right conclusions. That is an interesting point. In context, I do not believe that the court was actually claiming that the peer-reviewed literature was actually correct, based on its own reading of the articles. I think it was saying that it credited Plaintiffs’ experts, who testified that the literature refuted Behe’s claims. If the court read the articles and reached that conclusion on its own understanding of the scientific issues, I might agree with you, but I don’t see any support for that interpretation; the court reached its conclusion after a discussion of the expert testimony, not a discussion of the technical merits of the articles. Apparently some people are comfortable with a judge rendering decisions on questions entirely within the realm of science, as long as they agree with them. I would be quite uncomfortable with that result; I don’t know anyone who would disagree that judges should not attempt to do science. The question is whether Jones did that, not whether it would have been right to do so. I think the last part of your comment is a complaint that the court adopted the Plaintiff’s proposed findings of fact. I know that the ID community finds that baffling, and I can understand why, but it’s just one of those legal practices that surprises laypeople. I promise you, it’s not unusual for judges to do this. Both parties submit proposed findings, and in the interest of efficiency and speed, the court may excerpt as much or as little as it finds appropriate from either document. The parties want the court to do this, in general; it leads to faster, more focused opinions. It doesn’t mean the court is being led by the nose, even when it uses most or all of one party’s proposed findings; every sentence, especially in a high-profile case, is scrutinized before being adopted.Learned Hand_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PST}

Prev 1 … 20 21 22 23 24 … 26 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply