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

DK: "I don’t have anything to add to 609." Not surprising since what you allege about Behe in the paragraph in question does not exist. You read into Behe's statement something that is not there. So in this particiular instance I assume you will retract your allegation "Here he embraces the science of the statement he just said was not science.” Vividvividbleau_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT}

For 609 read 605. Also note that Vividbleau had earlier responded responded to my need for time to compose an explanation of my view of Johnson with "No problem." Now, however, that's a point against me.David Kellogg_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT}

Dave Scot, agnostic and former chief ID administrator, made the case for ID as well as anyone.
Dave may have been wrong about ID but he was absolutely right about Gordon before being expelled himself.sparc_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
09:44 AM
9
09
44
AM
PDT}

"Now DK is complaining about KF and being compared to Hitler. Actually I thought KF compared DK’s TACTICS to the Nazis which sadly there are many similarities." parroting kairosfocus now? Calling an avowed creationist a creationist is not "outing" him. Saying that it is outing him is a lie. Repeating that lie is (according to you and kairosfocus) behaving like the Nazis. kairosfocus has repeated that lie. Therefore, by his own standards, kairosfocus is behaving like a Nazi. QED. Of course that's not true, but that's because kairosfocus is behaving not like a Nazi but like a child. I don't have anything to add to 609. I'm working on my response to your request on Phillip Johnson, but (a) I'm not your servant, and (b) I have a life. As it happens, I'm waiting for a text from the library. If my response is over-long, I'll post it on my own blog and provide a link for you.David Kellogg_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PDT}

KF:"And notice, while DK is indefatigable in finding out “who is/was what from when” [a typical outing tactic that tries to taint opponents by "scandal"], we have yet to see an actual addressing of a very long list of serious issues on the merits." "Issues over which he has made several grave and so far unsubstantiated accusations against a long list of people starting with Mr Johnson." The facts are there for all to see. DK has yet to substantiate any of his allegations against Johnson after being asked over and over again both by Stephen as well as myself. 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. DK has time enough to participate on sveral threads but does not have the time to substantiate his allegations regarding what Behe said. Now DK is complaining about KF and being compared to Hitler. Actually I thought KF compared DK's TACTICS to the Nazis which sadly there are many similarities. Tell a lie often enough and hope it sticks. More fascinating DK acts as if KF did something wrong almost as if he thinks that there exists some kind of self evident standard of morality that KF has somehow violated. Pretty funny. Vividvividbleau_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
09:29 AM
9
09
29
AM
PDT}

----Echidna-Levy "I await your climbdown StephenB." How is it that you are always so far behind the curve. I stipulated a long time ago that the 90.9% number applied to Judge Jones' decision on the matter of whether ID is science. Everyone knows that number doesn't apply to the entire decision. You don't need to copy from the ACLU to know that the creationist on the school board were uninformed. Other than critical thinking, I am sure that Judge Jones can do many things without the help of the ACLUStephenB_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT}

----David: "As for Fuller, in Science vs Religion? Intelligent Design and the Problem of Evolution, Fuller writes that he is" Fuller is another work in progess. He defends ID against critics and he also finds it plausible. Indeed, he even writes posts on this site and has explained in great detail that science was first launched from the ID perspective. Indeed, he has written much about the absence of any kind of methodological naturalism in the earlier scientists. You would not like him. I disagree with you about Jastrow, but it doesn't matter. There are still many more, as in the case of Anthony Flew, an atheist who found ID [anthropic principle] so plausible that he became a believer. The broader point is this: If any number of agnostics or atheists find ID plausible, large or small, then it is obviously the case that ID's plausibility does not depend on the extent to which one believes in God. Case closed. Anthony Flew refutes that argument all by himself.StephenB_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
07:53 AM
7
07
53
AM
PDT}

That should read, From what I read, Jastrow, on the basis of evidence for the big bang, is questiong atheism's skeptical approach to science and its dismissal of the anthropic principle.StephenB_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
07:44 AM
7
07
44
AM
PDT}

----Echidna-Levy: "As David notes, do you have any evidence that Dr Robert Jastrow is an ID supporter? From what I can tell he is a confirmed evolutionist/darwinist." From what I read, Jastrow is questiong the atheistic approach to science based on the big bang and its skepticism on the anthropoic principle. If, however, you want a more dramatic example, just take Anthony Flew. As I say, there are plenty of examples. I have already listed five. In any case, your analysis, as usual, does not go very deep. If any agnostic can believe in ID, or as in Flew's case, become a believer on the basis of the evidence, then the plausibility of intelligent design does not depend on the extent to which one believes in God. He has obviously changed his position based on the evidence. You just happen to be a little bit behind the curve. Of course, if you don't like that example, there is always Anthony Flew the atheist who was compelled to believe because of the evidence for design. As I say, my list is not complete. Also, agnostics, by definition are slower to comeStephenB_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
07:42 AM
7
07
42
AM
PDT}

Onlookers: It does not make much sense to undertake much further back-forth, but I will note: 1 --> the issue is that instead of addressing Mr Kenyon's remarks on the merits, DK has chosen to "out" him as creationist as though that suffices to discredit what he has to say. (And in fact an OLD Earth creationist is in many respects synonymous with: theistic evolutionist; as the YOUNG earth creationists often point out.) 2 --> Kenyon was also a key proponent of the biochemical predestination thesis, and in the foreword to TMLO he makes it plain that the SCIENTIFIC REASONS he abandoned it have to do with a failure on the merits, including empirical data -- as already excerpted. 3 --> By improperly framing Kenyon's remarks as though his scientific reasoning was "inevitably" -- again not explicitly stated but we are invited to make that inference, "creationists having already been demonised -- tainted by theistic adherence, DK sets out on the path of dismissing all but Lewontinian atheists and their fellow travellers from the halls of science. 4 --> Such guilt by labelling or by association is yet another uncivil, unjust tactic. 5 --> And notice, while DK is indefatigable in finding out "who is/was what from when" [a typical outing tactic that tries to taint opponents by "scandal"], we have yet to see an actual addressing of a very long list of serious issues on the merits. 6 --> Issues over which he has made several grave and so far unsubstantiated accusations against a long list of people starting with Mr Johnson. 7 --> And, that brings us back tot he point that we see a routine, habitual resort by Darweinists here at UD and in general to distraction, distortion, namecalling, demonisation and dismissal or worse, backed up by turnabout accusations. 8 --> All of which are notoriously, propaganda tactics of totalitarian radicals and dictators. Tactics that work by distracting us from and misleading us about the truth through polarisation, distortion, confusion and demonisation of people. 9 --> Tactics that are utterly unprincipled and uncivil. 10 --> Tactics that it is high time were abandoned by those Darwinists who manifestly so routinely resort to them today. 11 --> And if Darwinists refuse to abandon them, then it is entirely in order for us to highlight where such tactics historically head, and who have used them; with what destructive results. 12 --> For, if we refuse to learn from sad history, we will be doomed to repeat its worst chapters. [Santayana and many others.] GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
06:02 AM
6
06
02
AM
PDT}

StephenB
There are plenty of others. Dr. Robert Jastrow, author of God and the Astronomers, wrote, “The scientist has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak. As he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”
As David notes, do you have any evidence that Dr Robert Jastrow is an ID supporter? From what I can tell he is a confirmed evolutionist/darwinist. Very poor research. Kariosfocus
Mr Levy et al should note that I have long since laid out the relevant facts on Weasel
Indeed you have. But until those "facts" are discussed and thrown about and poked at all you've done is make a webpage. Timecube anyone? No wonder you are so afraid of peer-review. You simply want to "lay out the facts" and not defend them. Yes, you write it down and we'll believe it. I don't think so. Put on your shining armour of truth and get your sword of justice and make your case where people can ask you questions about your "facts" and you can respond. If you have the truth on your side, why so afraid to engage those who believe you are wrong, and can believe they can prove it?Echidna-Levy_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
05:43 AM
5
05
43
AM
PDT}

PS: Back on the merits, onlookers, kindly observe the issue I first raised back in 293 or so, on why it is that Darwinists committed to Lewontinian materialism may well find arguments relating to ID unpersuasive, but not because of any actual defect of the relevant arguments on the merits:
if one at first accepts P and sees that P => Q, but is committed to F where F => NOT-Q, then one will be inclined to reject P by inferring F => NOT-Q, NOT-Q so NOT-P. But if NOT-P then implies absurdities, F is in deep trouble. I hold — and I believe I can justify — that Evolutionary Materialism and the imposition of its handmaiden, methodological naturalism, on science, censors science from being an unfettered (but intellectually and ethically responsible) search for the truth about our world based on empirical evidence and reasoned discussion among the informed. [Note, I do not say "the certificated" and/or "the credentialled."]
Observe, how for over 300 posts since and going on 400 now, the Darwinists have nothing to say on this logical point; other than to play at the Wilsonian tactic of passing it by in studied silence. PPS: And BTW, Mr Antony Flew is a case of a [former] leading atheist who -- because of his commitment to objective assessment of the evidence -- found the design inference compelling on the merits; of course he is now a Deist, largely as a result of that.kairosfocus_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
05:37 AM
5
05
37
AM
PDT}

Clive, I am, of course, refusing to talk with kairosfocus. Nor will I apologize to him for his comparing my behavior to Hitler's. It might be worth mentioning to you, Clive, that Kenyon became a creationist in 1976 and wrote the forward to TMLO years after he had already rejected his earlier views on life's origin. My accurate naming of Kenyon as a creationist -- it's not "outing" if it's already public! is what the person who compared my behavior to Hitler claims "crossed a line of basic civility." C'mon, Clive, be an ethical moderator. Condemn this crap. Don't moderate kairosfocus -- Lord knows we love his logorrhea -- but take a stand.David Kellogg_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
05:21 AM
5
05
21
AM
PDT}

Onlookers: Observe, as the cloud of choking smoke from burning strawmen soaked in ad hominems rises and spreads, Mr Kellogg has yet again failed to address not only the main issue on the merits but even this secondary matter. FYI Mr Kellogg, I have shown above just how the pomo pattern of thought -- by turning its back on truth and substituting the rhetoric of power politics -- lends itself to the same sort of totalitarian patterns that you evidently object to. perhaps, you would find Mr Alinski's version of these techniques more to your taste? Let's try, from Rules for Radicals:
"The end is what you want, the means is how you get it. Whenever we think about social change, the question of means and ends arises. The man of action views the issue of means and ends in pragmatic and strategic terms. He has no other problem; he thinks only of his actual resources and the possibilities of various choices of action. He asks of ends only whether they are achievable and worth the cost; of means, only whether they will work. ... The real arena is corrupt and bloody." p.24 "...the organizer must be able to split himself into two parts -- one part in the arena of action where he polarizes the issue to 100 to nothing, and helps to lead his forces into conflict, while the other part knows that when the time comes for negotiations that it really is only a 10 percent difference." p.78 "The first step in community organization is community disorganization. The disruption of the present organization is the first step toward community organization. Present arrangements must be disorganized if they are to be displace by new patterns.... All change means disorganization of the old and organization of the new." p.116 Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and 'frozen.' ... When your 'freeze the target,' you disregard these [rational but distracting] arguments and carry out your attack.... One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angles are on one side and all the devils on the other." pp.127-134
In short, my objection was and is to refusing to deal with matters on the merits in a context of reasonable dialogue, but instead resorting to the tactics of manipulative polarisation. And, in that context, I took -- and still take -- Mr Hayden's remarks as saying that if your tactics are sadly echoing of those of totalitarians, then to compare RHETORICAL TACTICS on the merits of facts is -- at length -- justified. how I wish the parallels were not there, Mr Kellogg, but manifestly, sadly, they are. they are a DEMONSTRABLY routine resort of darwinists in dealing with the issues raised by design theory: 'creationism in a cheap tuxedo . . . " But, you can do something about that: deal with the issues on the merits, not on distractions, distortions, name-calling, demonisation, dismissal and turnspeech, leading to breakdown of civility. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
05:11 AM
5
05
11
AM
PDT}

StephenB lists four atheist or agnostic ID supporters, including Robert Jastrow and Steve Fuller. Is there any evidence that Jastrow supports ID? As for Fuller, in Science vs Religion? Intelligent Design and the Problem of Evolution, Fuller writes that he is
not an advocate of -- or expert in -- either IDT [intelligent design theory] or, for that matter, neo-Darwinism.
Assuming no actual support from Jastrow, that cuts the ranks in half.David Kellogg_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
05:10 AM
5
05
10
AM
PDT}

Clive, I see kairosfocus has taken your comment as supportive of him, and he has taken the opportunity to fulminate for several more posts. Most amusingly, kairosfocus -- who compared my behavior to Hitler's -- has said I "crossed a line of basic civility" (apparently by calling Dean Kenyon a creationist). Are you seriously going to defend this kind of stuff, or are you going to step up to your responsibilities? Moderate him or not, I don't care, but at least take a stand on what he said. Don't pussyfoot.David Kellogg_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
04:51 AM
4
04
51
AM
PDT}

Clive [655], your response is carefully noncommittal. Was kairosfocus appropriate in comparing my behavior to Hitler or not? It's hard to be an ethical moderator when someone on your side behaves irresponsibly.David Kellogg_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
04:42 AM
4
04
42
AM
PDT}

On the issue of Judge Jones's alleged plaigiarism: I provide a cite from a book by Judge Richard Posner, one of the most respected judges in the country, precisely on the issue of plagiarism. Learned Hand provides a careful and well-cited discussion of the legal context. In response, StephenB provides a quote from biochemist Larry Moran. Lamarck provides an oral comment from a law professor.David Kellogg_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
04:39 AM
4
04
39
AM
PDT}

Final note: that a tactic of distractions, distortions and demonisation leading to dismissals, expulsions and worse is routinely and habitually used does not then justify it. So, to dismiss pointing out that it is in use yet one more time as "[mere] complaining" is just not good enough. Not by a long shot.kairosfocus_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
02:47 AM
2
02
47
AM
PDT}

PPPS: It also seems I need to point out (even though it is always linked from every post I make) that the issue Mr Hoyle -- and expert on thermodynamics -- raised by the colourful example of the 747 to be assembled by a tornado in a junkyard is no fallacy to be brushed aside with a wikipedia drive- by strawman dismissal. (And, first life ansd origin of body plan level biodiversity as information origination challenges are precisely what Weasel needs to address cogently, but fails to do so. the reward of mere proximity without relevant degree of complex functionality is fundamentally misleading. As I explicitly pointed out, with reasons.)kairosfocus_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
02:26 AM
2
02
26
AM
PDT}

PPS: As concerning Weasel, which \mr levy seems eager to try to resurrect, I have laid out my case on the merits here. And, Anti-evo is demonstrably unreliable and prone tot he precise pattern of problems I have addressed just now.kairosfocus_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
01:52 AM
1
01
52
AM
PDT}

sible6 --> But in fact Mr Kenyon is that rarest of breeds in contemporary science: a leading researcher in a field -- he is a lead author of the thesis and book, Biochemical Predestination [1969] -- who on seeing credible evidence in large part developed by Bradley et al (and presented in the 1984 monograph TMLO), had the integrity to publicly recant his previous views in the very foreword to the book. (But, the ideologue is blind to nobility . . . ) 7 --> Furthermore, DK set out to dismiss the monograph as in effect [I have never said that DK used this term, but the direct implication is there . . . correcting yet another false insinuation above] a creationist tract; rather than addressing it as it manifestly is: a serious, point by point technically informed critical survey of OOL circa mid 1980's; one that is still highly relevant today. 8 --> In particular, let us pause on the latest quote mining tactic: since TBO referred to inference to special creation, the work may be tagged creationist. What this omits -- long after it was pointed out above by excerpting the book -- is that his occurs in a context tof discussing alternatives on origin of life, and that, having raised telling challenges to chance-based mechanisms and constraints of mechanical necessity, the third major category is addressed, in light of alternatives raised by Hoyle and Wickramasinghe: specific design and implementation of first earth life by agents within or beyond the cosmos. It is H-W who introduced the cited term (in the era before modern design terminology existed). 9 --> We could go on and on, on case after case. For instance, above I was castigated for daring to cite and exposit a key paragraph of Lewontin to show the a priori commitment to materialism that drives the current push to redefine science as only permitting naturalistic explanations. But in fact, I have accurately reported Mr Lewontin, and in a context that reflects his wider meaning. just, that 1997 NYRB article rather lets the cat out of the bag that should have had a piglet in it. 10 --> More to the original focus of the thread, it is manifest that the ACLU/Jones Dover decision rested on twisting the truth and misrepresenting those who put unwelcome facts and arguments on the table; including especially Mr Behe. 11 --> All of this manifests the rhetorical technique of the postmodernists and all too many darwinists: having substituted power politics for truthfulness, they are left only with the sort of techniques that are all too familiar from the history of C20 totalitarianism: distraction and evasion, distortion and willful misrepresentation (up to slander and worse), demonisation and scapegoating, dismissal, expulsion from the halls of power and outright persecution. 12 -> I regret having to be the bearer of such unwelcome news, but if that objectively well-warranted description sits uncomfortably and pricks painfully, then that is actually good news. For, recognistion of the unacceptability of such behaviour can be the first step to waking up and changing from unprincipled uncivil ideological manipulation, to civil respect for the truth and the right. Hence, a correction of what has gone ever so wrong with science, science education and related public policy, as well as wider issues that have fallen victim to the same ugly and destructive pattern. 13 --> I wish to close off with a bit of an altar call; by again reminding us of what science SHOULD be about: the unfettered (but intellectually and ethically responsible) pursuit of the truth about or world, based on empirical evidence and reasoned discussion among the informed. ________________ So, onlookers, our civilisation is at a terrible watershed -- indeed, we are at kairos. Which way will we turn? Let us pray that we will turn back from the brink of the abyss before it is too late. GEM of TKI PS: There was a lot of foolish "piling on" above by several Darwinists and fellow travellers. I trust they will now have the decency to express their regrets for what they have done. And, more importantly, that they will now seriously reconsider the standard -- and intellectually and ethically utterly irresponsible -- darwinist tactics of red herrings led out to strawmen soaked in ad hominems and ignited to cloud, confuse, poison and polarise the atmosphere, rendering sober deliberation on the merits of fact and logic all but impossible.kairosfocus_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
01:35 AM
1
01
35
AM
PDT}

Onlookers: The above saddening episode of Darwinist obfuscation and slander is an object lesson on what has happened to the academy and other key cultural institutions once secularist and/or neo-pagan hyper-modernist [aka "postmodernist"] notions displaced the self-evident understanding that truth says of what is that it is, and of what is not, that it is not, with power politics and Plato's Cave style manipulative ideological agendas and their propagandistic narratives. Let us therefore pause and draw out some lessons, as it is clear that this blog -- and actually our civilisation as a whole -- has now reached a terrible watershed: 1 --> The controlling meta-narrative being imposed by the darwinist radicals is that "religion"/"creationism" -- and ID is held to be "creationism in a cheap tuxedo" -- is a "right wing," "fundamentalist," totalitarian agenda that threatens the "liberation" brought by skepticism and secularism; with "science" as the hero of the myth of liberation. [Cf Weak argument correctives for specific rebuttals. And note above where I have acknowledged my intellectual debts to the Marxists I crossed intellectual swords with in my youth. It is no surprise that the same DK who just twisted my words into a false accusation that I made an appeal ad Hitleram, at 212 confused my acknowledgement of intellectual debt for "red baiting." He saw what he expected to see, not what was actually there (cf 226). A telling clue.] 2 --> The secularist-neopagan ideological manipulation first relies on our ignorance of true history, so that for instance we are constantly made familiar with long litanies of the real or imagined sins of Christendom, without the balancing fact that any worldview that has been in any position of shaping any culture for any length of time will have its fair share of shameful episodes. Similarly, it obstinately refuses to accept the major contribution to modern liberty, democracy -- and most relevantly, science -- that grew out of Judaeo-Christian soil. 3 --> So, it drives a wedge straight across our whole civilisation, and polarises it, using defamation and demonisation to create an atmosphere of the sort of hostility and contempt that we see above; complete with shameless finger-pointing "shut-up!" rhetoric. 4 --> Equally, Darwinist advocates often angrily refuse to acknowledge that the post-Darwin secularist and neopagan tyrannies of the past century have wreaked unprecedented havoc across our world, leaving a trail of over 100 millions dead. And, as we have seen here at UD many times recently; they simply will not acknowledge or seriously address the moral hazard in the heart of Darwin's thought, as for instance we can see from Chs 5 - 7 of his Descent of Man; and as H G Wells highlighted in the very opening words of the War of the Worlds in 1897 - 8. This of course leaves them peculiarly vulnerable to such moral hazards. 5 --> Above in this thread, DK -- who let us recall, in other recent treads proved unable to acknowledge that basic self-evident truths are just that: obvious once understood, on pain of utter absurdity on attempted denial, truths like "error exists" -- stood up as a Darwinist champion, and in so doing managed to smear not just myself and other blog contributors, but crossed a line of basic civility. He did so when he pounced gleefully on Mr Kenyon, "outing" him -- so he imagines -- as a "Creationist." [ . . . ]kairosfocus_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
01:34 AM
1
01
34
AM
PDT}

Mr Hayden: Thank you. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
01:33 AM
1
01
33
AM
PDT}

The thing StephenB and the rest of the Judge "copycat" Jones crowd are forgetting is that it is only a very small part that is under question. Please refer to the following links http://vangogh.fdisk.net/~welsberr/kvd/ http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2006/12/fisking_the_dis_study_on_the_d.php Clearly showing that only 15% or so is under question. So, given that will you admit you are in error StephenB? You said
But the wholesale, uncritical, and unattributed copying practiced by Judge Jones is the sort of behavior that has been condemned by appellate courts.
Is 15% wholesale? Seems to me about right. What percentage would you expect then, what would be acceptable to you? Take a position. Give a figure. What would you accept? All the source files are available on the first link, you can repeat the work yourself if you doubt me. You have to click on the link however first. And it's interesting to note that the Discovery Institute is not above some copy+paste themselves http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2006/12/study_shows_discovery_institut.php I await your climbdown StephenB.Echidna-Levy_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
01:10 AM
1
01
10
AM
PDT}

David Kellogg, No, we shouldn't equate anyone with Hitler here, unless they indeed are doing something expressly that Hitler himself did.Clive Hayden_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
11:23 PM
11
11
23
PM
PDT}

I hope it's understood I'm never actually serious when I seem overly aggressive.lamarck_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
10:42 PM
10
10
42
PM
PDT}

Learned Hand, "although disapproved of, is not in and of itself reason for reversal." We aren't talking about it's reversal potential but is it "great, perfectly acceptable and ok", so case closed. Should the judge's findings be disapproved of if he failed to show his understanding of the highly esoteric subject they were talking about? Like when Behe talked about proteins with mind bending specicifity for four hours straight? Hey you said the science was ruled on.... But the question is, is it "great" and "perfectly acceptable"? Well only if you bend over backwards disregarding the spirit of the law would it be barely acceptable for the judge to do this. But not "great", or even "OK". But you could prove me wrong if the selective omissions of science which you mentioned were done by him and not written in by the ACLU. This would show the judge wasn't just the ACLU. I'll take your word on it if that's the case, but keep in mind Jones was almost falling asleep when Behe was on the stand so...lamarck_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
10:12 PM
10
10
12
PM
PDT}

David, "Bruce Green, director of Louis Stein Center for Law and Ethics at Fordham Law School, told the Associated Press it is not typical for judges to adopt one side's proposed findings verbatim, although there's "not a rule that categorically forbids it." "Courts have sometimes criticized the practice, especially when it looks like the judge didn't do any independent thinking," Green said. So there you go, hopefully this helps you understand the problems with this case. I'm on this site regularly for clarifications on a wide range of topics. This also differentiates between copying one side's "proposed findings verbatim", and the plaintiff's lawyers simply writing the conclusion, which is all that's indicated in your quote. Proposed is the key word. It isn't clearly indicated in your quote as a normal everyday practice to reach the 90% magnitude which we're talking about. The degree to which this is written by the plaintiff's lawyers isn't made clear, it's more of a hodgepodge summary. We're talking about how common is it for the plaintiff's lawyers to be the judge, and also is it considered "great" in law. My quote is crystal clear on these two points. 90% paste is not: "“perfectly acceptable, normal, everyday, acceptable, fine, dandy, great, OK to “cut and paste” in such decisions.” A law clerk writing it isn't cut and paste, he's supposed to help the judge and is part of the court. This isn't about the judge's laziness but that it's written into law by a partisan.lamarck_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
09:41 PM
9
09
41
PM
PDT}

I picked this up some time ago at the EVAN website: Pro-Darwin biochemist Larry Moran has noted his disillusionment with the over-the-top praise fellow Darwinists lavished on Judge Jones: "When the Jones decision was first published I read every word. I was very impressed. Here was a man who seemed to have learned a lot of sophisticated science in a very short period of time. His grasp of complexities like the evolution of bacteria flagella and blood clotting was impressive. His understanding of the meaning of science rivaled that of many advisors on the ACLU side. Frankly, I was jealous, and humbled. Everyone was praising the Jones decision." For example, Timothy Sandefur on Panda's Thumb wrote, "Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District is a major victory for science and a major blow to those who have tried to sneak religion into the classroom by disguising in scientific garb. But it’s more than that. It is a brilliant, insightful, profound decision that reaches to the bottom of ID and finds it empty. Judge John Jones, a George W. Bush appointee, deserves the praise and thanks of every defender of rigorous, meaningful scientific education. He has taken the time to really understand not just the legal issues, but the scientific ones as well. This decision proves he is a credit to the federal judiciary." "These comments, and others, seemed to confirm that Jones had written this decision all by himself and deserved full credit for his brilliant analysis. As it turns out, this isn't true and I feel deceived." After being criticized for his comments, Moran further observed: I was led to believe that the brilliant, insightful, decision was written by Judge Jones. That impressed me since it covered some very complex issues. "Now I know that the section in question was actually written by someone else. Presumably, someone who was much more knowledgeable about these issues. That's all, that's my only "quibble." I was deceived into thinking that Jones was much smarter than he actually is." "If this had been a student essay, it would have received a failing grade for plagiarism. The standards in the legal profession are different. It's acceptable for Judge Jones to take credit for something that other people wrote." "There are some people who knew all along that Jones had copied the ACLU Findings. I'm a little diappointed that they didn't let on. Instead, they left it to the Discovery Institute to reveal the truth." Predictably, for making such comments Moran has been savaged by fellow Darwinists, who are falling over themselves trying to defend Judge Jones. A sampling of their “defenses” is instructive. Responding to Moran’s observation that in legal circles “It’s acceptable for Judge Jones to take credit for something that other people wrote,” someone calling himself “Coin” declared: It's not "acceptable", it's better. We don't want judges writing all the elaborate technical stuff. Some judges might be able to understand the issues at hand, and from following the case it's clear Judge Jones was one. However it's better when possible to have the actual final materials written by someone with, or even a group of people with, deep background knowledge. The findings of fact in a law case are legally "truth" and no matter how well they understood the issues at hand in the case, any judge ruling on scientific matters would be bound to make minor errors, errors which both would not be acceptable (you can't go back and just correct a judicial decision later with a red pen) and which in a worst case scenario might even result in a needless appeal. This is not what we want. This is not a judge's job. That’s right, it’s not the judge’s job to write his or her own opinion, or to do his or her own analysis. It’s better to have the experts do it. Why not just dispense with the job of judge altogether? The standard justification being offered by most Darwinists at this point can be paraphrased as the “everybody does it” defense. Judges don’t write their own opinions, they insist, and we shouldn’t expect them to do so in any case. But this claim is highly misleading. As we stated in our study, Judges can and do use proposed findings of fact, and such use does not constitute “plagiarism” according to contemporary legal standards. But the wholesale, uncritical, and unattributed copying practiced by Judge Jones is the sort of behavior that has been condemned by appellate courts. When trial judges make use of proposed findings of fact, they are still supposed to demonstrate that they have exercised independent judgment and an independent examination of the record. Our study explains why this does not seem to have been the case in Kitzmiller.StephenB_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
09:39 PM
9
09
39
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 26 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply