Activist Judge or just poor reading skills

| 370 Comments | 1 TrackBack

On the Discovery Institute’s blog, West revisits the statement by Judge Jones and reaches some poorly argued conclusions:

West Wrote:

Take the following remarkable passage from his opinion:

the Court is confident that no other tribunal in the United States is in a better position than are we to traipse into this controversial area. Finally, we will offer our conclusion on whether ID is science not just because it is essential to our holding that an Establishment Clause violation has occurred in this case, but also in the hope that it may prevent the obvious waste of judicial and other resources which would be occasioned by a subsequent trial involving the precise question which is before us. [p. 63] (emphasis added)

West based on this ‘argues’ that

West Wrote:

This passage exhibits the height of presumption, and it’s why in my initial statement after the trial I referred to Judge Jones as having “delusions of grandeur.” First, and contrary to the Judge’s claim, a determination of whether ID is science was plainly NOT essential to the disposition of the case, as pointed out above.

First error, the judge is clear that the reason for the conclusion on whether ID is science as because it is essential to our holding that an Establishment Clause violention has occurred. So why would the judge raise these issues.

Simply, he is following legal precendence

Judge Jones Wrote:

Our next task is to determine how to apply both the endorsement test and the Lemon test to the ID Policy. We are in agreement with Plaintiffs that the better practice is to treat the endorsement inquiry as a distinct test to be applied separately from, and prior to, the Lemon test. In recent Third Circuit cases, specifically, Freethought Society v. Chester County, 334 F.3d 247, 261 (3d Cir. 2003), Modrovich, 385 F.3d at 401-04, 406-13, and Child Evangelism, 386 F.3d at 530-35, the court adopted the practice of applying both tests. The Third Circuit conducted the endorsement inquiry first and subsequently measured the challenged conduct against Lemon’s “purpose” and “effect” standards.4

Footnote 4 reads:

We do note that because of the evolving caselaw regarding which tests to apply, the “belt and suspenders” approach of utilizing both tests makes good sense. That said, it regrettably tasks us to make this narrative far longer than we would have preferred.

[PvM: And as Sandefur pointed out to me, the judge is talking about being in the best place to assess the facts, not the law. Since Jones’ court has heard the evidence, he is in the best position to argue the facts]

In other words, the judge showed a thorough analysis based on the pre-existing and evolving case law. The judge is merely showing an abundance of caution:

Judge Jones Wrote:

Although ID’s failure to meet the ground rules of science is sufficient for the Court to conclude that it is not science, out of an abundance of caution and in the exercise of completeness, we will analyze additional arguments advanced regarding the concepts of ID and science.

Establising that ID is not science is essential when applying the Lemon test

Judge Jones Wrote:

Although we have found that Defendants’ conduct conveys a strong message of endorsement of the Board members’ particular religious view, pursuant to the endorsement test, the better practice in this Circuit is for this Court to also evaluate the challenged conduct separately under the Lemon test.18 See Child Evangelism, 386 F.3d at 530-35; Modrovich, 385 F.3d at 406; Freethought, 334 F.3d at 261.

Thus, Judge Jones, is merely applying the better practice in his Circuit to also look at the Lemon test. Given the evolving nature of case law in the area of the Establishment clause and the Lemon test, it seems rather prudent of the judge to address them both.

In addition, while the defendants may not have raised the argument that there is a secular purpose in teaching ID, the Discovery Institute’s Amicus brief argued that the primary effect of teaching ID is not necessarily religious. They argued that ID is both scientific and serves to ‘teach the controversy’.

Judge Jones, in order to rule on the Lemon test, needed to address the arguments submitted to him by the Discovery Institute and show that ID is neither science nor serves a valid role in ‘teaching the controversy’.

In other words, the Judge may very well have been forced to address these issues since they were so prominently raised in the Amicus Brief. If that is the case, then it would be particularly ironic that the filing of the Amicus brief by the Discovery Institute had the opposite effect.

West Wrote:

Even more troubling, however, is the Judge’s suggestion that he wanted to determine whether ID is science so that no other judge need investigate the facts for himself. Judge Jones is a federal district court judge in one particular district court in Pennsylvania. But he’s speaking as if he is more powerful than a majority on the United States Supreme Court!

Nothing in the Judge’s ruling even suggest that this is the case. West is trying to create a strawman. Judge Jones argues that first of all he is in very good position to rule on this matter given the nature of the court case. Secondly, ruling on whether ID is science was essential to establishing a violation of the establishment clause.

Judge Jones Wrote:

To briefly reiterate, we first note that since ID is not science, the conclusion is inescapable that the only real effect of the ID Policy is the advancement of religion. See McLean, 529 F. Supp. at 1272.

Judge Jones’ ruling surely brings out the best in ID proponents

West Wrote:

Of course, the newsmedia are now fast spinning the tale that Judge Jones is not only a Republican, but he’s supposed to be a conservative and devoutly religious Republican. As I will blog about soon, those claims seem to be about as mythical as the view that Judge Jones isn’t an activist.

Nuf’ said.

1 TrackBack

I hate to post again about the Kitzmiller case, as I don't want to become the "intelligent design law blog." But, I feel it's necessary to correct some misinformation that's being spread about the case on some advocacy sites like... Read More

370 Comments

On the bright side, it’s starting to look like the “Activist Judge” snarl word is beginning to become SO overused that the general public will finally realize it means truly nothing at all. If people continue to wear that term out like this, soon it will be impossible to discredit anyone but oneself by using it.

I think there actually is some grandeur in Judge Jones’s decision. He unmasked the ID concept. He unmasked the ID movement. He unmasked the Dover school board. I read the whole decision; it’s breathtaking in its thoroughness!

Simply put, West is a liar, though perhaps unlike WD or Behe in that he is simply incapable of distinguishing lies and truth. (The test, of course, would be to see if he would devote even a minimum of the energy he now uses if he were not being paid for it.) Today’s Xians and “conservatives” simply aren’t much bothered by such a fact, if it looks to advance whatever their self-interest happens to be at the time. Far too many clearly enjoy it, perhaps because it wastes the time and energy of people who have the effrontery to enjoy life and the temporary possession of consciousness, which they possess but resent and/or fear, and are stupid enough to pretend to want the dystopia, likely a very horrible, violent, poverty-stricken one, that would result should they be allowed to succeed.

Judge Jones is simply an ordinary conservative, and a traditional Republican. Such a man can be worked with, however violent the disagreement, because he respects basic human values. The man who appointed him, evidently in error, is someone who respects nothing, and can be worked with only by referring to “The Prince” at every stage. Like dealing with the Mafia, they “respect” only money and power based on violence or its threat.

These are “Man” as Brion G. defined him: “Man is a bad animal.”

Much of the Judge’s comments are based on the findings of fact documents. Seems the Judge really liked the proposed findings of fact provided by the plaintiffs’ lawyers.

In fact the judge had invited both sides to present their findings. The ACLU lawyers did an excellent job.

I’d not call West as much as a liar as someone who may not have read the decision beyond the offending sentence. As far as I can tell he is also not a lawyer, like me, and thus his conclusions may be biased by the lack of knowledge and understanding.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but at 139 pages, it appears as if the text of this ruling in and of itself may be greater than the combined length of every published “scientific” paper on ID.

In fact, this ruling might even constitute the most thorough research into ID ever commissioned. Kinda ironic, albeit unsurprising, that this is what happens when the “controversy” is presented to an impartial judge. Poor DI, they got the “debate” that they wanted, it’s not their fault, nor TMLC’s, that federal judges frown on perjury and believe in evaluating actual evidence.

Just out of curiosity, have any of these guys written a critique of the decision on its merits, going through Lemon, Edwards, Jafree, etc and explaining why they believe that the judge was misapplying precedent or misinterpreting case law? I mean, sure, calling into question the integrity of a federal judge based purely on the fact that their side lost probably feels better, but could you imagine if Thurgood Marshall had based his entire Brown argument on “Your honor, the judges in Plessy were clearly impaired by their delusions of grandeur?” Could you imagine Clarence Darrow replacing his closing statement in the Leopold case with “this court seems to feel that it is the sole arbiter of findings of fact, rather than a lowly district courthouse?”

It’s bad enough that Ahmanson is wasting his money on third-rate “scientists,” perhaps he shouldn’t also waste it on third-rate legal “scholars”

Note that as far as the ‘activist judge’s’ decision to apply the lemon test as well as the establishment test, Judge Jones was merely following the (I guess equally activist court’) 3rd Circuit Court

25 See, e.g., Modrovich v. Allegheny County, 385 F.3d 397, 406 (3d Cir. 2004) (“[A]lthough we find the endorsement test to be the appropriate standard by which to scrutinize the Plaque, we will apply both the endorsement test and the Lemon test, in case a higher court prefers to apply the traditional Lemon test.”).

Hyperion, it’s probably clear at this point that the DI doesn’t understand, or care to participate in, any court except the court of public opinion. And from that perspective the DI’s blogging works just fine. Ad hominem on a Federal Judge may be terrible legal scholarship, but hey, it works just fine as PR.

Ironically, DaveScott argued

DaveScot, an ID supporter, summed him up like this:

Judge John E. Jones on the other hand is a good old boy brought up through the conservative ranks. He was state attorney for D.A.R.E, an Assistant Scout Master with extensively involved with local and national Boy Scouts of America, political buddy of Governor Tom Ridge (who in turn is deep in George W. Bush’s circle of power), and finally was appointed by GW hisself. Senator Rick Santorum is a Pennsylvanian in the same circles (author of the “Santorum Language” that encourages schools to teach the controversy) and last but far from least, George W. Bush hisself drove a stake in the ground saying teach the controversy. Unless Judge Jones wants to cut his career off at the knees he isn’t going to rule against the wishes of his political allies. (From Dembski’s blog, comment #4.)

Of course, the newsmedia are now fast spinning the tale that Judge Jones is not only a Republican, but he’s supposed to be a conservative and devoutly religious Republican. As I will blog about soon, those claims seem to be about as mythical as the view that Judge Jones isn’t an activist.

Uh oh, the swiftboating of Judge Jones begins! I can’t wait to hear the Discovery Institute ‘explaining’ Jones’s religious beliefs.

Classic Christianist reflex response to being backed in a corner… I assume it’ll be about as reality-based as their claims about Mirecki getting beaten up in a drug deal gone bad.

You’re right, Andrew, and this legal scholarship is certainly on par with their scientific scholarship. But geez, if I’d emulated Mr. West in writing a paper or exam for a cons law class, I’d have been told that perhaps I should seek out another career.

Sometimes I wonder if the DI isn’t just a charitable organization with the aim of employing the incompetent.

On the other hand, this kind of shoddy writing does make one feel a good deal better about one’s own intelligence, even if it is a bit depressing.

Sometimes I wonder if the DI isn’t just a charitable organization with the aim of employing the incompetent.

I have wondered in the past if West and/or others involved with the DI are cryptoevolutionists, so horrendous have their “mistakes” been.

In fact, this ruling might even constitute the most thorough research into ID ever commissioned.

And an appeal would qualify it as peer reviewed, making the judgement even more substantial than any ID publication.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but at 139 pages, it appears as if the text of this ruling in and of itself may be greater than the combined length of every published “scientific” paper on ID.

But then, so was this sentence. (shrug)

The comments of the ID and DI people are very clear to me: They are really hurt, and they realise that they have lost this gamble big time. And they try now to neutralize the effects of the ruling, and as they do not find clear sentences they can really say something about, they go for the ad hominems.…

Syntax Error: not well-formed (invalid token) at line 1, column 54, byte 54 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.12.3/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187

Syntax Error: mismatched tag at line 5, column 375, byte 1091 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.12.3/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187

‘sudden emergence’ was the term used in the draft copy of the new “Pandas” book, IIRC.

West

but he’s supposed to be … devoutly religious

I must say watching the reaction of these losers to the Dover decision is ten times more fun than watching them make fools of themselves in court.

So now Judge Jones isn’t really “devoutly religious”?

I can’t wait to see what West’s criteria is for what makes a person “devoutly religious.”

We know it ain’t breaking the commandment about bearing false witness because West and his fellow goons chucked that one by the wayside a long time ago.

As far as I’m concerned, West’s comments cut right to the heart of the most disgusting aspect of this creationist garbage, which is the “True Christians Don’t Believe In Evolution” preaching.

That’s surely the part of Judge Jones opinion which has got their knickers must tightly knotted. In the minds of the dimwits at the Discovery Institute, when Judge Jones said (I paraphrase) “You can believe in evolution and be religious at the same time”, Judge Jones really meant “Your religion is based on a lie.”

Because make no mistake: Evolution Didn’t Happen = Christianity for the fanatic nutjobs at the Discovery Institute, just as surely as Gays Are Going To Hell = Christianity, and Abortionists Are Going to Hell = Christianity for a whole lot of “devout Christians” in our troubled country.

No doubts about this.

That’s why when you tell the typical creationist about Ken Miller and his arguments and the fact that he’s a Christian, the creationists won’t attempt to rebut Miller’s arguments. Instead, they’ll rebut Miller’s Christianity!!!!!!

The hypocricy is beyond disgusting, devastating in what it says about the DI and their asinine propaganda, and (surprise!) rarely noted.

I can’t wait to see what West’s criteria is for what makes a person “devoutly religious.”

I’m sure it includes complete agreement with every idea that comes out of his poor skull as a prerequisite.

Since I meet the definition of all three of these categories I’d like to say that there is nothing in “Christian”, or “conservative” or “republican” alone or in combination that requires support of Intelligent Design or any of it’s manifold offspring or fellow ideologic travelers. When apologists for I.D. complain about “strawman” attacks on their position it is because to them it isn’t important that I.D. lacks scientific credibility. The ultimate effect of this movement (whether or not it started this way) is to attack the scientific method. It seems that they see no difference between philosophical and methodologic materialism. Even Darwin himself realized that it was the materialism in natural selection that would garner the most antipathy. As far as emergence is concerned it starts not with biology but with physics and chemistry and pervades all science from there. For example: how do you predict the properties of water by adding the properties of hydrogen and oxygen in a 2:1 ratio?

A reader of the York Daily Record sent in this beauty of a letter to the editor.

Left-wing court muzzles truth Daily Record/Sunday News

Dec 22, 2005 — The liberal activist court has again taken up its weapon of choice: the muzzle, silencing the opposition rather than allowing free debate on a controversial subject in which the left stands to lose even more ground.

Contrary to what one might suppose, the testimony by Michael Behe, a brilliant proponent of intelligent design, in no way failed to convince the court that the idea of intelligent design has merit and is scientifically supportable. In fact, it clearly showed the left-wing activist court that it simply can’t afford to let this idea be discussed freely, because it is convincing and hence dangerous to the left’s atheistic ideology.

The last word has not been spoken here. Americans aren’t nearly as stupid as the left thinks.

DONALD HANK WRIGHTSVILLE

Is he reading the same bio of Judge Jones that everyone else is? Has the disconnect from reality seeped that deeply into one segment of the American populace?

PvM wrote:

“I’d not call West as much as a liar as someone who may not have read the decision beyond the offending sentence. As far as I can tell he is also not a lawyer, like me, and thus his conclusions may be biased by the lack of knowledge and understanding.”

I’m a little late in posting this, I know, but isn’t this often a problem? It amazes me that people will submit to public forums with an air of certainty, making claims that are out of their area of expertise. Until this issue was “opined” on by national columnists, I had no idea just how ignorant they can be and how willing they were to publish nonsense. (Pat Buchanan posted a column in the Washington Times back in August that was so full of errors I was embarrassed for him.) These statements are not “musings”, “questions” or “hypotheses” like some non-lawyers make, which is perfectly okay; these guys are SURE they are right. If West is not a lawyer, he sure thinks he knows enough to render a critique of Jones’ legal work. That’s pretty arrogant.

In a way, the problem is when people “know” the absolute truth. They can never admit that maybe they don’t have all the answers and maybe they were wrong about something. I can’t speak for other professions, but if you take this approach in a classroom, you will lose credibility quickly. One of the first things we tell young teachers is that it’s okay to say “I don’t know. Can I get back to you on that? I’ve got to ask someone who knows more than I do on that topic.” This goes for certain church denominations too, who claim they have the ONLY path to salvation and the rest of the world is bound for hell.

Why do I find this surprising? Haven’t we seen a lot of non-biologists making claims about evolutionary biology? And non-educators making claims about education? Shame on anyone who has the power to reach a large audience and does not accept the responsibility to be accurate. We all must be, in the words of my particular church liturgy, “thankful of the examples we are given and aware of our visibility to others”.

I must say watching the reaction of these losers to the Dover decision is ten times more fun than watching them make fools of themselves in court.

Some of are old enough to recall ICR giving a similar performance after they lost in Maclean and Edwards.

Like ICR, all DI can do in the wake of its loss it to simply repeat the same statements as before, only LOUDER this time. Along with some silly whining about “the whole world is out to get us !!!!!!” (shrug)

Don’t let the IDers fool you — despite all their weeping and whining, they LOVE losing like this. They ENJOY it. They WELCOME it. It gives them a chance to feed that massive martyr complex that they all have.

I think West is right – Jones is an activist judge.

Non-activist judges first try to declare the case moot (Jones actually had an opportunity to do this when the defendants were voted off the school board). Then if they have to decide the case, they try to base the decision on the narrowest grounds possible. Jones could have decided the case solely on the basis of the religious motivations of the school board members (I am not saying that I think that this should be an issue, but that is the way these cases are decided), but instead decided to “traipse” into the much more controversial issue of the scientific merits of ID.

Chief Justice John “Ump” Roberts said that a judge is like an umpire – it is not his job to pitch or bat. Judge Jones decided to go to bat for the ID-bashers.

Jones tried to defend himself against charges of judicial activism by accusing ID proponents of activism. However, it is OK for ID proponents to be activists. It is not OK for a judge to be an activist.

I think West is right — Jones is an activist judge.

(yawn)

And so, I suppose, were the judges in the Epperson case, the Daniels case, the Maclean case, the Segraves case, the Peloza case, the Edwards case, the Freiler case, the Selman case, and all the OTHER cases that ID/creationists lost. Indeed, since ID/creationists have lost every single Federal Court case they have ever been involved with — every single solitary one —, it would appear as if they are ALL “activist judges”.

I guess they are just part of the Anti-Christian Conspiracy,a long with the press, the liberal churches, scientists, educators, and the voters of Dover.

Right?

Do IDers actually have anything new to say now, or are they jsut going to keep repeating the same old crap, along with some weeping and whining about how everyone is out to get them?

Under Mr. Fafarman’s argument, every single Supreme Court Justice since John Marshall is a judicial activist.

He appears to be confusing the issue of narrow vs. broad focus, which is what we see here, with judicial review vs. restraint. The concept of judicial review, as I mentioned above, goes back two centuries to Chief Justice Marshall. The idea of broad or narrow focus is similarly old, although this often depends on the issue and the judge’s discretion. Rhenquist’s Court was often known for keeping a fairly narrow focus, but were still quite “activist,” for instance in Lopez.

Mr. Fafarman’s issue here appears to be that he feels that Jude Jones’ ruling was overly broad. There is nothing wrong with this, especially given that he relies on multiple precedent.

If his objection is to having one federal judge make a large decision, again, tough luck. That’s what judges do, they listen to both sides and then make a decision based on law. There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with a judicial ruling, or in appealing it, but when we begin to cross into a general wanton disregard for any ruling with which we disagree, we threaten the syste of laws that keep this country together. So I must ask Mr. Fafarman: Why do you hate America?

Comment #64643 Posted by Hyperion on December 24, 2005 01:39 PM

Under Mr. Fafarman’s argument, every single Supreme Court Justice since John Marshall is a judicial activist.

At least none have – to my knowledge – ever denied in their official court opinions that they were activists. Judge Jones’ denial in his official opinion that he is an activist is tantamount to an admission that he is one.

If Kitzmiller v. Dover were appealed and made it all the way to the Supreme Court, I would not be surprised if the court threw it out on the grounds that it is moot because the defendants are no longer on the school board and the new school board reversed their decision. The courts have done this kind of thing before. For example, before there was the Alan Bakke reverse-discrimination case, there was the Mark DeFunis reverse-discrimination case, but the Supreme Court threw out the DeFunis case as moot because he had already been admitted to law school as a result of a lower court decision and was about to graduate when the case reached the Supreme Court. In the recent case of the words “under god” in the Pledge, the Supreme Court threw it out on the grounds that the plaintiff did not have standing to sue because he no longer had legal custody of his daughter on whose behalf he brought the suit. It is all very arbitrary – there is no predicting the courts.

At least none have — to my knowledge — ever denied in their official court opinions that they were activists. Judge Jones’ denial in his official opinion that he is an activist is tantamount to an admission that he is one.

LOL. right. so if you say you aren’t a complete moron, is that tantamount to saying you are?

I would not be surprised if the court threw it out on the grounds that it is moot because the defendants are no longer on the school board and the new school board reversed their decision

I sure would. The ruling in the case is based on the merits of the arguments presented, and is intended to curb future misbehavior of the Dover school board. As such, it doesn’t matter if the school board changes members.

What possible legal ground is there for an appeal? Nobody on eiher side has even suggested one.

ID lost because it is simply illogical and has no evidence, period.

get used to it.

creationism lost hundreds of years ago, give it up already.

You’re right, I’m wrong. As most of us here know, I’m not really a corporate pizza kind of pizza guy, and I should have taken that into account, not to mention read more carefully.

Also, it was late, and you were being fairly consistently funny, as you often are. I skimmed the remark, assumed (ugh!) you were being funny again at the expense of pizza which, in my role of occasional pizza funny guy, I felt required an attempted-humorous rebuttal.

I wasn’t funny. You were, but of the kind where the truth cuts closest to the (funny) bone. Thanks for the riposte.

Lenny,

I am reminded of the Talmudic dictum, “He who wrestles with a filthy one, becomes as filthy as him” (not a precise translation). So I will stay away from this thread. But something tells me you are thoroughly enjoying yourself here.

carol clouser Wrote:

I am reminded of the Talmudic dictum, “He who wrestles with a filthy one, becomes as filthy as him” (not a precise translation). So I will stay away from this thread.

Aw, give us a break carol. You’re not running away because you don’t want to get filthy, it’s because you’re a gutless wonder, who is afraid that, if she answers any of Lenny’s questions, she will end up looking as pig-ignorant as Larry.

Although, considering that all you’ve contributed to this discussion are a few passive-aggressive and sanctimonious insults, and some complaints about “foul language” and “ad hominem attacks”, you won’t really be missed.

larry spouts his “evidence” against evolutionary theory…

(1) the propagation of favorable mutations, (2) the mathematical probability of evolution, and (3) co-evolution of two kinds of co-dependent organisms — e.g., bees and insect-dependent flowering plants.

lol. Larry, spend less time on the internet and more time in school, eh?

all the things you just mentioned are things not only addressed by evolutionary theory, they are part and parcel of it.

but, since you seem slaved to your keyboard, why don’t you go here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/

or here:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

and actually LEARN something about the theory you purport has so many crticisms??

Note that i really post these links for all the lurkers curious about your intractable behavior, as i don’t expect you ever will try to learn anything.

You’re one of those folks who think knowledge is a dangerous thing, better to stay ignorant.

oh, and get me that soda, would ya?

And my Holocaust-revisionist argument is completely different from anything I have seen on holocaust denial/revisionist websites

uh oh, isn’t thinking you have a unique and special theory one of the signs of a true crank?

can someone do a quick calculation to see how well Larry places on the crank list please?

My argument is that a “systematic” Jewish holocaust was impossible because the Nazis had no reliable ways to identify Jews and non-Jews. Maybe the Nazis did kill a lot of people, but maybe the number of Jews killed was exaggerated because the Nazis did not always have a good way to identify them.

Carol, do you want to pipe in here?

I want to see just how big this “Big Tent” really is …

I am reminded of the Talmudic dictum, “He who wrestles with a filthy one, becomes as filthy as him” (not a precise translation). So I will stay away from this thread.

Wow, Carol, that certainly is one HELL of a Big Tent, if both Jews and Nazi apologists can comfortably stand next to each other inside it . …

Is ID really **THAT** important to you, Carol? Really?

How sad.

I think you need to choose better friends, Carol.

Syntax Error: not well-formed (invalid token) at line 1, column 54, byte 54 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.12.3/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187

Holocaust “revisionist?”

Any time one runs into people who refuse to acknowledge the world as it is, or other forms of reality, one needs to be prepared.

For holocaust revisionists, one needs to remember the case of Mermelstein vs. the Institute for Historical Review. In that case the courts of California took judicial note of the fact of the holocaust. In other words, the court ruled that the evidence is so thick, heavy and convincing, that anyone contesting it is wasting the court’s time. The holocaust is a judicially recognized fact.

Beware those who deny it.

I’ve mentioned before that creationists often have a Second Denial. Phil johnson believes in evolution denial and HIV denial. Marshall Hall doesn’t believe in Darwinism or Copernicanism. Charlie Wagner denies evolution and modern cardiology.

So Larry, believing in ID and holocaust denial, fits right in.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by PvM published on December 23, 2005 5:43 PM.

Those who do not learn from history… was the previous entry in this blog.

He’s dead Bill is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.361

Site Meter