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

Judge Jones ignored historical legal precedent regarding religion. Had he recognized historical precedent, he would have noticed the religious nature of Dr. Miller’s testimony, and also the religious nature of atheism. Mr. Calvert's pamphlets did not cite any binding precedent that I can see that Judge Jones ignored. The court could not have ruled that the scientists' testimony was religious in nature even if it agreed with Mr. Calvert, as district courts are restricted to applying existing precedent when it exists, and existing precedent comes nowhere near the conclusion that Mr. Calvert wants to reach.Learned Hand_{June 21, 2009
June
06
Jun
21
21
2009
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT}

William J Murray, "#71 your demonstrated one of the real problems with the atheistic/materialist perspective; the moral and ethical equivalency it leads to when one can consider eugenics programs and scratching oneself to be relatively equal acts, the only difference being the superstition that humans are meaningfully different than microbial life." Excellent and insightful point. I was reading over RDK's statement, and could not make anything of it. When we have another thread dedicated to the moral inadequacies of Darwinism, I hope you are there. Are you paying attention Ms. O'Leary?CannuckianYankee_{June 21, 2009
June
06
Jun
21
21
2009
03:31 AM
3
03
31
AM
PDT}

RDK: In #71 your demonstrated one of the real problems with the atheistic/materialist perspective; the moral and ethical equivalency it leads to when one can consider eugenics programs and scratching oneself to be relatively equal acts, the only difference being the superstition that humans are meaningfully different than microbial life. The unfortunate consequence of the atheisic/materialist paradigm is that the respect, moral and ethical obligation, and sense of the divine that once infused scientific investigation is now considered to be nothing more than superstition. Unfortunately, that perspective cannot help but produce less warrant against corruption and fraud in science. Unfortunately, if humans are nothing more than the programmed consequence of physics, you have no means by which to argue that your materialist superstitions are more truthful than another person's spiritual "superstitions"; your assertion that it is so, and your belief that it is so, are equal products of accumulations of physics as whatever any religious fundamentalists utters and believes. IOW, your argument, by your own basis, is ultimately no more necessarily truthful than whatever sound leaves make when the wind blows through them.William J. Murray_{June 21, 2009
June
06
Jun
21
21
2009
02:39 AM
2
02
39
AM
PDT}

PaulBurnett, "Based on the trial transcript, anybody can see why Judge Jones came to think that I.D. is religious. Judge Jones did not arrive at this thought by himself." Judge Jones ignored historical legal precedent regarding religion. Had he recognized historical precedent, he would have noticed the religious nature of Dr. Miller's testimony, and also the religious nature of atheism. He discriminated agains ID because of the theistic implications of the theory. If he had presided over a case to require the Big Bang theory to be taught in science classes before the theory was accepted by the scientific establishment, he would have to have ruled the BBT as religious as well, based on its theistic implications, by the same criteria.CannuckianYankee_{June 21, 2009
June
06
Jun
21
21
2009
01:33 AM
1
01
33
AM
PDT}

Dr. Hunter, RDK, PaulBurnett, IRQ, Joseph, lamarck, WJM, SBS, spark, Herb, BA77 and others (sorry if I missed anyone) I was websurfing and found the following two articles by John Calvert informative to this discussion on religion vs. science and the Dover case: http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/science_and_religion_can_be_reconciled.pdf http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/Remarks_John_Calvert_Liberty_Law_School_Feb609.pdf Calvert posits that Judge Jones' error was in his narrow definition of religion. He believes that if Dover had been appealed, the more inclusive definition of religion from cases past would have been used. While I agree with Calvert, I don't see how this would have been helpful, since even the Discovery Institute believed that the DASB was in error in requiring a mention of ID. The DI agreed with the simple ruling of Judge Jones in Dover, that DASB had a religious agenda, which violated the establishment clause. However, the DI disagreed with Judge Jones' opinion regarding the religious nature of ID. I think this is an important distinction. I find it interesting that Calvert recognizes the materialistic basis for such religions as Deism, Scientology, Transcendental Meditation and Wicca. Yet Judge Jones only saw theistic religions fitting the definition of "religious." He did not allow that Naturalism is also religious, or that Humanism is religious, even though there were past legal precedents, which rendered Humanism as such. Pay particular attention to: IMPORTANT CASES RE DEFINITION OF RELIGION near the bottom of the second article.CannuckianYankee_{June 21, 2009
June
06
Jun
21
21
2009
01:19 AM
1
01
19
AM
PDT}

I have to laugh at the hypocrisy. Whats good for the goose. No?IRQ Conflict_{June 21, 2009
June
06
Jun
21
21
2009
12:03 AM
12
12
03
AM
PDT}

PaulBurnett, "The vast majority of design proponents (”cdesign proponentsists”) are quite certain they know Who the intelligent designer really is." Is the Scientific method not a suitable filter to allow for bias in a scientist? By survey, the majority of evo biologists are atheists. Should they be banned from science? Is science allowed to research in the direction of finding god? Didn't you already know these answers? Science and religion meet at the top.lamarck_{June 20, 2009
June
06
Jun
20
20
2009
08:05 PM
8
08
05
PM
PDT}

Hi W.J. Murray,
Such as, in the case of DNA, instead of hypothesizing from the law and chance heuristic that most of DNA is “junk”, one would have hypothesized that most DNA is used in some way. Instead of hypothesizing vestigial organs and cutting out appendixes and tonsils, we might have hypothesized that such organs have uses we just haven’t figured out yet. Instead of sterilizing countless people in the name of Eugenics, we might have thought twice about taking it upon ourselves to destroy manifestations of the design.
Good idea! But instead of picking and choosing what to be superstitious about, I'm going to go all the way! I'm going to refrain from squashing bugs because for all I know, there could be tiny human-esque souls inside them, and they might think and feel the same way we do! I'm also going to refrain from ever having sex, because that would mean that all the tiny people that didn't get a chance to fertilize an egg would die! I'm also going to never scratch myself, because I would be committing an act of murder against the microscopic people that make up my skin tissue!RDK_{June 20, 2009
June
06
Jun
20
20
2009
07:31 PM
7
07
31
PM
PDT}

RDK: We don't know what is responsible for the design. It could be god; it could be ourselves, collapsing history via quantum observer-collapse; it could be that coherent, highly organized information is another fundamental quality of the universe. We don't know. The point of ID is not to locate the designer, but rather to validate the use of a design hueristic when researching certain phenomena instead of a "chance and law" heuristic, because if something is designed, an investigatory process that admits that it is designed will likely produce better scientific results. Such as, in the case of DNA, instead of hypothesizing from the law and chance heuristic that most of DNA is "junk", one would have hypothesized that most DNA is used in some way. Instead of hypothesizing vestigial organs and cutting out appendixes and tonsils, we might have hypothesized that such organs have uses we just haven't figured out yet. Instead of sterilizing countless people in the name of Eugenics, we might have thought twice about taking it upon ourselves to destroy manifestations of the design.William J. Murray_{June 20, 2009
June
06
Jun
20
20
2009
07:07 PM
7
07
07
PM
PDT}

"RDK" (#66) wrote: "Are you arguing that design can exist without a designer?" That's getting awfully close to Dawkins' "blind watchmaker" or the "infinitely patient idiot tinkerer" of evolution, isn't it? During the 2005 Dover trial, intelligent design proponent Michael Behe suggested that the intelligent designer might be dead. So maybe there is no longer a designer.PaulBurnett_{June 20, 2009
June
06
Jun
20
20
2009
05:32 PM
5
05
32
PM
PDT}

RDK @ 66 "Does ID posit a designer or does it not" It does not. It simply says something was designed rather than not designed. Who the designer is/was, is left up for theological discussions not scientific. If I've read things correctly. From the link above right. The first paragraph reads as follows: "The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion." You should really invest a couple of minutes and read the rest. https://uncommondescent.com/id-defined/IRQ Conflict_{June 20, 2009
June
06
Jun
20
20
2009
04:11 PM
4
04
11
PM
PDT}

Hey Mr. Hunter,
Right in the introduction of Section 7 I wrote: this is a perfectly valid method of reasoning
My apologies for mischaracterization. But if the method of reasoning isn't the problem, exactly what is? Hey Joseph,
ID does not require the supernatural. ID is about the DESIGN. The DESIGN exists in the physical world and as such is very open to empirical testing. People trying to make ID into a designer-centric venue are totally clueless and expose their ignorance of science.
Does ID posit a designer or does it not? The whole point of ID seems to be to show that there is design present in nature. Are you arguing that design can exist without a designer?RDK_{June 20, 2009
June
06
Jun
20
20
2009
02:49 PM
2
02
49
PM
PDT}

Dr Hunter,
There are none. I’m referring to evolution, not changes in allele frequencies.
What?! That's what evolution IS! The definition of evolution is: heritable variation and selection lead to changes in a populations allele frequencies. ???SingBlueSilver_{June 20, 2009
June
06
Jun
20
20
2009
02:32 PM
2
02
32
PM
PDT}

herb,
That’s about the most elegant refutation of Darwinism that I’ve ever seen—in order for a species to persist, the weakest (i.e., least fit) must survive.
This is a misunderstanding of the term "fittest." Survival of the fittest does not mean survival of the strongest. It means survival of those best equipped to make copies of their genes. This could included the tiny mouse who can hide from predators.SingBlueSilver_{June 20, 2009
June
06
Jun
20
20
2009
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT}

----Paul Burnett: "Based on the trial transcript, anybody can see why Judge Jones came to think that I.D. is religious. Judge Jones did not arrive at this thought by himself." That is because Judge Jones, and, apparently you, cannot distinguish between a religious presupposition and a design inference. Obviously, he knew [and knows] nothing at all about ID's methodology. Do you, in fact, know anything about it? If so, please tell us how you extract a religious presupposition from an empirically-based methodology.StephenB_{June 20, 2009
June
06
Jun
20
20
2009
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PDT}

PaulBurnett:
ID stands for “Intelligent Design.” If “ID” is not “designer-centric” what is it?
ID examines an entity for evidence of intelligent design. Break that sentence down. Does ID examine a designer? No, it examines the entity in question - the sentence, structure, or cell. The only reason to label it pseudoscience or supernatural is if someone, for reasons having nothing to do with science, just doesn't like it. Then the scientific search for knowledge sails right out the window. Judge Jones demonstrated, as do many here, that if one makes up his mind in advance, seizes upon even the flimsiest of evidence that appears to agree, and pretends the rest never existed, he can believe anything that suits him and consider it well-founded.ScottAndrews_{June 20, 2009
June
06
Jun
20
20
2009
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT}

Judge Jonse stated in his decision: “It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.”
To be fair: Only a minority of ID-proponents had the opportunity to escape sworn testimony in Dover despite of being paid before.sparc_{June 20, 2009
June
06
Jun
20
20
2009
11:55 AM
11
11
55
AM
PDT}

PaulB:
ID stands for “Intelligent Design.” If “ID” is not “designer-centric” what is it?
DESIGN-centric- just as I said. As a matter of fact in the absence of direct observation or designer input, the ONLY possible way to make ANY scientific determination about the designer(s) or the specific process(es) used, is by studying the design. And BTW the only people who conflate ID and Creation are the people who are ignorant of both. By the criteria used Darwin was a Creationist:
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.- Charles Darwin in “The Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection” last chapter, last sentence (bold added)
Joseph_{June 20, 2009
June
06
Jun
20
20
2009
09:38 AM
9
09
38
AM
PDT}

iconofid, Nice meaningless rant. All of the ID experts who testified said that ID does not require the supernatural. The only people who said ID requires the supernatural are the people who did so because of their agenda. Judge Jones, who still doesn't understand ID, sided with the people with an agenda. And yes iconofid I am looking forward to my turn in court.Joseph_{June 20, 2009
June
06
Jun
20
20
2009
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT}

Joseph: Only because he didn’t listen to the ID experts and instead relied on the testimony of the anti-ID liars. Do you think it would have helped if you had been there to tell him about your non-supernatural, artificial, pre-natural designers who do gene duplications, and construct bacterial flagella and do highly complex designs on both sides of what the "liars" call the evolutionary arms race? Somehow, I doubt it, but I'm sure your testimony would have been highly entertaining up to the point that you were thrown out of the court for contempt! "Your honor, they cannot show that nature, operating freely......."iconofid_{June 20, 2009
June
06
Jun
20
20
2009
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PDT}

iconofid:
Judge Jones thought that I.D. was religious.
Only because he didn't listen to the ID experts and instead relied on the testimony of the anti-ID liars.Joseph_{June 20, 2009
June
06
Jun
20
20
2009
06:58 AM
6
06
58
AM
PDT}

iconofid (#54) wrote: "Judge Jones thought that I.D. was religious." Judge Jones was led to that thought by sworn testimony over several weeks from witnesses for both sides at the 2005 Dover trial. They demonstrated in their various ways that I.D. was religious. Judge Jonse stated in his decision: "It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy." This was in part what led him to state in his decision "We have concluded that intelligent design is not science, and moreover that intelligent design cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents." Based on the trial transcript, anybody can see why Judge Jones came to think that I.D. is religious. Judge Jones did not arrive at this thought by himself.PaulBurnett_{June 20, 2009
June
06
Jun
20
20
2009
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PDT}

Joseph (#52) wrote: "People trying to make ID into a designer-centric venue are totally clueless and expose their ignorance of science." ID stands for "Intelligent Design." If "ID" is not "designer-centric" what is it? The vast majority of design proponents ("cdesign proponentsists") are quite certain they know Who the intelligent designer really is. And yes, you're right: They are totally clueless and this does indeed expose their ignorance of science. Remember to whom "Expelled" was marketed - it wasn't scientists.PaulBurnett_{June 20, 2009
June
06
Jun
20
20
2009
06:38 AM
6
06
38
AM
PDT}

Hi, Cornelius Cornelius says: "But evolution incorporates specific religious premises, having nothing to do with uniformity and parsimony. These religious premises are uncharacteristic of science in general, and they mandate evolution. One way or another, evolution must be a fact. Every time you hear evolutionists proclaim their theory to be a fact (which is quite common), you are hearing a religious proclamation." Last bit first. Cornelius, theories are explanations, not facts. Please don't confuse "evolutionists" saying "evolution is a fact" with someone making the false claim that "the theory of evolution is a fact". Now the first bit. Neither biological evolution (the fact), obviously, nor evolutionary theory "incorporate specific religious premises". What you point to on your web page, debates between Christians with differing views (and presumably deists, as well) on whether or not their God would create evil are irrelevant to the question of whether or not evolutionary theory is a strong theory. They may well have been of interest to Darwin, because he was a Christian when he first started his observations of nature, and because he was from a traditionally Christian culture, but the world's evolutionists today come from all kinds of cultural backgrounds, and all that's of interest to most (excepting the particularly religious) is the evidence in relation to evolution. On your site: This notion of having natural laws, rather than divine action, be responsible for nature helps to absolve God from responsibility for the evil in the world. It was a popular idea, and Darwin and evolutionists to this day strenuously argue that evolution must be true since God never would have intended to create this nasty world. Evolution (the fact) "must be true"? Do they mean "evolutionary theory must be the best explanation for evolution?" No doubt there are some naive modern "evolutionists" who make that God argument, but they would have to be theistic believers in a benevolent God, or people arguing against a creationist who had suggested that his or her god was omnibenevolent and had created life directly! No-one's opinions on any gods provide evidence for or against the validity of the Theory of Evolution. We have no need of these hypotheses! Outside theists having their theological disputes and "evo/creo" debates, it would not be considered, and has nothing to do with the science of biology. It is certainly not a "specific religious premise" of either evolution or evolutionary theory! There is nothing about any of the gods of any of the religions in either, and they're irrelevant unless any evidence crops up for any of them existing, which I doubt will happen. Gods get discussed on this blog a lot because of the nature and some of the arguments of I.D. Biological evolution is the fact of biological change over time which can be observed both directly in real time, and indirectly relating to the past from the fossil record and the study of molecular evidence. It is something that many I.D. supporters agree is a fact. The modern theory of evolution is an explanatory theory of that fact, and the I.D. movement is about building an alternative theory to explain the same data (some I.D.ers claim there isn't yet a theory - I'm not discussing that here). Neither theories would be facts, by definition! Judge Jones thought that I.D. was religious. There's one thing about this that isn't often commented on. I can think of no incident ever of scientists with a new hypothesis or theory trying to get it taught in schools before they have established strong support amongst the experts in the relevant field. It's odd. Normally, they don't care about education until the theory is well established, in which case it enters education naturally at the college level, then seeps down if it continues to be well supported by observations. Do we hear string theorists saying "heh, I want this taught in junior high!"? But it is true that all successful religions instinctively realise that it's essential to indoctrinate children. If, in the Muslim world, you skipped a generation of teaching kids that the Koran is the word of a being who created the universe, few of them are going to come to such a ridiculous conclusion on their own as adults. So, it has to be said that I.D.ers attempting to enter into school classrooms is not typical of the behaviour of scientists throughout history, but seems to fit the pattern of a religious movement. Perhaps that oddity biased the judge, and it was unwise on the part of I.D. to attempt such a premature move (I know some I.D. people agree with that suggestion). BTW, a small technical note about your page. It seems to load slowly, and I think it's one image making the problem. Check out: Figure 16: Illustration of the various evolutionary premises (black) and example advocates (red). It's right near the end. It never seems to load for me, and the browser says "224 items remaining". Not a serious problem, but I thought you might like to know!iconofid_{June 20, 2009
June
06
Jun
20
20
2009
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
PDT}

Ah! Exactly Joseph. Exactly.IRQ Conflict_{June 20, 2009
June
06
Jun
20
20
2009
06:23 AM
6
06
23
AM
PDT}

FYI- With ID it is NOT "natural vs supernatural". With ID it is "natural vs artificial". Not that I expect any anti-IDists to understand that because it flies in the face of their (supernatural) strawman.Joseph_{June 20, 2009
June
06
Jun
20
20
2009
06:05 AM
6
06
05
AM
PDT}

RDK:
Once you invoke a supernatural entity you break the rules of causality. Nothing makes sense in the light of science when you bring a deity such as the purported designer into the mix.
ID does not require the supernatural. ID is about the DESIGN. The DESIGN exists in the physical world and as such is very open to empirical testing. People trying to make ID into a designer-centric venue are totally clueless and expose their ignorance of science.Joseph_{June 20, 2009
June
06
Jun
20
20
2009
06:02 AM
6
06
02
AM
PDT}

RDK:
P.S: Mr. Hunter, if you honestly believe the Theory of Evolution is fallacious because ...
Right in the introduction of Section 7 I wrote:
this is a perfectly valid method of reasoning
Cornelius Hunter_{June 19, 2009
June
06
Jun
19
19
2009
10:47 PM
10
10
47
PM
PDT}

Genetic entropy is an observed fact there's no controversy over it. Genomes are only losing complex information unless their single celled creatures making small changes to existing functions. This next part is speculation but hardly: Information is complexity of the genome. We see no whole new genes forming. We see mainly point neucleotide beneficial mutations. 99% of good mutations are near neutral or null as far as anything is concerned. They're swamped by a ratio of a million to ten thousand to one bad mutations for every good one. Previously thought of neutral mutations now have a function. So they do something to the phenotype, and so last. The bad ones then stay and have their small bad effect. The bad ones also have the effect of allowing no new morphological change with multicelled organisms, too many good mutations needed to coincide to form something, and all the bad stuff getting in their way. Nylonase is a predicted exception. 1. It's small enough to allow for changes. 2. Eating nylon was a small change to existing funtion. This is a ramshackle confused way of explaining this but I'm speed typing tonight. Anyways, BornAgain you could probably explain this better than I could but here it is. Also how did the genome with all it's complexity get here if it's only observed to be losing complexity? God or Aliens must be it. Genomes must be programmed to allow for evolution for something. Information isn't insertions or deletions, but a whole new gene. You need a whole new gene to get a new beak or arm.lamarck_{June 19, 2009
June
06
Jun
19
19
2009
10:35 PM
10
10
35
PM
PDT}

Sorry, but linking pages here is a pain. I was actually referring to Sal's post on John Sanford's book "Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome" that you will find here: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/respected-cornell-geneticist-rejects-darwinism-in-his-recent-book/sparc_{June 19, 2009
June
06
Jun
19
19
2009
10:10 PM
10
10
10
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 22 23 24 25 26 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply