Judge Jones makes the cover of Time

| 72 Comments

2006-05-02_Time_John_Jones_100_people_cover.jpgCheck it out. Judge Jones made Time‘s list of 100 most influential people. Appropriately enough, he’s in the “Scientists and Thinkers” category. Since people will be reading his ruling and reading about the case for as long as evolution vs. creationism remains an issue in public education – which will be a good long time, just think how long it took for everyone to get used to heliocentrism – I think this was a highly appropriate choice.

Jones’s reaction is reported by the Associated Press:

Jones’ likeness is on the cover along with those of President Bush, Pope Benedict XVI and Oprah Winfrey. “I was dumbstruck,” he said, but he kept the honor in perspective.

“This will pass and I will be back to the more mundane things,” Jones said. “Andy Warhol said everybody gets 15 minutes of fame. …I may be in minute 14.”

Well, at least until the half-dozen books, the PBS documentary, and the movie come out.

Also, if you haven’t seen it, have a listen to this radio interview that Judge Jones did with WHYY last month.

72 Comments

It will be a sign of growth on their part if the usual suspects affiliated with the Discovery Institute do not sound positively green with jealousy in their comments on the thing.

For his part, Jones demonstrates the humility that got him there in the first place – just another American working hard to do the right thing at the right time. God bless us, such people are our salvation as a nation.

I’d be very surprised if the DI doesn’t use this as another opportunity to take a snipe at him: “Well, now we see just why he ruled the way he did - he wanted to make the cover of Time.”

Heliocentrism? Not for the Flat Earthers!

It will be a sign of growth on their part if the usual suspects affiliated with the Discovery Institute do not sound positively green with jealousy in their comments on the thing.

So put them on the list of the 100 dumbest people.

I find myself thinking about how much it would pump up Dembski’s ego and arrogance if HE made the cover of Time Magazine. That would be a sight to see.

Hell, he’s already been on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.

Hell, he’s already been on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.

As a lamb to the slaughter.…

I find myself thinking about how much it would pump up Dembski’s ego and arrogance if HE made the cover of Time Magazine.

How could it possibly be pumped up more? It’s already so full of hot air it’s about to explode.

Actually, scientific enthusiasts and practitioners should feel a slight tinge of embarrassment that a judge would be denoted as an important Scientist and/or Thinker for merely parroting the analysis of so many in the evolutionary community (i.e. Dawkins, Myers, Scott, Dennett, etc. etc. and etc.).

How can someone be considered important and influential when they are completely unoriginal in their analysis?!

How can someone be considered important and influential when they are completely unoriginal in their analysis?!

Well heck, the IDers haven’t offered anything that wasn’t put out decades ago by the creation “scientists”. (shrug)

Bemused Troll Wrote:

How can someone be considered important and influential when they are completely unoriginal in their analysis?!

:reads the above:

:simultaneously recalls the 10,000 complaints by IDers of “judicial activism”:

:head explodes:

“Well heck, the IDers haven’t offered anything that wasn’t put out decades ago by the creation “scientists”. (shrug)”

…??

Who cares about people who advocate ID or creation science? It’s not like they have contributed in any major way to scientific understanding.

I’m only pointing out the obvious fact that Judge Jones has been labeled (according to Time) as an important Scientist or Thinker without actually contributing to current intellectual/scientific discourse in any original capacity. If anything, selecting Judge Jones as an important intellectual/scientific figure is more a reflection of Time magazine than it is of Judge Jones.

And that makes it an embarrassment…

“How could it possibly be pumped up more? It’s already so full of hot air it’s about to explode.”

Let’s just hope the explosion happens soon. It would do all of us a service.

Syntax Error: not well-formed (invalid token) at line 1, column 430, byte 430 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.12.3/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187

”:reads the above: :simultaneously recalls the 10,000 complaints by IDers of “judicial activism”: :head explodes:”

Explain to me the connection between the following:

1. “IDers – ‘judicial activism’”

and

2. “Judge Jones: Important Scientist and Intellectual”

Believe it or not, these concepts are independent.

OK, now everybody follow the bouncing ball:

“We take all kind of pills to give us all kind of thrills But the thrill we’ve never known Is the thrill that’ll get you when you get your picture On the cover of the Rolling Stone.

Or Time, if you have your sights set low. (-;

Influental.

Let’s see. William Dembski is at what podunk Bible college in Texas? Refresh my memory. Stephen Meyers does research where? (Oh, never? Sorry.) Michael Behe, is he still alive? He’s published, oh, nothing. Sorry.

So, how is “intelligent design” producing nothing different from “intelligent design” is dead?

I think if anything, Judge Jones traipsed on the lying corpse of the Discovery Instutite.

That’s why Jones is influential and the DI is, er, not. What DI?

Ignoring Bill Dembski for the moment, the most telling comment—and a humble one—is that made by Judge Jones (as quoted in the Centre Times in State College PA) with reference to his mug on the cover of TIME: “This will pass and I will be back to the more mundane things,” Jones said. “Andy Warhol said everybody gets 15 minutes of fame. …I may be in minute 14.”

Would that every public figure had such a realistic grasp of reality and how to play in the public eye.

“What DI?”

Deluded IDiots.

Whoops, I meant Discovery[sic] Institute.

My mistake ;- )

Bemused Troll: I figure it’s more a case of them not knowing quite where to put him that resulted in him being lumped in with the scientists. Post-Dover, he’s certainly been a big enough influence to merit a presence, but which category do you stick a judge in?

I guess judging could probably be classed as a “thinker” activity, but in practice it was probably more a case of “well, he worked on a case with lots of science, didn’t he? Then stick him in the science section. Now move it!”

2. “Judge Jones: Important Scientist and Intellectual” Believe it or not, these concepts are independent.

Not really.

Synthesizing all the testimony and thoughts and placing in context, and being able to state it so clearly that it will be referred to for decades to come by both lay and legal people alike is no mean feat.

Bemused Troll Wrote:

I’m only pointing out the obvious fact that Judge Jones has been labeled (according to Time) as an important Scientist or Thinker without actually contributing to current intellectual/scientific discourse in any original capacity.

Does law, particularly law pertaining to science education, not fall under “current intellectual/scientific discourse?”

And given that Jones’ job was to hand down a ruling and write an opinion, not to personally reenact the history of evolutionary biology, in what sense was his contribution not original? It’s not like Dawkins or Myers or Dennett were writing legal briefs for him.

Bemused Troll Wrote:

Actually, scientific enthusiasts and practitioners …

No, no, no! The appropriate troll in this situation is to say that Time named Hitler “Man of the Year” in 1938.

Also don’t use an anonym like “Bemused Troll”, it just gives the game away.

I think this blog might be a little advanced for you. Maybe you can find a Harry Potter forum to troll, and then come back here once you’re more experienced?

Yeah, I like the mans humility and grace. Just think he could have had a whole cover to himself if he had have given the Dover dolts a judgement in their favour, Time would have loved that.

I recognize the propriety of Bemused Troll’s moniker. He seems unable to get beyond the stage of bemusement, and as such he at least seems troll-like.

Darrow and Bryan are well known “thinkers”, due in large part to the Scope’s trial, though of course Bryan comes off in that episode rather worse than does Darrow.

I suppose the fact that Thomas Jefferson wasn’t all that original a thinker would leave him out of the “thinkers” category in the bemused mind, even though he applied concepts from British and French thinkers well enough to be quite instrumental in founding a new nation.

Judge Jones is not, of course, a great evolutionary theorist. He was lucky in getting the Dover case, but in turn, we were lucky that a Republican church-going appointee so facilely understood the issues at stake, and wrote a truly devastating critique of ID in general.

Of course there is nothing at all great in his ruling against ID. I more or less expected it, with some concern over the individual quirks that sometimes throw the case off. What few of us expected was such a thorough and lucid examination of the relevant issues, one that has sent the IDists reeling. Jones is hardly the only person, hardly the only judge, who would have done such an excellent job, but he was just the sort of thinker that fit the time, the case, and the intellectual matters at issue.

It is, no doubt, an unfortunate thing that the many who would have ruled as intelligently as he did do not receive the credit, however fleeting, that Jones has received. Thus it is, however, that much excellence does not see the light of day. This is no excuse for dismissing the excellence that is seen, especially at a crucial juncture in the struggle to maintain Enlightenment ideals.

Glen D http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Chaos Engineer (as if there is such a thing),

The appropriate troll in this situation is to say that Time named Hitler “Man of the Year” in 1938.

?

I’m having a difficult time connecting the dots between:

1. A discussion about Judge Jones’ qualifications as an important thinker

and

2. Adolph Hitler being recognized as an important person (which he certainly was) in 1939.

Perhaps your advanced intelligence can do what normal logic can’t.

Also don’t use an anonym like “Bemused Troll”, it just gives the game away.

It seems to be the case on this forum that I automatically give the game away by not gushing over Judge Jones…

I think this blog might be a little advanced for you. Maybe you can find a Harry Potter forum to troll, and then come back here once you’re more experienced?

A childish insult.

I suppose this where you take my lunch money and trap me in my locker.

Glen Davidson,

Now yours was the kind of response I’ve been looking for.

Of course there is nothing at all great in his ruling against ID. I more or less expected it, with some concern over the individual quirks that sometimes throw the case off. What few of us expected was such a thorough and lucid examination of the relevant issues, one that has sent the IDists reeling. Jones is hardly the only person, hardly the only judge, who would have done such an excellent job, but he was just the sort of thinker that fit the time, the case, and the intellectual matters at issue.

Perhaps

To be honest, beyond this whole evo-devo debate I have a real contempt for praising advances in “legal thinking”, even if it was exceptional legal thinking, since it does none of the following:

1. Advances our understanding of the planet. 2. Advances our understanding of the cosmos as a whole. 3. Advances our understanding of mathematics. 4. Helps aid (creatively) ubiquitous enduring poverty & disease throughout the globe. 5. Pioneers the way we conduct (or think about) business. 6. Pioneers the way we organize our government.

I would hope that if we were to highlight legal minds within this country we would at least spill ink over those trying to tackle more complicated, and important, legal problems (i.e. the intersection between our privacy rights and new technology) than the ones surrounding Dover, Pennsylvania.

You know Confused Troll I agree with you. Never mind the bulliies hanging around the school yard gates come with me down to where we can whistle at the leggy blonds toss em a dollar and they will turn off the red light, for a minute in your case anyway.

Now onto the more serious stuff, you’re dead right JJ has not cured the clap but he HAS cured a political problem FAR FAR bigger.

Satisfied? d*ckh**d.

4. Helps aid (creatively) ubiquitous enduring poverty & disease throughout the globe.

He has done some of that. He judged against the agents of mental disease whose aims, if achieved, would ensure lasting poverty for us all.

This troll doesn’t seem very well constructed. Legal decisions and writings are, themselves, a form of thinking. Someone who creates a great work of legal writing is as deserving of the title “great thinker” as someone who writes a great mathematical proof or a great work of music criticism. Not all three of these things will be of the same utility to mankind or whatever, but thoughts do not have to be useful to be important.

And even aside from the fact they are legal documents– I think the kitzmiller trial documents and decision are important as works of both scholarship and history. This is because the Kitzmiller transcripts and decision are what happens when you take the Intelligent Design “debate” as it has stood for the last 15 years and remove the sophistry. Since I think that while creationism is of no scientific importance, creationism is important to the histories of both science and American politics, this makes the Kitzmiller trial and Judge Jones’ writings from it important.

I was looking for the Buckingham “creationism…or ID” video from Fox 43 in June 2004 recently (referred to in the closing arguments in Kitzmiller), just so that a link to the new place exists somewhere on the web, it is still online here:

http://w2.ydr.com/mmedia/wmv/528/

Re “Some people say evolution is in conflict with belief in a “supreme being.” Do you think they are wrong?”

Is that even a question? A supreme being could do anything, including make evolution work (even if it were for some reason impossible by other means) - so if somebody holding such claims something is impossible, they’re contradicting their own belief by saying there’s something said supreme being can’t do.

Henry

I get much amused at Casey’s nonsense, which speaks volumes about his ignorance and nothing about evolution. But to take up his closing attempts to push IC, both the ancient musket and the Glock would work fine as clubs. In other words, were they missing something that lets them function as a firearm, they are still useful as a club. They are not irreducibly complex. The same holds true for the eye, the clotting cascade and a host of other evolved elements found in contemporary organisms.

Luskin couldn’t argue his way out of a Rotary meeting. That guy needs to investigate how religion evolved. http://evocc.com/

I get much amused at Casey’s nonsense, which speaks volumes about his ignorance and nothing about evolution. But to take up his closing attempts to push IC, both the ancient musket and the Glock would work fine as clubs. In other words, were they missing something that lets them function as a firearm, they are still useful as a club. They are not irreducibly complex. The same holds true for the eye, the clotting cascade and a host of other evolved elements found in contemporary organisms.

I agree with you, especially with regard to the eye, clotting, etc.

I don’t mean to pick on anybody, though, but I have always had some doubt about using the function of a club, or a doorstop, or some such thing, to analogize biological evolution. I know that it is tempting to say, well hey, you can use a mousetrap sans spring as some other kind of instrument, but I believe that Behe and the other IDists are correct, or close to correct, that the mousetrap and the gun are irreducibly complex using some definitions. That is to say, it is very hard for me to see how a gun missing its bolt, a Mazda missing its engine, or even a mousetrap missing its spring, could evolve into properly functioning complex machinery (we’ll grant them reproductive powers for this thought experiment).

This is what is different about organisms–their functions are not as easily ruined by accidents and mutation. They have redundancies and (non-evolutionary) adaptive abilities which compensate for problems that arise. Which means that a mutation that is harmful in some ways, may end up being selected if it is sufficiently helpful in other ways.

IDists like the flagellum because it is complex and could be damaged fairly easily via mutation. But of course the flagellum was almost certainly quite a bit less complex once. And what good is half a flagellum? Probably a great deal. Even if it could only affect random movements in its incipient state, to an organism whose ancestors had no mobility, it would be of considerable worth (look at scallops moving in fairly random manner in order to escape).

What IDists need to do is to ask themselves why organisms are generally much more resilient in the face of change than are our own designs. Could it be that redundancies and robustness were essential for evolving flagella and other complex structures? Or, why do they so much prefer human machines to demostrate catastrophic failure, when so much diversity (apparent change) exists in the genomes and “designs” of organisms?

Glen D http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Never mind Hitler and Stalin.

How about the Pope (19) Billy Graham (3) Jerry Falwell (1) Pat Robertson(1) Jesse Helms (1) Scientology (1) Waco Texas (1) Branch Davidians (2)

Two can play this game.…

An evolving mousetrap that could start out as a paper clip: http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap.html. I particularly like the animations…

Comment #99830

Posted by Bemused Troll on May 2, 2006 07:47 PM (e)

“Well heck, the IDers haven’t offered anything that wasn’t put out decades ago by the creation “scientists”. (shrug)”

…??

Who cares about people who advocate ID or creation science? It’s not like they have contributed in any major way to scientific understanding.

I’m only pointing out the obvious fact that Judge Jones has been labeled (according to Time) as an important Scientist or Thinker without actually contributing to current intellectual/scientific discourse in any original capacity. If anything, selecting Judge Jones as an important intellectual/scientific figure is more a reflection of Time magazine than it is of Judge Jones.

And that makes it an embarrassment…

Not as embarrassing as your deliberate unwillingness to understand why he made the list. The Judge had to wade through hundreds of hours of elaborately crafted lies and deceptions that have fooled thousand and thousands of very intelligent people to come to the point where he could apply the well-settled law. And he expressed this understanding in one of the most complete and well written opinions I’ve ever read.

(sort of on topic) Now here is the REAL reason the Creation-istas are furious that Time, their pet propaganda organ(read: one true version of the truth ..non liberal biased media) has been infiltrated with rational thought instead of gutruthiness.

Was Stephen Colbert Funny? If you didn’t laugh at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, the bloggers insist, you’re a White House lackey

Sweet, I see now why it hurts them so, they would much prefer some fascist dictator on the cover, closet queens.

Oh, the shakes, the shakes, I’ve been away too long; the PT’s(Pandalirium Tremens) are really bad. Muussstttt…get…myyyy…fix. Oh, that’s better now.

Comment #99885 Posted by k.e. on May 3, 2006 02:14 PM

Ah yeah. Erasmus shucks. Guilty as charged. I was born with an over active sarcasm gene…completely ruined my chances in the Diplomatic Service.. Is that a banana you’re eating or is that your nose? Thomas Carlyle has been quoted as saying “sarcasm is the work of the Devil” and you know what?.…I AGREE with him. oops.…what’s that noise..THUNDER(Joycean only)..when “she who must be obeyed” speaks I always allow her the last word it would be against nature otherwise, although it sometimes can take a long time to get to that last word.

k.e. your sarcasm is so far ahead of such trolls they’d have to cross the Valles Marineris to reach you.

Smiles for all, Paul

And he expressed this understanding in one of the most complete and well written opinions I’ve ever read.

It’s the only opinion I’ve read in full. He really kicked the crap out of them. I can definitely understand why Casey Luskin’s crying himself to sleep these days.

It seems unfair that Casey and his kind have given us so much humor, and all we gave them in return was an ass-kicking.

BTW, the Dover opinion has been published.

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 400 F. Supp. 2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005)

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Nick Matzke published on May 2, 2006 1:41 PM.

Announcing KCFS News and Resources was the previous entry in this blog.

A call to action in the Journal of Clinical Investigation 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