Judge for himself

| 172 Comments

NCSE reports that the Philadelphia Enquirer has an interview with Judge Jones. Judge Jones is the judge who presided over the Kitzmiller v Dover case and ruled strongly against Intelligent Design.

Asked about his ruling on Intelligent Design not being science the Judge reminds us of a simple fact: Both sides had insisted a ruling on this issue

The controversial part of the ruling was whether intelligent design is in fact science. Lost in the post-decision debate was that both sides, plaintiffs and defense, asked me to rule on that issue.

The Judge also comments on another issue which was ‘grossly misunderstood’

The opinion speaks for itself. There was something I said in the opinion that was grossly misunderstood.… I said that on the issue of whether intelligent design was science, that there wasn’t a judge in the United States in a better position to decide that than I was. [Commentator Phyllis] Schlafly interpreted that as my saying that I am so brilliant and erudite that I could decide that better than anyone else could. What I meant was that no one else had sat through an intensive six weeks of largely scientific testimony, and in addition to the task at hand, which was to decide the case, I wanted the opinion to stand as a primer for people across the country.… I wanted it to stand as a primer so that folks on both sides of the issue could read it, understand the way the debate is framed, see the testimony in support and against the various positions… and what is heartening to me is that it’s now evident that it’s being used in that way.…

The Dover v Kitzmiller decision, contrary to ID pundits’ predictions, has already become a foundation for other legal cases and challenges. The thoroughness of the decision, the weeks of testimony by both sides have come to support what many already had concluded: Intelligent Design is scientifically vacuous.

172 Comments

This is truly heartening. Thanks, Pim.

Bob

Our christmas present was indeed a big pony.

Disheartening for the vocal majority, would you not say? Heartening for those of us on the side of church-state separation and sound science.

There was something I said in the opinion that was grossly misunderstood…

With these words, Judge John E. Jones the 3rd proves that he is anything but a politician. Anyone who understands the nature of people like Phyllis Shafly would know that there is no misunderstanding on her part. She, and the rest who criticize Jones, will say anything they can think of to try to diminish the man so that the decision is diminished as well.

Sorry. The Philly Inquirer had his name wrong. He is Judge John E. Jones III

I get the feeling that despite all the personal attacks on Judge Jones’ character, and all the IDists trying to pick apart his words, he’s quite comfortable with letting history judge his opinion and ruling.

t.f. Wrote:

Disheartening for the vocal majority, would you not say? Heartening for those of us on the side of church-state separation and sound science.

You mean vocal minority. I’m pretty sure most Americans favor sound science education, and oppose the establishment of a state religion. It’s too bad much of the political right is infested with “Christian Taliban” types.

PvM posted Entry 2067 on February 26, 2006 08:37 PM

Judge Jones said – “The controversial part of the ruling was whether intelligent design is in fact science. Lost in the post-decision debate was that both sides, plaintiffs and defense, asked me to rule on that issue.”

He was not obligated to rule on whether ID is science – or good science – just because both sides asked him to. The case was real simple. Here is how different kinds of judges would have ruled –

Non-activist judge – Pro-ID school board was replaced by anti-ID school board. Case is moot. Dismissed.

Semi-activist judge - School board members were motivated by religion, hence 1st (purpose) prong of Lemon test is hopelessly failed. 2nd (effects) prong is moot.

Activist judge – In regard to the 2nd prong, the term “intelligent design” implies the existence of a supernatural designer and is therefore banned from public-school science classes. Irreducible complexity may be bogus science but is OK because it does not mention anything related to religion. There is no separation of bogus science and state.

Super-activist judge – Judge Jones’ decision.

Also, Jones was supposed to put himself in the position of an “objective observer” and not in the position of an “expert” who heard several days of expert testimony. An “objective observer” is supposed to be better informed than the average citizen but is not supposed to be an expert – it would be unreasonable to base an “effects” test on how an expert would view something.

What if Judge Jones had been really skeptical and refused to accept such far-fetched Darwinist arguments as the notion that jawbones evolved into middle-ear bones ? What if Jones had turned the tables and ruled that Darwinism is not science ? Another judge might rule the other way – no other judge is bound by Jones’ decision, maybe not even in Jones’ own Middle District of Pennsylvania federal district court.

The Dover v Kitzmiller decision, contrary to ID pundits’ predictions, has already become a foundation for other legal cases and challenges.

The Dover decision is certainly not a foundation, because being the opinion of a single judge of the lowest rank of federal courts, it has little value as precedent. In fact, the 9th Circuit federal court of appeals – the largest federal appeals court circuit in the USA – used to have a rule that no district-court opinion could be cited in any brief or opinion of the 9th Circuit. Also, the Dover decision has a lot of flaws which may seriously impair its value as precedent.

Judges aren’t supposed to be “neutral”, they’re supposed to be disinterested and impartial. Then they make a decision if favour of one side or the other. If they were “neutral” they wouldn’t be able to make a decision.

And I’m astonished that anyone, even a troll, would suggest that a judge should refuse to rule on a question put before him by BOTH parties, and one that was a major part of the case! Bizarre.

It’s also bizarre that Larry/AndyH/whatever-your-name-is is still going over this old ground and repeating the activist judge rubbish. Haven’t you heard, you’re supposed to be “teaching the controversy” now. Or is it “sudden emergence theory” this week?

Andy H. which is a pseudonym for “Super Activist” Lawrence Fafarman a person who actually thinks that denigrating evidential material will promote his views on the Holocaust, evolution, US law, smog tax, and mad cow disease.

Again tries to misinform.

Keep going Larry your plainly insane and constant attacks on people of good character, a concept that obviously is beyond your realm of being, like Judge Jones completely discredits your side of the argument.

Is Larry a ____________ ? (Fill in the blank dear reader)

“Here is how different kinds of judges would have ruled —

Non-activist judge — Pro-ID school board was replaced by anti-ID school board. Case is moot. Dismissed.”

You’re not being logical here. Jones is a non-activist judge, and he didn’t rule like that. Ergo, you’re wrong.

“Also, Jones was supposed to put himself in the position of an “objective observer” and not in the position of an “expert” who heard several days of expert testimony. An “objective observer” is supposed to be better informed than the average citizen but is not supposed to be an expert — it would be unreasonable to base an “effects” test on how an expert would view something.”

And that is exactly what Jones has done, you silly liar:

“People have asked me, “Did you sort of make yourself an expert? Did you read up on things?” and the answer is no, I didn’t…”

“What if Judge Jones had been really skeptical and refused to accept such far-fetched Darwinist arguments as the notion that jawbones evolved into middle-ear bones ? What if Jones had turned the tables and ruled that Darwinism is not science ?”

What if the Earth was flat?

“The Dover decision is certainly not a foundation, because being the opinion of a single judge of the lowest rank of federal courts, it has little value as precedent.”

Heh, you silly bugger. Of course it is. It is an intellectual foundation. Nobody claims it is a precedent in a legal sense. Don’t you get tired of being wrong?

There were a lot of ellipses in that interview, but like the man said, “The opinion speaks for itself.”

But, don’t you just know that Dembski and the other DI hacks are thinking, “If only I had testified, we would have won.” Or, if they are more honest than I think they are, “I am so glad I wasn’t there on the witness stand. I would have got creamed like Behe. Now I can pretend that it didn’t count because (fill in the blank) didn’t testify.”

Then they sharpen their quills (they are in the middle ages) and write, “The purposeful arangement of parts … the origin of life … teach the controversy.”

Thanks Pim.

uh… Gary I’m pretty sure ‘Count’ William Dembski is happy to be ‘guilt’ free and quixotically gloating over his ‘untainted’ book sales and his solipsistic lecture circuit.

He knows the only way for his pig to fly is change the ‘rules’ for the definition of science and changing the constitution. Both will have to get past non-activist Judges. Seems those pesky enchanted windmills are getting bigger.

Philadelphia Inquirer, please, with an I, sometimes known as the Inky.

You’re confusing it with The National Enquirer. (Or maybe the Cincinnati paper of that name.)

Larry appears to be conducting some kind of long-term test to see whether if he repeats the same four or five absurd statements enough times, they will become true.

Larry is just a bad looser. He has sour grapes. Never once, not once, did he actually consider that Judge might be right.

Comment #82390 Posted by hehe on February 27, 2006 12:14 AM

You’re not being logical here. Jones is a non-activist judge, and he didn’t rule like that. Ergo, you’re wrong.

WHO is not being logical here ? You are obviously begging the question – you are not even trying to be subtle about it. Not only was the case moot, but the defendants could not appeal, which was an additional reason for declaring the case to be moot.

Also, Jones was supposed to put himself in the position of an “objective observer” and not in the position of an “expert” who heard several days of expert testimony.

And that is exactly what Jones has done, you silly liar:

“People have asked me, “Did you sort of make yourself an expert? Did you read up on things?” and the answer is no, I didn’t…”

On the contrary, Jones considered himself to be an expert on the basis of the expert testimony that he heard in court. He claimed that he was better qualified to rule on the scientific merits of ID than any other judge in the country.

What if Judge Jones had been really skeptical and refused to accept such far-fetched Darwinist arguments as the notion that jawbones evolved into middle-ear bones ? What if Jones had turned the tables and ruled that Darwinism is not science ?

What if the Earth was flat?

Judge Jones admitted that evolution theory is flawed. That at least is a start.

The Dover decision is certainly not a foundation, because being the opinion of a single judge of the lowest rank of federal courts, it has little value as precedent.

Heh, you silly bugger. Of course it is. It is an intellectual foundation. Nobody claims it is a precedent in a legal sense.

The Dover decision is not binding as an intellectual foundation, either. Other judges are free to come up with their own opinions about the scientific merits of ID or – as I suggested – not rule at all on ID’s scientific merits but just rule that irreducible complexity is non-religious and that even though IC might be bogus science, there is no separation of bogus science and state.

Comment #82387 Posted by Charlie B on February 27, 2006 12:01 AM

And I’m astonished that anyone, even a troll, would suggest that a judge should refuse to rule on a question put before him by BOTH parties, and one that was a major part of the case! Bizarre.

Please show me where the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure says that a judge is obligated to rule on a question just because both parties asked him/her to.

Uber troll Larry, spewed…

Posted by Andy H. on February 27, 2006 03:50 AM (e) … On the contrary, Jones considered himself to be an expert on the basis of the expert testimony that he heard in court. He claimed that he was better qualified to rule on the scientific merits of ID than any other judge in the country.

So he was, because.

I said that on the issue of whether intelligent design was science, that there wasn’t a judge in the United States in a better position to decide that than I was. [Commentator Phyllis] Schlafly interpreted that as my saying that I am so brilliant and erudite that I could decide that better than anyone else could. What I meant was that no one else had sat through an intensive six weeks of largely scientific testimony…

Which part of that is untrue?

Andy H. Wrote:

Judge Jones admitted that evolution theory is flawed. That at least is a start.

You are wrong. He said that evolutionary theory is imperfect. Anyway there are no perfect theories in science. Your argument is ridiculous.

Andy H. Wrote:

The Dover decision is not binding as an intellectual foundation, either. Other judges are free to come up with their own opinions about the scientific merits of ID…

Yes, they are free to say that ID is as scientific as astrolgy (as Behe said). But no more :))

'Andy H. Wrote:

Please show me where the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure says that a judge is obligated to rule on a question just because both parties asked him/her to.

Hang on here. Let’s just see what was actually said on behalf of both parties:

Eric Rothschild (for the plaintiffs, in his opening statement) Wrote:

You will also hear from John Haught, a theologian, who will explain that intelligent design is not new science. It is old theology, the argument for the existence of God that has been around for centuries.

Patrick Gillen (for the defendants in his opening statement) Wrote:

The board believed that intelligent design was not creationism. They knew what that was, the Book of Genesis. They concluded that intelligent design was science.

So one of the main points of the trial was to decide in favour of one of these totally opposite views. How could a judge, when faced with this situation, not rule on it? Of course he was obliged to rule, his only other option was to pass the docket to another judge. Both parties were happy with the judge before and during the trial, both parties were happy while he was deliberating.

All that happened was that the simple fact that “Intelligent Design” is a supernatural explanation with no science was exposed, and the judge called it.

Of course he had to rule on whether ID was science when it was the crux of the case.

“WHO is not being logical here ?”

You, obviously.

“You are obviously begging the question — you are not even trying to be subtle about it.”

Begging the question if what you were doing.

“Not only was the case moot, but the defendants could not appeal, which was an additional reason for declaring the case to be moot.”

Again, obviously, Since the judge ruled, the case was not moot.

“On the contrary, Jones considered himself to be an expert on the basis of the expert testimony that he heard in court.”

It’s just another of your lies. The truth is the opposite of what you claim, as is proven by Jones’ interview.

“He claimed that he was better qualified to rule on the scientific merits of ID than any other judge in the country.”

And he was.

“Judge Jones admitted that evolution theory is flawed. That at least is a start.”

No he didn’t. So once again you’re exposed as a liar.

“The Dover decision is not binding as an intellectual foundation, either.”

Intellectual foundation cannot be binding, retard.

“Other judges are free to come up with their own opinions about the scientific merits of ID or — as I suggested — not rule at all on ID’s scientific merits but just rule that irreducible complexity is non-religious and that even though IC might be bogus science, there is no separation of bogus science and state.”

Nobody claimed otherwise.

He was not obligated to rule on whether ID is science — or good science — just because both sides asked him to.

But, if both sides asked him to, and if he’d done all the necessary background reading to accurately rule on it, why the hell shouldn’t he? Because it would offend Larry Fafarman? Get real.

Comment #82406 Posted by Stephen Elliott on February 27, 2006 04:06 AM

Posted by Andy H. on February 27, 2006 03:50 AM “He claimed that he was better qualified to rule on the scientific merits of ID than any other judge in the country.”

So he was,

We don’t really know that – somewhere there may be a judge who studied the controversy on his/her own and who has more general knowledge about it than Judge Jones does.

Anyway, I am contradicting myself here – I said that Jones should not have set himself up as an expert judge of the scientific merits of ID or irreducible complexity if he possibly could have avoided it. This case was not like, say, product liability cases where the judges often must decide on the merits of scientific theories in order to decide the cases.

because.

“I said that on the issue of whether intelligent design was science, that there wasn’t a judge in the United States in a better position to decide that than I was. [Commentator Phyllis] Schlafly interpreted that as my saying that I am so brilliant and erudite that I could decide that better than anyone else could. What I meant was that no one else had sat through an intensive six weeks of largely scientific testimony…”

Which part of that is untrue?

Only about half of that six weeks was spent on expert scientific testimony – the rest was non-expert testimony from plaintiffs, defendants, and witnesses.

Comment #82407 Posted by Evo_Turk on February 27, 2006 04:13 AM

Andy H. wrote: “Judge Jones admitted that evolution theory is flawed. That at least is a start.”

You are wrong. He said that evolutionary theory is imperfect. Anyway there are no perfect theories in science. Your argument is ridiculous.

“Imperfect” is just a euphemism for “flawed.” An “imperfect” diamond is the same as a “flawed” diamond. We are really getting nitpicking here.

At least Judge Jones did not say that evolution theory appears to be airtight – and that is a start.

Flat earth 4004 bc about 9 am humours (humor) stork theory of baby making (delivery) Darwin’s recantation geocentrism and the beat goes on and on and on into the 21st century

I am appalled at the depth of willful ignorance openingly displayed by idapologists.

Must be worth the money?

“Imperfect” is just a euphemism for “flawed.” An “imperfect” diamond is the same as a “flawed” diamond. We are really getting nitpicking here.

No we’re really not. See, every evolutionary biologist in the world would admit that evolution is imperfect - that’s why they spend vast amounts of time and effort on doing actual research to fill in the blanks.

I seriously doubt, though, that many of these people would state that evolution was flawed.

No theory is perfect, so Holocaust-denying antisemite Fafarman is exposed as a demagogue once again.

Andy H. Wrote:

“Imperfect” is just a euphemism for “flawed.” An “imperfect” diamond is the same as a “flawed” diamond. We are really getting nitpicking here.

I think this comment shows your (mis)understanding of science. You compare a scientific theory with a diamond. There is something flawed but it is not evolutionary theory, it is your understanding of science.

And for reminding, this is what Judge Jones said:

To be sure, Darwin’s theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions. (pp. 136-137, Kitzmiller v. Dover decision)

Do you think this means “evolutionary theory is flawed”? That is absolutely ridiculous Andy. On the contrary he claims that ID is flawed so it shouldn’t be in science classrooms.

“We don’t really know that — somewhere there may be a judge who studied the controversy on his/her own and who has more general knowledge about it than Judge Jones does.”

Are you playing the “He didn’t hear the real ID” card? Gee, the moment he gets completely taken apart in court, the ID crowd is all too ready to disown Michael Behe. It must suck to have no job security as a proponent of ID when your pet theory goes belly-up.

Anyway, the point is that Judge Jones heard the best testimony from prominent members of the ID camp. What any layperson spends six months researching on the internet, Jones was taught by the best and brightest in six weeks.

Comment #82409 Posted by Charlie B on February 27, 2006 05:06 AM

Of course he had to rule on whether ID was science when it was the crux of the case.

Funny, before the Dover decision was released, no one was willing to predict publicly whether Judge Jones would rule on the scientific merits of ID, but after the decision was released a lot of people have said that he had no choice but to rule on that issue.

“Funny, before the Dover decision was released, no one was willing to predict publicly whether Judge Jones would rule on the scientific merits of ID, but after the decision was released a lot of people have said that he had no choice but to rule on that issue.”

Nothing strange here. If he wouldn’t rule on that, he would prove that he is an activist judge.

What I enjoy most about Larry is his utter and irremediable ignorance. Consider:

But these two critiques of evolution were not demonstrated to be “vacuous” and “unscientific” by Judge Jones, yet he prohibited them in public-school science classes along with all other past, present, and future critiques of Darwinism. That was my point, which your pinheaded brain obviously missed.

He missed it because you are wrong. Judge Jones did not prohibit ‘critiques of Darwinism’.

Larry, you have already admitted that you’ve never read the transcripts. You are ignorant of science, ignorant of law, ignorant of how to debate.

And you’re a dishonest fraud, to boot. We realize you don’t care about this subject, any more than you really care about holocaust denial or confederate flags.

You endure our abuse of your laziness, ignorance, illogic, and deceit, because it’s better than self abuse.

And that’s your only other option, isn’t it.

I’d suggest you get a life, Larry, but you’ve clearly already tried and failed.

In the conclusion section of the Dover opinion, Jones said that one of the three prohibitions that he intended to include in the official order was a prohibition against “requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the theory of evolution” (this specific prohibition was not actually included in the official order, but that is beside the point).

This means that a teacher can denigrate or disparage the theory of evolution, but isn’t required to.

This is a general prohibition that applies not only to ID/IC but also applies to criticisms of evolution theory that were not evaluated by Jones in the Dover case — e.g., criticisms pertaining to co-evolution and the propagation of beneficial mutations in sexual reproduction.

It’s not a prohibition than applies to any of those – it’s a prohibition on a requirement. Teachers are free to talk about ID/IC or offer any criticism of the theory of evolution or even denigrate or disparage the theory of evolution. They just aren’t required to do any of those things.

Because any criticism of evolution theory may be considered to be a denigration or disparagement of that theory, this general prohibition directly contradicts the Supreme Court’s following statement in Edwards v. Aguillard: “We do not imply that a legislature could never require that scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories be taught.”

Even if any criticism of the theory of evolution could be considered a denigration or disparagement of the theory, a prohibition against a requirement to criticize does not in any way contradict an absence of an implication that all legislatures are in all circumstances prohibited from requiring criticism – nothing is contradicted by an absence of an implication. YOU MORON.

Judge Jones is a phony from the word “go” — it seems that every time I turn around I find another big screw-up in his rulings in the Dover case.

You should stop turning around, it’s obviously bad for your brain.

And this is where Andy went wrong … False premise, false conclusion.

Well, it’s very minor compared to his two huge logical gaffes, the first being mistaking a prohibition against requiring an action for prohibiting the action, and the second being finding a contradiction between a claim and the absence of a (different) claim. If I say “I’m not implying that P”, there are no statements that contradict my claim (other than an insistence that I really am implying that P).

the first being mistaking a prohibition against requiring an action for prohibiting the action

Hmmm … I guess he didn’t make this mistake. But the mistake he did make is huge. Here’s a statement equivalent to the quoted Aguillard statement:

We aren’t asserting that no legislature may ever require the teaching of scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories.

And here is a statement equivalent to Judge Jones’ (non) order:

The school board must not require teachers to denigrate or disparage the theory of evolution.

These statements obviously aren’t contradictory, even with Larandy’s absurd equation of critique with denigration or disparagement. Not imposing a universal ban is not the same as forbidding all bans.

It’s hard to overestimate an intellect that thinks turning “steviepinhead” into “pinheaded stevie” is some kind of clever insult.

Comment #83962 posted by Popper’s Ghost on March 6, 2006 02:34 AM

In the conclusion section of the Dover opinion, Jones said that one of the three prohibitions that he intended to include in the official order was a prohibition against “requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the theory of evolution” (this specific prohibition was not actually included in the official order, but that is beside the point).

This means that a teacher can denigrate or disparage the theory of evolution, but isn’t required to.

Whopper’s Ghost,

I think it will be a long time before any Dover Area schoolteacher tries to denigrate or disparage evolution theory in a science class. Anyway, there is a double standard here – teachers may be required to teach that Darwinism is true but may not be required to teach criticisms of Darwinism.

Because any criticism of evolution theory may be considered to be a denigration or disparagement of that theory, this general prohibition directly contradicts the Supreme Court’s following statement in Edwards v. Aguillard: “We do not imply that a legislature could never require that scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories be taught.”

Even if any criticism of the theory of evolution could be considered a denigration or disparagement of the theory, a prohibition against a requirement to criticize does not in any way contradict an absence of an implication that all legislatures are in all circumstances prohibited from requiring criticism — nothing is contradicted by an absence of an implication. YOU MORON.

Yes, the Supreme Court’s statement has an “absence of an implication” that all legislatures (including school boards) should in all circumstances be prohibited from requiring that scientific criticism of a prevailing scientific theory be taught, but so what? What the Supreme Court’s statement does imply is that there may be some circumstances when a requirement for teaching such criticism is proper. But Judge Jones flatly prohibited such a requirement in all circumstances when he prohibited the Dover Area school board from “requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the theory of evolution.” YOU STUPID IMBECILE.

Ah well.… seems someone finally got through to Larry A stupid imbecile ? Lawrence “I’m not a Holocaust denier just a revisionist” Fafarman who is posting USING THE FALSE NAME of Andy H. and numerous other FALSE NAMES (he has admitted this elsewhere on PT AND HAS NEVER ONCE DENIED IT)

Larry lets just get down to it YOU ARE LYING useless waste of space.

WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM ? Can’t you afford a shrink?

YOU STUPID IMBECILE

‘Stupid imbecile’? From Larry? The man who thinks that we should decide what ‘real science’ is by calling Gallup and commissioning a poll?

The man who thinks the Holocaust couldn’t have happened ‘because it would have been too difficult’?

The man who’s used at least 8 fake names here thinking no one would recognize him?

Go the hell away, Larry.

I think it will be a long time before any Dover Area schoolteacher tries to denigrate or disparage evolution theory in a science class. Anyway, there is a double standard here — teachers may be required to teach that Darwinism is true but may not be required to teach criticisms of Darwinism.

And Andy is moving his goalposts yet again when his previous ‘argument’ has been found mostly wanting. Teachers are not required that Darwinism is true more than they are required to teach that 1+1=2.

What the Supreme Court’s statement does imply is that there may be some circumstances when a requirement for teaching such criticism is proper. But Judge Jones flatly prohibited such a requirement in all circumstances when he prohibited the Dover Area school board from “requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the theory of evolution.” YOU STUPID IMBECILE.

Again Andy confuses disparaging and denigrating a theory with teaching criticisms. Unless Andy can establish that denigrating a theory is similar to criticising it, his position is as usual unsupported and indefensable.

Thanks Andy for continuing to show us how vacuous Intelligent Design is.

oops er sorry ‘bout that PvM. I would be interested to know which part went to far.

Thanks Andy for continuing to show us how vacuous Intelligent Design is.

you’re absolutely WRONG here, Pim.

All Larry is doing is showing us how vacuous HE is.

how long will you put up with this clown show?

Larry has NO redeeming value whatsoever, not even as an example of an IDiot.

Well actually STJ the very first thing Lawrence Fafarman said when he came on PT months ago was how upset he was that the NeoCreationism/DI/ID/IC supporters in Dover did not keep their mouths shut about religion (as I recall near enough to his own words). And that they would have got away with it they had not been openly lying about their religious motives and that when they were caught red handed the Judge should have ignored them including ignoring any evidence that he (and coincidental the DI) did not like.

His whole gambit has been to obscure the facts supporting the ToE (at a level one could only describe as childish) AND obscure the lies that the NeoCreationist/DI/ID/IC crowd have been pedaling in the vain hope that if they are told often enough people will believe them.

That makes his methods identical to NeoCreationists/DI/ID/IC. He has succeeded almost in practicing what he preaches, not mentioning anything about god Mr X. but all of his arguments are NeoCreationists/DI/ID/IC canards and thus are religiously motivated.

Larry has performed a very useful task of totally shredding even the weakest legal basis for teaching NeoCreationist/DI/ID/IC as science.

The biggest favor Lawrence could do his cause and the DI PR machine is to shut up .…truly all hat and no cattle.

Breathtaking inanity.… didn’t Judge Jones say something about that is his decision ?

I’m beginning to think brain death is contagious.

Larry simply picks whatever topic becomes the best bait for trolling in a specific thread, then goes off.

He’s the quintessential troll, nothing more.

It can be amusing for a while, but this crap has been going on for months.

Larry is no ID supporter; he’s simply trolling for attention, nothing more.

again, you are all wrong.

He has no redeeming value here as an ID supporter, or anything else for that matter.

the continuing acceptance of his flame bait is becoming a sad thing to witness.

We’ve moved stuff far more “entertaining” to the bathroom wall, and yet Larry’s drivel stays.

amazing.

but so what?

So your reasoning is fallacious, you stupid twit.

What the Supreme Court’s statement does imply is that there may be some circumstances when a requirement for teaching such criticism is proper. But Judge Jones flatly prohibited such a requirement in all circumstances when he prohibited the Dover Area school board from “requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the theory of evolution.”

No, he only prohibited it of the Dover Area school board, and he only prohibited (except that he didn’t) requiring denigration and disparagement of the theory of evolution, which is – even if absurdly and erroneously equating critiquing with denigration – a subset of requiring “scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories”. And, even had he prohibited every single instance of requiring a scientific critique of a prevailing scientific theory throughout the whole of the U.S., that STILL would not contradict the language from Aguillard, which only said what they weren’t stating – not a word about what some court could or could not rule.

YOU STUPID IMBECILE

You wish, Larry, oh how you wish – but I’ve got you beat by a couple of standard deviations.

Unless Andy can establish that denigrating a theory is similar to criticising it, his position is as usual unsupported and indefensable.

It doesn’t matter whether he can establish that – his reasoning is garbage from top to bottom. The Aguillard language that he quoted states what they weren’t asserting – they noted that they were not placing a blanket restriction on what legislatures could do. All that implies is that it might be ok for some legislature to require some critique of some prevailing scientific theory under some circumstance or circumstances. Judge Jones could have prohibited the Dover board from issuing any requirement on teachers regarding the ToE, and that still would not contradict the quoted language. The prohibition might not be valid, but that has to be judged on grounds other than that the SCOTUS noted that they weren’t imposing a universal prohibition.

It’s interesting that Larandy blew up at me. It suggests that he’s desperate to convince people of his points, and is getting very frustrated that he’s failing to do so. Poor pathetic old man, I can almost feel sorry for him.

BTW, it’s worth noting that “critique” is not a synonym of “criticism”. A critique is a critical analysis. It is possible to do a critical analysis of something and never find anything wrong with it.

Whopper’s Ghost,

You are still trying to crawl out of the Grand Canyon that you have dug for yourself, but you are only digging yourself deeper.

No, he only prohibited it of the Dover Area school board, and he only prohibited (except that he didn’t) requiring denigration and disparagement of the theory of evolution

As I said, this is a prohibition which the Dover opinion’s conclusion section said was going to be included in the official order but which was not – but this prohibition is still part of the Dover opinion and is therefore presumably enforceable.

even if absurdly and erroneously equating critiquing with denigration

“Critique” is generally a milder term than “denigration,” but there is no sharp boundary between the two. And what is merely a “critique” to some may be a “denigration” to others – e.g., the Ohio evolution lesson plan.

And, even had he prohibited every single instance of requiring a scientific critique of a prevailing scientific theory throughout the whole of the U.S., that STILL would not contradict the language from Aguillard, which only said what they weren’t stating — not a word about what some court could or could not rule.

Wrong. The Supreme Court said, “We do not imply that a legislature could never require that scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories be taught.” If the court had not wanted to state an opinion on the subject, the court would have said something like, “we decline to state an opinion on the issue of whether or not a legislature should be prohibited from ever requiring that scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories be taught.” What the court said showed a clear disapproval of what Judge Jones did: condemning in absentia and without trial all past, present, and future scientific criticisms of Darwinism. And since the Dover school board is equal to every other school board in the U.S., what Jones did to the Dover school board was equivalent to doing the same thing to every school board in the U.S..

BTW, it’s worth noting that “critique” is not a synonym of “criticism”. A critique is a critical analysis. It is possible to do a critical analysis of something and never find anything wrong with it.

“Critique” was the Supreme Court’s term, not mine. Anyway, the term “critique” can encompass “criticism” and even “denigration.”

It’s interesting that Larandy blew up at me.

You blew up at me first, by calling me a “moron.”

Larry le pissoir said: “You blew up at me first, by calling me a “moron.” But he’s right - you are a moron. Every post you make demonstrates that more clearly. He really got to you, didn’t he, Larry? Don’t fret - he was only being honest, rather than polite.

Laughable Larry, calling you a moron is not “blowing up at you,” but merely stating a time-tested attribute that you have worked tirelessly here to earn.

Even more laughably, Larry has fled here fresh from his evisceration at the hands of Kevin Vicklund (on the Dover attorney thread), only to run smack into the tender embrace of Popper’s Ghost…

Frying pan > fire: I can sniff the singe of short-circuiting neuron (singleular noun deliberately selected) already.

Ahem. And one of my neurons can spell “single” and the other can spell “singular.”

They just work different shifts…

You blew up at me first, by calling me a “moron.”

No, that’s a compliment.

An idiot can get it wrong, but when they’re corrected, they usually don’t keep getting it wrong time after time after time. They usually have the sense to shut up after the 11th time.

You guys are the 77708 best, thanks so much for the help.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by PvM published on February 26, 2006 8:37 PM.

“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.” was the previous entry in this blog.

Larry Witham: ID Flack 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 4.381

Site Meter