Judge explains ‘intelligent design’ ruling

| 225 Comments

Recently Judge Jones from Kitzmiller fame made the following remarks

Jones said that after he handed down the ruling, he was the target of severe criticism from various right-wing TV hosts and commentators, including Bill O’Reilly and Ann Coulter.

“Ann Coulter said that I was a ‘hack,’ and the worst judicial selection Bush made since he nominated Harriet Miers to the U.S. Supreme Court.”

Jones said, “It is alarming to me that the public is being fed this kind of misinformation about the role of the judiciary. Judges should not rule on the basis of who their political benefactors were or are, but on the basis of the law.” He added that the increased vitriolic attacks on judges for their rulings, such as when former Rep. Tom DeLay of Texas threatened to “hold federal judges accountable for their rulings” could have a chilling effect.

Source: Judge explains ‘intelligent design’ ruling BY ROBERT A. COHN, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF EMERITUS, St Louis Jewish Light

225 Comments

So, what do you guys think, is this a case of “shoot the messenger”, or is it something else?

So, what do you guys think, is this a case of “shoot the messenger”

Uh, duh.

or is it something else?

Like? Of course, he’s not just a messenger, but as a church-going Republican whom they expected to rule in their favor, he’s a traitor to the fundie cause in their eyes.

Shock jocks like Coulter and O’Reilly can be expected to say that nonsense, but curiously I haven’t heard any words of disappointment from Bush, who appointed Jones. Even though the ruling came only 4 months after Bush made his brief comment that ID should be taught.

Does anyone know if Rick Santorum, who recommended Jones, weighed in? I know that he quit the TMLC but still wrote approvingly of the DI (defending their right to say what they say, if not necessarily agreeing with it, as he suggested at least once). Unlike Bush, who must still be as clueless of what the ID strategy is as Jones admitted he was before the trial, Santorum has had ample opportunity to learn about the scam.

As I said at my own blog, for Coulter to call anyone else a “hack” creates such massive irony that it threatens to collapse into a singularity that could suck the entire universe into a black hole of stupidity.

In his remarks, Jones said, “I have had the most remarkable odyssey since deciding the intelligent design case in 2005. Without the principle of judicial independence in our federal court system, I could not have rendered such a decision. Judicial independence means that judges must strive for fair and impartial ruling, hearing cases free of favor or political influence by those who put the judge in office. This certainly was true in the case of Kistmiller v. the School Distrcit of Dover.”

Jones added, “unfortunately, very few Americans really understand and appreciate the concept of judicial independence. I was a Republican when I was named to the federal bench in 2002. The Kistmiller case came to me in December 2004, and was really an example of the ‘third rail’ kind of hot button issue, the intersection of religion, the Constitution and politics. I decided the case not on the basis of political considerations, but on the basis of the law.”

Someone should put up that UD quote about Jones being a good ole boy, Bush appointee, that was going to rule in their favor.

Ron Okimoto

I hope that the next administration gives serious consideration to Judge Jones for elevation to Circuit Court, with an eye toward an eventual seat on the Supreme Court.

Our courts need clear-headed thinkers who put their legal duty above political (or other) ideology. Jones is one of them.

The Fundies don’t expect the judges they appoint to actually rule based on the law, they expect them to be good soldiers and nod their heads. Only religious extremism can produce this nonsense.

Someone should put up that UD quote about Jones being a good ole boy, Bush appointee, that was going to rule in their favor.

Your wish is my command, Ron. From the ever quotable DaveScot:

Judge John E. Jones on the other hand is a good old boy brought up through the conservative ranks … 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. Of course the ACLU will appeal. This won’t be over until it gets to the Supreme Court. But now we own that too.

www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/life-after-dover/

What should be obvious is that to the true creationist, doctrine is paramount. A proper creationist judge, faced with choosing between doctrine and the law, chooses doctrine. A proper creationist scientist faced with choosing between doctrine and evidence, chooses doctrine. A proper creationist doctor should let a patient die if the alternative violates doctrine.

And I think this represents a genuine litmus test, in those cases where it can be strictly applied. Where doctrine clearly overrides intelligence, professional responsibility, obligation, personal integrity, there you have a good creationist.

It never occurred to DaveScot that Jones would let the law get in the way of his (perceived) doctrinal duties. Certainly DaveScot would never let that happen.

I had never read the entire Scot comments, so I thank John Pierat for including the link. Here it is for anyone else who hasn’t read it in all its pristine glory:

Have more faith, Bill!

This is all about Judge Jones. If it were about the merits of the case we know we’d win. It’s about politics. Look at the Cobb county case. A sticker that did no more than mention a plain fact, that evolution is theory not a fact, was ruled a violation of the establishment clause. Incredible! A local school board saying evolution is a theory is, in some twisted logic that just makes me shudder, a law regarding an establishment of religion. Har har hardy har har. Right. In a pig’s ass (pardon my french). Clinton appointed Judge Clarence Cooper made a ridiculous ruling that was faithful to the left wing overlords that he serves.

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. Of course the ACLU will appeal. This won’t be over until it gets to the Supreme Court. But now we own that too.

Politically biased decisions from ostensibly apolitical courts are a double edged sword that cuts both ways. The liberals had their turn at bat. This is our time now. We won back congress in 1996. We won back the White House in 2000. We won back the courts in 2005. Now we can start undoing all the damage that was done by the flower children. The courts have been the last bastion of liberal power for 5 years. It was just a matter of time. The adults are firmly back in charge. The few wilted flower children that refused to grow up will have to satisfy themselves by following the likes of Cindy Sheehan around ineffectually whining about this, that, and the other thing. They’ve been marginalized.

One hardly knows where to begin or end with a statement like that,except to say that this is the answer for anyone doubting that ID is a weapon in the waging of a “Culture War”

BTW, does anyone have the link to Jones’ remarks to which the IDiots keep referring that “prove” Jones is an ACLU puppet?

David robin: BTW, does anyone have the link to Jones’ remarks to which the IDiots keep referring that “prove” Jones is an ACLU puppet?

Ask Larry Fafarman- he can regurgitate it from memory.

Try this: http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives[…]at_behe.html - the DI press release mentioned has been taken down.

Or try this: http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2006/1[…]re-wars.html

I like how the DI and other members of the tards of darkness like to claim Jones’ ruling is not relevant to the rest of the country. If they really believed that there would be more attempts to teach ID in the classroom.

Demski likes to portray his cowardice in being a no-show at Dover was a result of him knowing the case would lose. Funny thing is if IDC is science like he says it is he should have been able to easily prove that to the court. Whether IDC is science has no relationship to the Dover board’s actions so they could have lost the case but IDEC *could* have been proven to be science. Dembski the coward, what a puss.

Flint Wrote:

A proper creationist scientist faced with choosing between doctrine and evidence, chooses doctrine.

Ah, but which of the mutually contradictory doctrines? Keep in mind that DaveScot not only accepts common descent, but on UD in ~2005 pleaded with Dembski and the other “don’t ask, don’t tell” types to stop the charade (Dembski calmed him down but stopped short of saying that DS was mistaken about CD). Yet from the above excerpt, one could be forgiven for assuming that he was a flaming flat-earther.

It’s long past overdue that these new age fundamentalists stop lamenting and just write that postmodern translation of the Bible that they really want.

Ah, but which of the mutually contradictory doctrines?

Probably doesn’t much matter. So long as (some, any) religious doctrine overrides responsibility, duty, and sanity, you have a good creationist.

A proper creationist judge, faced with choosing between doctrine and the law, chooses doctrine.… It never occurred to DaveScot that Jones would let the law get in the way of his (perceived) doctrinal duties

Not even DaveScot mistook Jones for a creationist. His comment was all about political calculation, not adherence to doctrine: “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”. On top of that, DaveScot is ignorant and deluded enough to think that finding for the defendants would have been the legally correct course: “A local school board saying evolution is a theory is, in some twisted logic that just makes me shudder, a law regarding an establishment of religion. Har har hardy har har.” Unless you want to argue that this is a case of DaveScot lying about what he believes.

Flint Wrote:

Probably doesn’t much matter.

Actually it’s the only thing that matters if they have any pretense that their ideas are scientific. But as I keep saying, leading anti-evolution activists have known for at least 20 years that creationism collapsed into a mess of dismal failures and hopeless contradictions. But as long as the rank and file hates big numbers (without dollar signs at least) and doesn’t know evolution from common descent from natural selection from abiogenesis, scam artists will have an audience.

John and David:

What a one two punch.

Thanks.

DaveScot may have made a mistake in his calculus. Business Republicans have no use for intentional ignorance, beyond some basics about economics. They need some educated folks to help keep the economy going. The real problem is that the religious Republicans believe their own propaganda and are shocked when the business Republicans let them hang themselves out to dry when they do stupid, unconstitutional things like try to sell ID as science.

Links to Dr. Forrest’s You Tube Videos entitled,

“Barbara Forrest: The Woman Texas Creationists Really Don’t Want You to Hear”

1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cwvE0owTmk 2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_OLlAfmrQs 3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2m-AT4unW4Q 4. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSXxB7JEOOI 5. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E97GFmYNaFI

Has anyone seen the Susan Epperson interview?

ABC sock puppetry Wrote:

It is very doubtful that Jones will ever be nominated for a seat on a higher court. If he is nominated, his misdeeds will come under much greater scrutiny than they have been so far. Consider the following examples of his misdeeds:

(1) The ID-as-science section of the Kitzmiller v. Dover opinion was virtually entirely ghostwritten by the ACLU.

Well, and since the truth of the matter is clearly and concisely expressed in documents that had been submitted prior to the actual trial, why shouldn’t Judge Jones use extant text?

(2) He said in a Dickinson College commencement speech that his Dover decision was based on his notion that the Founders based the establishment clause on a belief that organized religions are not “true” religions.

In what way is this any kind of “misdeed”?

Has he broken any laws? Has he contravened established protocol?

.… Business Republicans know – or should know – that they need fundy-type Republicans to win elections.

This is the harsh reality of bipartisan politics. Once the creo candidates have been sufficiently ridiculed, however, they will shy away from the overtly “ignorance good, science bad” platform. Well, a guy can dream, hey?

ABC=Larry

ABC Wrote:

(1) The ID-as-science section of the Kitzmiller v. Dover opinion was virtually entirely ghostwritten by the ACLU.

(2) He said in a Dickinson College commencement speech that his Dover decision was based on his notion that the Founders based the establishment clause on a belief that organized religions are not “true” religions.

Number 1 is irrelevant as the judge, as is typical, had invited both sides to present their arguments to be used in the final ruling. The ACLU just happened to have the better arguments. Number 2 misrepresents what Judge Jones really said.

Larry has been informed of this a few times before and in typical ID fashion, he refuses to learn from his mistakes

Judge Jones Wrote:

The Founders believed that “true religion was not something handed down by a church or contained in a Bible, but was to be found through free, rational inquiry.”* At bottom then, this core set of beliefs led the Founders, who constantly engaged and questioned things,” to secure their idea of religious freedom by barring any alliance between church and state.”*

*Quotations from The Founding Fathers and the Place of Religion in America by Frank Lambert (Princeton University Press, 2003).

I thank Larry for giving me the opportunity to set the record straight.

Btw, is Larry not banned for his inappropriate behaviors? I will be watching his contributions carefully

Just to clarify what is being claimed by the word “ghostwritten”. For the sake of interested readers. It might be thought that this means that there was some secret communication between the lawyers for the plaintiffs and the judge. The claim is not that, but rather that the arguments presented by the lawyers on this particular topic were largely accepted by the judge in writing this part of the decision, to the extent that much of the same language was used by the judge.

I’d be curious to see how the DI would spin the occasion of a judge extensively quoting their material, but not curious enough to want the DI to actually win a case so I could find out. I’m willing to bet the spin would be no less dishonest than the usual DI standard of outstanding absense of integrity.

Flint, how about this scenario: The judge rules for the pro-science side, but uses quite different language and arguments. Would the pro-ID people interpret that as a partial rebuff to the pro-science side? Perhaps that it would provide a loophole for future cases?

Flint:

I’d be curious to see how the DI would spin the occasion of a judge extensively quoting their material, but not curious enough to want the DI to actually win a case so I could find out. I’m willing to bet the spin would be no less dishonest than the usual DI standard of outstanding absense of integrity.

Didn’t they accuse Judge Jones of plagiarism, in fact?

Flint,

Let’s sweeten the deal by having said judge also rule that ID is science.

Recall that in KvD both sides asked the judge to rule on whether ID was science, then the DI got hysterical when the judge made the ruling. Funny, I don’t recall the DI being so hysterical when their side asked the judge to rule on that point.

By using the term “ghostwritten”, aren’t they lying?

A judge can (and should) quote extensively from submitted material. But the actual composition was his, correct? If so, ‘ghostwritten’ is just another creationist lie, right?

The judge asked both sides to provide him with proposed “findings of facts and conclusions of law”, and the judge used them wisely.

PvM said,

Number 1 is irrelevant as the judge, as is typical, had invited both sides to present their arguments to be used in the final ruling. The ACLU just happened to have the better arguments.

The Dover opinion’s ID-as-science section shows no evidence that Jones even read any post-trial brief other than the one that he copied from. Considering the extreme prejudice that he showed in his Dickinson College commencement speech, it is especially doubtful that he bothered to read the other briefs. However, considering the great complexity of the ID-as-science issue, I do not fault him for not showing any independent thinking on that issue. I do fault him, however, for ruling on the ID-as-science question. There are a number of ways he could have dodged the question, e.g., by ruling that (1) It is non-justiciable; (2) it was moot because the school board members were a bunch of fundies; and (3) under the “political insider/outsider” principle of the endorsement test, an evolution disclaimer statement serves the purpose of reducing Darwinism’s offense to the fundies.

Judge Jones Wrote: The Founders believed that “true religion was not something handed down by a church or contained in a Bible, but was to be found through free, rational inquiry.”* At bottom then, this core set of beliefs led the Founders, who constantly engaged and questioned things,” to secure their idea of religious freedom by barring any alliance between church and state.”*

*Quotations from The Founding Fathers and the Place of Religion in America by Frank Lambert (Princeton University Press, 2003).

Actually, it was “Judge Jones said or spoke” (orally), not “Judge Jones wrote.”

The fact that his statements were apparently quoted does not change the fact that they showed extreme prejudice against the defendants.

Anyway, if you Darwinists think that Judge Jones is a shoo-in for a seat on a higher court, you’ve got another thing coming.

Also, I do not know how you want me to respond or expect me to respond to this “Larry” stuff. Do you want me or expect me to affirm that I am Larry, deny that I am Larry, neither affirm nor deny that I am Larry, or just stay silent (that option is no longer open)? Which is it?

Question - What is this? “serial rule 6 violator” ??

Rule 6 = No posting under multiple id’s.

I can’t find any link to the board rules on the new format. Are they still available?

If there is a discussion on the site design:

As I was spelunking the site for the rules, I also noted that the “Select a Category” list expands outside instead of inside the window at all times, which means it looses the scroll bar when the browser is maximized. Not a serious error, just annoying.

And no, there is no “Rules” category either.

Syntax Error: mismatched tag at line 19, column 222, byte 2072 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.12.3/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187

ben:

Rule 6 = No posting under multiple id’s.

I can’t find any link to the board rules on the new format. Are they still available?

Thanks for checking for me. I found the rules under the “About” tab on the main page. Thanks again :)

Heh. The rules weren’t under the About tab when I checked this morning. My garbled post contained a link to the original post detailing the comment policy. I think I forget to remove a closing tag.

Well, I can’t find them under the tab. (And I believe I have disabled all script-blocking for PT.)

Here is what I find:

Panda’s Thumb Comment Integrity Policy

As a place to meet and share opinions, the Panda’s Thumb encourages a wide range of comments. In order to be clear about what patrons may expect concerning comment text they leave here, we state the following policies: As far as possible, the integrity of comments will be respected, with the following exceptions.

1. Illegal, offensive, and spam comments may be removed in their entirety. The management has the sole privilege of determining whether a comment requires removal and whether a repeat offender should be banned.

2. Superfluous comments may be removed without notice, as in talk between contributors concerning board layout, duplicate comments, or other meta-site issues.

3. Broken links or other formating problems may be revised by the management to improve the utility of a comment, at the management’s sole discretion.

4. Entry post authors and the management may move comments that are deemed inappropriate to the topic of the entry post, excessively inflammatory, or otherwise disruptive of substantive commentary to the Bathroom Wall. Repeat offenders may have their comments restricted to the Bathroom Wall or disemvoweled.

5. The management is not responsible for factors beyond their control that may interfere with comment integrity, such as software glitches, hardware failure, and problems with Internet connectivity.

6. Posting under multiple identities or falsely posting as someone else may lead to removal of affected comments and blocking of the IP address from which those comments were posted, at the discretion of the management.

Simply put, don’t make a jerk out of yourself. This policy may be revised as future conditions warrant.

Are you hitting the “Refresh” button?

What would be the reason for banning me? I don’t see a rule against pointing out your deceptive actions. As usual your argument lacks substance, other than your own desire for it to be true.

How’s the quest for the real explanation behind meteor showers going, Larry?

There ought to be a rule that asking for the banning of another commenter is a banning offense.

I don’t have to ask. You’ve already been banned, years ago. What you think the rules “ought to be” is irrelevant.

Flint, Stacy, thanks. Now I see the rules too.

I didn’t think to check for a saved version of the side as I have a fresh laptop, but perhaps that was the problem on the server side.

You Darwinists, by insisting that Darwinism be taught dogmatically,

Provide evidence that evolutionary biology is taught as dogmatics. It is easy to check that the biology textbooks are updated as new science becomes accepted. IIRC every 3-4 years I hear on biology blogs such as Pharyngula and Sandwalk, as there are plenty of complaints about the review work and book expenses biology teachers and students have to put in to keep up with a young and dynamic science.

IDC OTOH has a long history (over 20 years) of reusing the same old dogmatic negative arguments against verified science, where for example Dembski’s and Behe’s new books are simple rehashes of their old.

ABC/Larry:

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said,

Provide evidence that evolutionary biology is taught as dogmatics.

Please stop bullshitting me.

— SNIP —>8

IDC OTOH has a long history (over 20 years) of reusing the same old dogmatic negative arguments against verified science, where for example Dembski’s and Behe’s new books are simple rehashes of their old.

Wrong – they are always introducing new ideas, new arguments. Also, ID is not the only scientific (or pseudoscientific, if you prefer) criticism of Darwinism.

True. We have, to name but one, also CFSM. A deadly competitor, what with the pirates and all, eh.

Excuse me, I’m kind of new here to this discussion, but already it seems to me that the ideas, arguments ID selects for introduction are mostly old, tired and recycled. And I have not seen one single piece of actual evidence to support them. Have you? After all, you seem to have hung around a lot, under various plumes de guerre.

If anything, it is strikingly obvious how wary the apologists of ID appear to be to answer the two pretty simple test questions about common ancestry and the approximate total age of life which have been consistently put to them. Not to mention how you yourself serenely dodge the quoted, relevant, question above with a no more than a deft profanity.

Oh. Please explain why anyone must take any notice what so ever of the rantings of someone who is, by their own admission, in violation of the “house rules” of this discussion forum, specifically by posting under false and multiple “id”s and having been banned for it, as I understand. Why believe the proven liar?

Oh again. Sorry. I take that last paragraph back, delete and repent. It risks sending the whole thread into a paradox; that must surely never happen.

Please stop bullshitting me.

I see you don’t accept that biology textbooks are updated as science advance, yet you can’t provide contradicting evidence.

Now it is easy to find articles that backs me up. Here is a post discussing how fast scientific advances in chemistry spread into the textbooks.

Under the same time creationist books haven’t made any substantial changes, a fact you accede by not mentioning any contradicting evidence here either.

ID is not the only scientific (or pseudoscientific, if you prefer) criticism of Darwinism.

You don’t get it, do you? Of course there is an intensive internal criticism within biology, it is a science. Not a philosophy as you try to paint it as (“Darwinism”). But at the same time there is no other ‘biology’ that does it. And geology et cetera have been found to be supportive of evolution especially.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by PvM published on December 27, 2007 11:22 PM.

Dembski’s and Wells’s shenanigans - just a reminder was the previous entry in this blog.

Noodled: Evolution Beats Intelligent Design in Florida 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