West based on this 'argues' thatTake 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
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 precendenceThis 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.
— West
Footnote 4 reads: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
— Judge Jones
[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: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.
Establising that ID is not science is essential when applying the Lemon testAlthough 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.
— Judge Jones
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.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.
— Judge Jones
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.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!
— West
Judge Jones' ruling surely brings out the best in ID proponentsTo 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
Nuf' said.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.
— West
370 Comments
Andrew McClure · 23 December 2005
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.
Mel · 23 December 2005
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!
catcherinthewry · 23 December 2005
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."
PvM · 23 December 2005
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.
PvM · 23 December 2005
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.
Hyperion · 23 December 2005
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"
PvM · 23 December 2005
Andrew McClure · 23 December 2005
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.
PvM · 23 December 2005
arden chatfield · 23 December 2005
Hyperion · 23 December 2005
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.
Steve S · 23 December 2005
nitpicker · 23 December 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 23 December 2005
Kim · 24 December 2005
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....
Andrew McClure · 24 December 2005
Apesnake · 24 December 2005
sir_toejam · 24 December 2005
'sudden emergence' was the term used in the draft copy of the new "Pandas" book, IIRC.
Registered User · 24 December 2005
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.
sir_toejam · 24 December 2005
the pro from dover · 24 December 2005
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?
Bing · 24 December 2005
KL · 24 December 2005
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".
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 24 December 2005
Larry Fafarman · 24 December 2005
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.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 24 December 2005
Hyperion · 24 December 2005
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?
Larry Fafarman · 24 December 2005
sir_toejam · 24 December 2005
sir_toejam · 24 December 2005
sir_toejam · 24 December 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 24 December 2005
Hey Larry, if you're finished whining, would you mind explaining to me why ID/creationists have lost every single Federal court case they have ever been involved with? In several different states, with over a dozen different federal judges, over a period of almost 40 years?
Or is "they're mean to us" the best you can come up with.
By the way, Larry, did you notice how many precedent cases Judge Jones cited in his ruling?
Here, Larry -- let me wring out your crying towel for you.
Don't worry --- maybe you'll do better in Kansas. (snicker) (giggle)
Don Baccus · 24 December 2005
Moses · 24 December 2005
Scott Simmons · 24 December 2005
"The board was voted off November 9th, 2005, but the policy was in effect until the new board convened and over-turned the policy."
I'm not sure that that's even relevant. The defendant in the case was the school board, not the individual members of the school board. The changing membership shouldn't moot the case, any more than (say) Merck could evade the Vioxx lawsuits now ongoing by replacing their executive management and board of directors.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 24 December 2005
Stephen Elliott · 25 December 2005
Philbert · 25 December 2005
On December 24, 2005 12:25 PM, Larry Fafarman said, "Jones could have decided the case solely on the basis of the religious motivations of the school board members"
I don't know the law, but if motive was the issue then if for some oddball religious reason (how about they worshipped Zeus), a school board added to it's curriculum a secular subject (say, ancient Greek), it could be banned in that jurisdiction as unconstitutional. Furthermore, the same subject could be legally taught in a neighboring jurisdiction where the school board's motive was secular. This make no sense to me, and to my mind, it's got to be only the subject that's either constitutional or not.
Somebody can correct me if I'm wrong.
Matt · 25 December 2005
Hey, guys. I'm a cancer biologist and a firm advocate of evolution and dispelling creationist nonsense whereever I see it. I get a little uncomfortable when I see people calling Mr. Fafarman a moron and making other ad hominem attacks. That's what THEY do--attack the person because they have no facts, no data, nothing. I'm new to the site, so maybe Mr. Fafarman has a history here, if so, and I'm am speaking out of turn, I apologize. But what I've learned personally as a scienctist that likes to engage the lay public is that when you meet their arguments will scorn, sarcasm and condescention the lay person effectively "shuts down" and won't hear your arguments. I cringe when my fellow scientists at UCSF mock the fundies (as the KU prof did) and treat anyone that believes in ID as idiots. Kitzmiller was a huge win in broader war I often think we are actually losing. That war is over the sanctity of science and the struggle between facts and ideology. As difficult as it may be, and forgive me if I sound sanctimonious, we must meet their distortions with fact, their attacks with rational discourse, and their emotional, partisan appeals with calm, respectful reasoning. As the old saying goes (evolved of course), "Kill 'em with kindness...and data."
Matt
Registerd User · 25 December 2005
As difficult as it may be, and forgive me if I sound sanctimonious, we must meet their distortions with fact, their attacks with rational discourse, and their emotional, partisan appeals with calm, respectful reasoning. As the old saying goes
Gosh, I've heard this sermon 10 million times.
I've learned personally as a scienctist that likes to engage the lay public is that when you meet their arguments
Where did the lay public get these "arguments"?
How come the lay public doesn't have "arguments" about erosion? Or weather prediction?
The American "lay public" doesn't give a rat's behind whether someoe is "calm and respectful."
It's 2005. You should be aware of this fact by now.
I cringe when my fellow scientists at UCSF mock the fundies (as the KU prof did) and treat anyone that believes in ID as idiots.
I have yet to meet anyone who believed in "intelligent design" as a scientific theory that could articulate what was scientific about the theory they believed in.
If you know of someone like that, please send them here. There are a number of us who would like to hear from them.
The term "fundies" is a nice way of saying "religious fanatic" or "one whose religion prevents someone from interacting with reality in any way that is not antisocial."
Such people really do exist. Sad, but true.
I'm not in the mood to kiss their butts after they cheerleaded this anti-science baloney into the mainstream, while simultaneously cheerleading the slaughter of innocent Iraqi women and children based on an independent set of completely fabricated data.
The people sitting on the fence in this "controversy" are more likely to flip not because they suddenly "understand" the science, but because politically and socially they come to learn that ID peddling is linked with dishonest and idiotic behavior.
Ask Senator Santorum. He'll tell you all about it.
Larry Fafarman · 25 December 2005
sir_toejam · 25 December 2005
after this latest post by Larry, where he completely ignores 90% of the reasoned responses to his little epithet, can Matt now wonder any more why we inferred him to be a moron?
Larry - wake up and smell the coffee, buddy.
do one thing for us, if you would:
define how the concept of irreducible complexity can be tested scientifically for us.
please state why hypotheses it would generate, and what predictions, and how we could design an experiment to attempt to falsify those predictions.
If you can do that, you would have been a better witness for the defense than Behe was.
sir_toejam · 25 December 2005
You really should at least TRY to read the ruling itself, Larry, rather than listen to 3rd hand interpretations from your religious adviser.
jeffw · 25 December 2005
Larry Fafarman · 25 December 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 25 December 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 25 December 2005
drakvl · 25 December 2005
Hey, I never insulted you, Larry!
How about this: That ID is unscientific can be demonstrated by the fact that it fails to meet the criteria of science. For one, it is untestable.
That ID's being taught in Dover was religiously motivated is supported by various bits of evidence. For one, there was the church fundraising to buy _Of Pandas and People_.
A bit off-topic: personally, I feel Judge Jones was biased. What biased him was all those people on the ID side lying. From what I've seen (admittedly, mostly from Law & Order), judges have a habit of becoming angry when people have such disrespect for their courts as to lie under oath.
And to Matt: I still have hope that I may educate some of the psycho-Christians who come here to LSU, to preach. However, these people reject a textbook on *logic* as being a book of "worldly knowledge," or some such crap.
k.e. · 25 December 2005
arrrrgghhhh
Lenny do you have the recipe for that viking piss?
If it is front loaded it just might be the thing to send to the ID camp for them to do the job on each other. hehehehe
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 25 December 2005
k.e. · 25 December 2005
Hence the Monty Python tune "Never be rude to an Arab"
Larry Fafarman · 25 December 2005
k.e. · 25 December 2005
Change hands Larry
Matt · 25 December 2005
I've actually had some success engaging your average Joe regarding evolution, ID and the political controversy. How many have a turned from hardcore creatism to full-on evolutionists? Not many, but I've had some shift towards evolution most definitely. What I've found that there's these extremes fighting the political battles, meanwhile your average american has no clue what evolution is really about or what ID is saying. I recently had a colleague tell me that he believed in ID because he, "Believed that evolution was set in motion by God." I was dumbfounded. Here was a cell biologist with a PhD at a prestigious university that had no clue what ID was and what their movement was all about. So my strategy-call it kissing butt if you want--is to first ask them what they know about evolution, ID and the political maelstrom. Then I educate them--often correcting erroneous assumptions about evolution. Then I explain to them what science is all about, the lack of support regarding ID and their political manipulations. More often than not, the look I've gotten is one of surprise (that they've been misled) and then comfort that accepting evolution doesn't require them to be an aetheist or a liberal. I belong to a conservative forum where I'm one of only a few progressive-minded, scientific educated folks that try to take on these issues at a grass roots level. I read here on this blog time to time, but I like to go "behind enemy lines" so-to-speak because I would just be preaching to the choir here. Likewise, I never miss an opportunity to talk about the issue to family, friends, collegues, and even strangers when the opportunity presents itself. So, no, I'm not hiding in an ivory tower hoping the issue just goes away.
You are absolutely right when you say this is a war. Unfortunately too many of my collegues don't take the threat of fundamentalism seriously, and even if they do, they do nothing about it. My weapon of choice is education. I simply think that most Americans as I said above, don't even understand the issue, and at most see it as "God" vs "No God". Something like 80% of Americans are Christians. I am an agnostic/aetheist myself, but if you don't respect that you're swimming upstream. Its like the war or terror. You can kill all the terrorists you want, but unless you address the root problem, you'll never win the war. So what is the root problem in this country? Scientific ignorance is probably number 1 for me, with religious fundamentalism a close second. Unlike scientific ingorance, battling religious fundamentalism is beyond my expertise and is an issue that spans much wider than evolution. But many Christians are NOT fundamentalists (Catholics for instance) and there is ZERO reason for them to be hostile to evolution.
Honestly, I applaud your efforts, particulary those that maintain sites like this. We are on the same side and I understand the political battle aspect. For me though, I think educating the american public is the best way to end the political battle. Court decisions, public policy issues, media battles, this is all important, but much of it will be rendered moot if I/we can educate. The IDM has a considerable headstart in terms of framing the debate. We need to not only combat this distortion (most often metted out via the mainstream media) but now begin to preemptively framing the debate on OUR terms. The actual scientists have been sitting on the sidelines way too long. Look at the polls! In 2005 more and more people reject evolution. I believe the situation is actually worse than it was compared to polls in the 70's and 80's IIRC. Dover was a big win, but this fight is far from over and I'm not sure, even with that decision that we are winning this war.
Lastly, as for the kindness stuff. I don't believe making a forceful, coherant, covincing argument and respect are mutually exclusive. To draw analogy with the war on terror--I don't think we beat the terrorists by resorting to their tactics. I not only think we can, but we must be BETTER than the liars at the DI and others of their ilk. Stunts like the issue at KU only help fuel their movement. So yes, I believe I can be kind, respectful and nail their asses to the wall all at the same time. Finally, I don't know if any of you guys or gals so this, but there was a study mentioned in Science about a University where they taught an into Bio course both as evo only or evo + some ID. The study was small and published in Biosciences, which I never heard of so I can't speak to the scientific merit of the journal overal. They taught 4 sections of classes, 2 with typical evo education, then 2 with evolution combined with this ID book/video called "Icons of ...." something or other. Afterwards they conducted a survey regarding evolution attitudes from the beginning of the course compared to the end. Long story short, NONE of the creationist-leaning students that entered the class changed their mind after the Evo only lectures. In contrast, in the sections that taught evo accompanied by some ID information, a statitically signific percentage of creationists shifted towards an acceptance of evolution. I thought this was fairly provacative. What is our goal if it is not, in part, to get the next generation of Americans understanding the nature of science, critical thinking, and undoing the creationist/dogmatic ideology? Now I am NOT....NOT advocating teaching ID in such a way that makes it seem as if it merits some real scientific status; however, the conclusions of the paper were interesting. I'll dig up the link to the pdf if anyone's interested.
In any event, sorry for being so long winded. We are on the same side and I appreciate your efforts. I'm simply trying to figure out the best strategy for actually winning this war in the long term and I think that's something those of us on this side of the fence can reasonably debate....
Matt
Don Baccus · 25 December 2005
Steve S · 25 December 2005
Arden Chatfield · 25 December 2005
Yeah, I've noticed that 'ad hominem argument' seems to be a new fad catch phrase that Fundies now use every time someone disputes anything they say. If you forcefully tell someone their argument is false, then you're guilty of using an 'ad hominem argument'. I don't think they know that's not what it means.
Larry Fafarman · 25 December 2005
Bob O'H · 25 December 2005
Steve S · 25 December 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 25 December 2005
Larry Fafarman · 25 December 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 25 December 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 25 December 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 25 December 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 25 December 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 25 December 2005
Larry, do you think we should also teach scientific evidence against heliocentrism?
How about scientific evidence against the germ theory of disease?
Scientific evidence against relativity? Against quantum mechanics? Against plate tectonics?
Why is it just evolution that gets your undies all bunched up? Is there a particular reason for that?
A religious reason, perhaps . . . ?
PvM · 25 December 2005
Larry Fafarman · 25 December 2005
Don Baccus · 25 December 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 25 December 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 25 December 2005
Larry, I notice that you didn't answer my question. So I'll ask again. And again and again and again and again, as many times as I need to, until you either answer or run away.
*ahem*
Larry, do you think we should also teach scientific evidence against heliocentrism?
How about scientific evidence against the germ theory of disease?
Scientific evidence against relativity? Against quantum mechanics? Against plate tectonics?
Why is it just evolution that gets your undies all bunched up? Is there a particular reason for that?
A religious reason, perhaps ... ?
Andrew McClure · 25 December 2005
Larry Fafarman · 25 December 2005
Andrew McClure · 25 December 2005
Mr. Fafarman, you yourself only entered this thread to bash and insult a United States judge. What's up with this moral high ground act?
Steve S · 25 December 2005
PvM · 25 December 2005
Larry Fafarman · 25 December 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 25 December 2005
PvM · 25 December 2005
Steve S · 25 December 2005
The school board for the Dover Area School District was already facing what in budget documents was called "The Perfect Storm" of financial problems when it used explicit christianity-based peer pressure to force through a policy that they were certainly told by their lawyer was unconstitutional. The district was already cutting spending on libraries, art, scientific instruments, and other programs. There was no budget for field trips. Not a small budget, a nonexistent budget. After they were warned not to pass this policy, they decided to forgo their liability insurance in order to accept representation from an explicitly christian activist law firm. Then they went to court and, among other things, lied to the judge. As a consequence of this Perfect Storm of Stupidity, they might have to pay $1 million in legal fees, from an annual budget of about $34 million.
Boo hoo hoo, they're so oppressed.
But maybe we can come to a deal. Say, we'll forgive $100,000 for every former school board member we get to kick in the nuts.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 25 December 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 25 December 2005
PvM · 25 December 2005
Larry Fafarman · 25 December 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 25 December 2005
Larry, you haven't answered my questions. Were your ID pals lying BEFORE when they told the court that "irreducible complexity" is a scientific theory of ID, or are they lying NOW when they say "irreducible complexity" is NOT a scientific theory of ID, but is just a "scientific criticism of evolution".
Larry, do you think we should also teach scientific evidence against heliocentrism?
How about scientific evidence against the germ theory of disease?
Scientific evidence against relativity? Against quantum mechanics? Against plate tectonics?
Why is it just evolution that gets your undies all bunched up? Is there a particular reason for that?
A religious reason, perhaps ... ?
Why are you so reluctant to answer my simple questions, Larry? Got something you (and your ID pals) need to hide, do you?
Andrew McClure · 25 December 2005
PvM · 25 December 2005
Don Baccus · 25 December 2005
The Sanity Inspector · 25 December 2005
Seems like its been a pretty raucous Christmas hereabouts, today!
Merry last twenty minutes of it, anyway; and Happy New Year!
Larry Fafarman · 26 December 2005
jim · 26 December 2005
Larry,
Your assertions about the science of ID have already been shown to be wrong in comment 64817 of this thread.
Namely that not only *can* "macro" evolution be observed. It *has* been observed many, many times. Whoever told you it hadn't been observed *lied* to you.
Also, research into the "examples" of ID proposed by Behe, has shown that this "irreducible" systems really aren't irreducible. Meaning that the pieces do have function in the cell. That Behe still spouts off about these "examples" being "problems" for evolution are twofold: he refuses to read the relevant literature and he's lying to you.
Have you noticed a theme here? Your allies lie. They lie a lot. They lie to people who don't know better. They lie to people that *do* know better. They lie in court. They lie to the press. They lie to each other. They really have a lot of problems telling the truth about anything. How this is supposed to lead people to their God, I personally do not understand. They must not feel very secure about the validity of their religion if they're forced to lie about it all of the time.
I'd like to further point out that even if you and your friends manage to disprove evolution, ID/creationism/sudden emergence still won't take it's place. You see, any scientific model seeking to replace the currently accepted model has to explain ALL of the evidence better than the current model does. So even if discredited, evolution would still be used until a model that better describes observations can be found (e.g. Newton's law of gravity was still used even though it failed to correctly predict Mercury's orbit). Since ID/creationism/sudden emergence makes *no* useful predictions, it'll never be used by scientists, period.
Larry Fafarman · 26 December 2005
Stephen Elliott · 26 December 2005
Andrew McClure · 26 December 2005
sir_toejam · 26 December 2005
If Larry mentions pant-loading, I'm going to start thinking he's really Blast in disguise.
Just like every other incoherent fundie that comes through here, Larry isn't interested in how science works, what it does, the results that come out of it, or anything other than his own agenda.
It was obvious by the way he couched his very first post. Those of us who have spent any time here on PT at all know an intractable fundie when we see one.
larry, since you are mentally incapable of listening to reason, and shut your eyes when we try to show you a factual view of events, why do you persist?
there aren't any lurkers here listening to your ridiculous arguments, and you certainly aren't making any headway with those of us who bothered to respond to you, so why are you still here?
Is there actually something we can educate you on? or did you just come here to preach your nonsense?
If the latter, since you haven't said anything original or thoughtful since you arrived, can we assume you are done now?
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 26 December 2005
Larry Fafarman · 26 December 2005
Here are my responses to various posts --
*****The lawsuit was based on what they had done, not what they might do.****
The lawsuit was based on what the OLD school board did -- not on what the NEW school board did. All of the members who voted for the ID rule were replaced. The new members pledged to repeal the rule.
******What point are you trying to make? The Dover trial was unfair, excessive use of lawyers, etc..?*****
The plaintiffs and their legal representatives were entitled to use as many lawyers as they wanted -- the more the merrier. They are just not entitled to expect the losing side to pay for them all -- nine or ten.
*****Everyone is fully aware of these circumstances, and they are neither special, nor relevant.*****
So it is not relevant that the defendants cannot appeal because they are no longer on the board ? It is not relevant that the new board members pledged to give the plaintiffs what they wanted without court action ?
*****The very thing you are responding to there discusses the fact that courts are not obligated to trust the good will of a defendant in a case of voluntary cessation.*****
Obviously, what you say would be true if the old members were still on the board and they voted to repeal the ID rule in an attempt to end the lawsuit. But they have all been replaced by new members who said they are against the ID rule. Now if the new members cannot be trusted, then nobody can be trusted.
*****So you are telling us the court can speculate about things the current school board will do in a couple months once they take power, and in fact should entirely rearrange its schedule and action around this speculation--- but it cannot speculate about things the next school board will do in four years?*****
I am not talking about something that the current school board could do in a couple of months -- I am talking about something they could do -- and in fact something they promised to do, repeal the ID rule -- at their first meeting on Jan. 3, 2006, only two weeks after the Dover decision was issued.
If courts could speculate that a new school board in the future might pass a pro-ID rule, then as I said, there would be grounds for suing every school board in America.
I read the complaint brief of the lawsuit, and nowhere does this brief say, "we request that the case not be declared moot if, during the course of this trial, all the board members are replaced and the new board members vote to repeal the ID rule." I guess the plaintiffs' attorneys were not that smart.
****The defendants have received their justice.*****
They cannot appeal, and you say that they have received their justice ? Some jerk here is now going to say, "they bungled everything anyway, so it doesn't matter that they can't appeal." I can just see it coming.
I read that one of the defendants actually wanted to appeal, despite all the blunders made by the defendants and the defense.
Larry Fafarman · 26 December 2005
Stephen Elliott · 26 December 2005
Larry,
When you try to argue the scientific merits of ID you sound a lot like I did when I first found PT, about 12-18 months ago.
Since then I have had my eyes opened far wider.
IF I may give a little advice:
Try to answer some of the more difficult questions people have been asking you. Attempt to do that honestly. Look up the links and references, posters are pointing out to you. Google up information on the scientific method and the rules and ways ideas become scientifically accepted.
Before you post any more arguments from the ID movement and Disco Institute, check up on them on the talk origins site.
If you actually make the effort to find out what is going on, you are in for a big shock. The people on whose masts you are nailing your colours, are almost entirely dishonest.
If you do not do this you will (probably)continue to be a pawn of a dishonest religious/political movement.
If you are a tad surprised at the angry responses you are getting it is because all the "scientific objections to evolution" you are posting have already been made (repetitively) for many years.
Steve S · 26 December 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 26 December 2005
Hey Larry, you still have not answered my simple questions. So I'll ask again.
*ahem*
Were your ID pals lying BEFORE when they told the court that "irreducible complexity" is a scientific theory of ID, or are they lying NOW when they say "irreducible complexity" is NOT a scientific theory of ID, but is just a "scientific criticism of evolution".
Larry, do you think we should also teach scientific evidence against heliocentrism?
How about scientific evidence against the germ theory of disease?
Scientific evidence against relativity? Against quantum mechanics? Against plate tectonics?
Why is it just evolution that gets your undies all bunched up? Is there a particular reason for that?
A religious reason, perhaps ... ?
Why are you so reluctant to answer my simple questions, Larry? Got something you (and your ID pals) need to hide, do you?
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 26 December 2005
Larry Fafarman · 26 December 2005
KL · 26 December 2005
To me, the "wedge document" is mostly just the name of a conspiracy theory. Your arguments are just "guilt-by-association."
Have you read it? The actual document?
Andrew McClure · 26 December 2005
gregonomic · 26 December 2005
I still think it's a whole lot easier to deal with people like Larry by saying "Kitzmiller v Dover, dude".
Don't agree with Judge Jones' decision? You're probably a fundie.
Think Judge Jones is an activist judge who ruled more broadly than was necessary? Probably a fundie.
Too lazy or disinclined to learn enough basic biology to make an informed decision about the validity (or otherwise) of the ID/DI claims, but still think your completely ignorant and uninformed decision is as legitimate as those of people who have studied biology their entire lives? Definitely a fundie.
Larry Fafarman? Fundie, fundie, fundie.
As much fun as it is watching these guys fall into Lenny's Fundie Trap (keep 'em talking, and eventually they'll shoot themselves in the foot), we all know they're too thick-headed to actually learn anything.
The only conceivable benefit of continuing discussions with them is that undecided lurkers might learn something. But are there really any undecided lurkers here?
Larry Fafarman · 26 December 2005
Stephen Elliott · 26 December 2005
Larry Fafarman · 26 December 2005
KL · 26 December 2005
"OK, here we have been carrying on a strictly scientific discussion of the concept of irreducible complexity --- no mention of god, an intelligent designer, the supernatural, religion, etc.. Irreducible complexity is considered to be part of ID, and the judge in the Dover case ruled that discussing ID in a public-school science class is unconstitutional. So according to his ruling, it would be unconstitutional to have this conversation in a public-school science class. Does that seem reasonable to you ?"
I can't comment on how "unconstitutional" that would be, given that I am not trained to understand the constitutional ramifications of the Dover decision. I can say that this would be a poor conversation to have in a 9th or 10th grade biology class. First, only biologists with plenty of reading/studying/research under their belts can really understand it, and second, there is no research being published to support any explanation for this phenomenon other than the explanation arising out of the evolution paradigm. You don't challenge scientific paradigms in front of an untrained and uneducated audience (ie 14-15 year olds)You teach them the basics, which are agreed upon within the scientific community. As it was stated in a previous post, IC does not automatically assume that evolution cannot have occured.
"Thus, the same or a similar series of evolutionary changes would have to be repeated many times in many different lines of evolutionary descent. This does not seem to be very likely."
Yet evolutionary biologists don't seem to have a problem with features arising by several different means, especially when they involve survival mechanisms such as locomotion, reproduction, finding food, avoiding predators. Could it be possible that the collective (and transparent) work of thousands of scientists carries no weight?
Stephen Elliott · 26 December 2005
KL · 26 December 2005
"Yes, I have read summaries of the wedge document, and I couldn't care less about it. If I find the arguments for the scientific concepts of ID (e.g., irreducible complexity) to be persuasive, I will accept those arguments, otherwise I will not. It is that simple."
I think you missed some important parts. The only thing more disturbing than the premise of that document is that the proponents decided to ignore their own plan, skipping the first step (to DO the science and publish it) and going right ahead with the rest of the plan.
Stephen Elliott · 26 December 2005
bill · 26 December 2005
Larry,
"irreducible complexity" is not scientific. It only sounds scientific. Like transpartitional cycloprotogenesis.
There is no measure of irreducible; it can't even be defined. Same for complexity. That's where Behe gets into trouble when confronted with real scientists. He can't explain it. "I know it when I see it," is the best explanation he's ever given. (And, please don't quibble that Behe's a scientist because he has a degree in biochemistry. When he's wearing his ID hat, he's no scientist."
And, yes, discussing "irreducible complexity" in a public school science class would be unconstitutional (from the Jones ruling) in that IC is a religious notion: IC doesn't happen by itself, it requires a god, or demon or fairy or alien or a designer to make it happen. Ergo, it's not science.
In public schools, and this is where we are focused from a constitutional point of view, you cannot require students to be subjected to religious propositions. Thus, the following supernatural subjects would be taboo in science class: voodoo, astrology, creationism, intelligent design, irreducible complexity, noachian flood geology, alchemy and the list goes on.
Outside of public school I say knock yourself out! What surprises me to no end is that the Discovery Institute in the last decade hasn't funded a lab of it's own. They have money, they have location, they have a list of 400-ish scientists who support their view, so why not fund a lab? A DI lab would be under no restrictions whatsoever to do whatever research they wanted. So, what's the problem, DI? Get on it!
Could it be because "intelligent design" is not scientific and, therefore, there's no point?
Stephen Elliott · 26 December 2005
KL · 26 December 2005
I will pre-empt a creationist response here.
Actually yes!
Look at plate tectonics, evolution, the big bang and relativity.
All of them theories that overturned the work of thousands of scientists.
However they did actually do it by using science. Not PR, lawyers or politics.
You're absolutely right! I stand corrected.
bill · 26 December 2005
Yeah, Steve, I know about the list but in the spirit of the season I was tossing them a bone. The number of scientists actually working on ID is Zero. It should also be pointed out that some of the scientists on the infamous list of 400 are dead.
Behe recently described cells as having little trucks: There are little molecular trucks that carry supplies from one side of the cell to the others. There are little molecular sign posts that tell it to turn left or to turn right.
I have several questions. Do my trucks drive on the right, and Tony Blair's trucks drive on the left? Does all the stuff in my trucks fall out if I hang upside down?
Inquiring minds want to know!
Larry Fafarman · 26 December 2005
Pete Dunkelberg · 26 December 2005
k.e. · 26 December 2005
Bill
While we are at it, are those trucks Fords ?
And do you have to believe in Ford even if you prefer GM ?
.....oh I get it .......materialism is not consumerism according to the DI.
But
ifit is and that would tarnish theirChristianityConsumerism.PvM · 26 December 2005
Stephen Elliott · 26 December 2005
Pete Dunkelberg · 26 December 2005
bill Farrell · 26 December 2005
Regarding Behe's "definition" if IC:
What is "several?" Two, three, more than three? Several is a subjective term.
What is "well-matched?" Closer than an angstrom? Smaller than a barn?
What is a "basic function?" How would it differ from a "complex function?"
What does "effectively cease functioning" mean? Stop altogether, run slower, run less efficient (but compared to what? What measure of efficiency is being used? What would be the theoretical maximum "efficiency" of a flagellum (say) and what does that even mean?)
The problem with IC is that it's totally subjective. There is no rigor. Behe is right (ouch, it hurts to even type that!) when he says "he knows it when he sees it" because IC is like art. Every person who views it views it differently. Just like the concept of beauty, the concept of "irreducible complexity" can't be measured, can't be quantified and can't be described objectively.
Is a water molecule irreducibly complex? If you remove an atom of hydrogen or oxygen it ceases to perform its basic function of being water.
What we have here with "irreducibly complex" is a liberal arts statement, not a scientific propositon. My cat could measure the boiling and freezing points of water (if he could read a thermometer) and we would agree on the results of the measurements of those physical properties. But my cat and I would have very different opinions on what is beauty, or what is "acceptable" behaviour, for that matter.
PvM · 26 December 2005
sir_toejam · 26 December 2005
Pete Dunkelberg · 26 December 2005
The alleged 'incomplete' eyes were quite complete functioning organs at the time, and are yet in many organisms. Calling other eyes 'incomplete' because they are not just like ours is biologically incorrect and smacks of finalism.
Pete Dunkelberg · 26 December 2005
Bill, it is quite easy to recognize that some things are IC, and evolved. It is easy to see that IC is a normal result of evolution. Rather than quibbling over terms, one can recognize that evolution leads to co-adapted parts, and with these it is possible to designate 'systems', 'parts', and 'functions' satisfying the definition by any reasonable interpretation of the words. I recommend understanding the biological processes over debating terms.
bill Farrell · 26 December 2005
Hi, Pete,
I disagree with your comment in that it's quite easy to recognize that some things are IC. It's precisely the lack of definition that puts ID in such a bind.
I'm not quibbling over terms when I ask for an unambiguous definition and some measurable parameters.
I submit that IC is a subjective proposition; it is a figment of imagination and nothing more. It may be fascinating to discuss in a liberal arts context, but it has no place in science.
Therefore, Behe's entire thesis is invalid. It's time to put IC and ID into the dustbin of History, close the lid and move on to more interesting topics.
(my personal opinion, of course)
Larry Fafarman · 26 December 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 26 December 2005
Once again, Larry doesn't answer my questions. Once again, I'll ask them again.
*ahem*
Were your ID pals lying BEFORE when they told the court that "irreducible complexity" is a scientific theory of ID, or are they lying NOW when they say "irreducible complexity" is NOT a scientific theory of ID, but is just a "scientific criticism of evolution".
Larry, do you think we should also teach scientific evidence against heliocentrism?
How about scientific evidence against the germ theory of disease?
Scientific evidence against relativity? Against quantum mechanics? Against plate tectonics?
Why is it just evolution that gets your undies all bunched up? Is there a particular reason for that?
A religious reason, perhaps ... ?
Why are you so reluctant to answer my simple questions, Larry? Got something you (and your ID pals) need to hide, do you?
Stephen Elliott · 26 December 2005
Larry Fafarman · 26 December 2005
bill Farrell · 26 December 2005
Larry,
You appear to be in free-fall. First you say that IC is subjective, then hard to quantify then not possible to come up with a probability.
I think you're almost there.
The probability that ID is not science is 1.
The probability that IC is a subjective figment of the imagination is 1.
The remainder of your "reply", consisting of unrelated tidbits of well-worn creationist dogma are very tiring, indeed, but I give you high marks for including "evolution not science", "macroevolution", "microevolution" and "missing link" in a single paragraph. That alone should be worthy of some kind of a Darwin Award.
Pete Dunkelberg · 26 December 2005
Stephen Elliott · 26 December 2005
jeffw · 26 December 2005
the pro from dover · 26 December 2005
Sir toejam certainly picked up on the key remark by Larry in comment 64983. ID has no "scientific parts" by any accepted definition of science since ID denies the scientific method (methodologic Materialism) and is nothing more than the default position from ignorance. the correct statement should be "ID is criticism of evolution theory." No hoop jumping required or desired. "The scientific parts of ID are not scientific theories or hypotheses" is more priceless than any mastercard commercial.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 26 December 2005
Larry, are you going to answer my simple questions, or aren't you.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 26 December 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 26 December 2005
Larry Fafarman · 26 December 2005
Registered User · 26 December 2005
"the moon dust is too shallow"
I hadn't heard that one in a while. LOL!!!!
It's striking, however, that the dust is just right for human astronauts to step on. One might argue that the moon is "finely tuned" for human exploration (if one was a creationist apologist idiot).
Alexey Merz · 26 December 2005
Larry Fafarman · 26 December 2005
the pro from dover · 26 December 2005
Larry can critcize evolution until the cows come home or the rapture or whatever. The point is why is it that only evolution is being criticized for its insistance on non-metaphysical explanations (translate-materialism); Where all other significant scientific theories are equally based in it. Has anyone ever seen an atom? Much less a quark or lepton? Science isn't about explaining everything away. It is about predicting the results of experiments/observations not yet made. I think we'd all be intersted in any prospective testable collectable data predicted by ID. Criticizing evolution when not criticizing other theories in taxpayer funded public schools is deliberately misleading. Larry-homeschool your kids and send them to bible college.
Registered User · 26 December 2005
the pro from dover writes
I think we'd all be intersted in any prospective testable collectable data predicted by ID.
You want testable collectable data?
I got your data right here.
ID predicts that a deity-like being exists who created the universe and every living thing in it.
And voila! that prediction is satisfied when you pick up your Bible and believe what is written there.
A circular argument?
No more circular than the fact that if you don't believe me you are going to endure unbearable pain until the end of time after you die.
And this is better than science because you don't need to ask any more questions. Questioning the theory above amounts to little more than knocking on Satan's door and asking the Horned One to join you for breakfast on Rapture Day.
It boils down to this: you like science? You like pretending that you can explain the origin of all of life's diversity without invoking the Master Creator? Well, that's nice. Some people like to shoot heroin or smoke crack or have anal sex 24 hours a day or do all three at the same time.
But when He returns, it'll be too late to wish you had spent less time worshipping science and more time worshipping He Who Created Science.
It's a simple calculation.
jim · 26 December 2005
Larry,
Fundamentally you have to choose one of these approaches to this debate:
1) Believe the ID proponents
2) Believe the scientists
3) Research these topics for yourself
#3 requires the most work. With science you can trace the statements made by scientists (e.g. at TalkOrigins back to the original research. From that research you can actually reproduce the experiment and make the observations yourself. We've given you numerous references and additional reading on the subjects that seem the most interesting to you. You've apparently failed to do any of it, because with just a little reading/research you'd find how much the ID groups have lied to you.
If you plan to use either choice 1 or 2, you really should try to determine what their underlying motivations are and whether these motivations would encourage or discourage lying.
Towards this goal, you ought to know that all of the plaintiff's science experts provided their services for free. You also ought to know that the defendant's science experts charged at least $100/hour and W. Dembski charged $200/hour (for 100 hours of work) and none of his testimony was ever used in the trial.
This small example is indicative in every way of how the two sides are motivated.
So far you've waveringly followed choice #1. I'd say that nearly every person that reads and posts to this blog would by far prefer you followed choice #3. You see, science is all about questioning/challenging authority/the status quo. However, the best way to this is to know what the current status quo is and the only way to do that is to read.
So please go and read some of the references pointed out to you. If you wish to discuss these or have points not covered, please bring them up. However, you have about 0 credibility until you actually go out and do some work.
I strongly suggest that you start with the Kitzmiller trial ruling summary.
Next if you need more information, try reading the whole ruling.
Finally, I'd suggest reading the TalkOrigins FAQ. Nearly every one of your points is addressed at length there.
sir_toejam · 26 December 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 26 December 2005
jeffw · 26 December 2005
jim · 26 December 2005
Larry,
I've only been at PT since September. The only "new" take that you have is whining about the Kitzmiller decision. Since you and I are not lawyers, I've found it very humorous that you "object" to the decisions made by someone who's career is law.
It's like a stranger coming in off the street and throwing a hissy fit when the neuro-surgeon doesn't follow his advice.
In essence your position is "The world should quit listening to people that have studied biology for 8 or more years and practiced it for decades and should follow my uneducated and inexperienced opinion."
And don't forget "The world should quit listening to people that have studied law for 7 or more years and practiced it for decades and should follow my uneducated and inexperienced opinion."
Do you see how ridiculous your position is? You are ignorant of these topics and yet you shout out that everyone should value your opinion over those that do this for a living.
So Larry, are there any other professions that should abandon their collective wisdom and follow your advice instead (Aeronautical Engineering, Neuro-surgery, Micro-circuitry design, or medical device designer)?
You believe ID because it's philosophy is compatible with some of your deep, core beliefs. You've never actually questioned these beliefs or tried to learn the basis of those beliefs. You are projecting this onto others and assuming that they must hold their "beliefs" for similar reasons.
You are wrong. Although I agree that every person holds core beliefs that they don't subject to rigorous testing, science tries very hard to question all assumptions and investigate their validity. You are arguing with people that have studied these subjects for *decades*. You have ranted multiple times that your "opinion" should be held with *at least* as regard as others. Yet this position is totally ridiculous.
I maintain that unless you go and do some basic research yourself, we shouldn't waste our time with your musings.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 26 December 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 26 December 2005
Where are Sal and Nelson and Beckwith? I weary of these pig-ignorant third-rate ID amateurs like Larry. I want ID's, uh, "best and brightest" again. I'm not finished ripping them a new one.
Or are they now too ashamed and embarrassed to show their faces in public any more?
sir_toejam · 26 December 2005
They're laying low 'till the heat's off.
Tice with a J · 26 December 2005
Larry Fafarman · 26 December 2005
Larry Fafarman · 26 December 2005
Larry Fafarman · 26 December 2005
jim · 27 December 2005
Larry,
I recall seeing many questions asked of you. However, telling people that your opinion should carry more weight is different than answering questions.
I think the essence of the questions expressed here is have you investigate your opinion to see whether others have already considered your line of thinking and also discover what they found.
I think in nearly case, you'll find that the ideas behind your opinion have already well considered by many others in some cases over a century ago. I'll leave it to you to go out and discover what they found. The TalkOrigins archive is an excellent place to begin.
Alexey Merz · 27 December 2005
jim · 27 December 2005
Larry,
You're entitled to object all you want. That you expect everyone else to think your "opinion" should carry more weight than Judge Jones (a Federal Judge, appointed by GW Bush), that's funny.
So, go read up at TalkOrigins, and get back to us with any questions.
argy stokes · 27 December 2005
Uncommon Descent is done... go check it out.
gregonomic · 27 December 2005
RBH · 27 December 2005
Alexey Merz · 27 December 2005
IIRC that's correct, RBH. In any case it's Larry's assertion and up to him to provide evidence for it. Which, given his typically creationist posting pattern (I base this on >10 years of reading creationist "arguments" on the web and before that on usenet), he will fail to do. After all, it appears that he can't even be troubled to read the 139 pages of large type in the Court's decision, despite his many posts on the subject.
limpidense · 27 December 2005
Larry F.
You seem a bit confused about the actual meaning of "stupid, feeble-minded ignoramus." If you add, "nasty-tempered" you need not check the dictionary to find the definition, just peep into a mirror.
Larry Fafarman · 27 December 2005
sir_toejam · 27 December 2005
sir_toejam · 27 December 2005
larry:
look at the thread's title again:
Activist Judge or just poor reading skills?
now given that not just a few, but MANY folks here have asked you to actually go read the trial transcript yourself, and go to talk origins to read the answers to much of the drivel you posted, and given that you apparently refuse to do either (showing us your opinions are based on your own personal worldview, rather than any evidence in fact)...
Which way do you think you come down on the question posed by the thread title?
seems pretty obvious to everyone here.
Is it obvious to you too?
Larry Fafarman · 27 December 2005
sir_toejam · 27 December 2005
Registered User · 27 December 2005
Larry
"The TMLC's attorneys were presumably among the best to be had in this area of the law --- this is their area of specialization."
That's funny.
News flash: religious fanatics make crappy lawyers because they have trouble remembering that their beliefs are, um, religious beliefs and not "facts" in the way that courtrooms typically treat "facts."
And before anyone jumps in to cite Jay Sekulow: he appears to be one of those Christian on the outside / money-grubbing hypocrite on the inside. He knows a good gig when he sees it from his private jet.
As for Casey Luskin, time will tell. I'm guessing he's one o' dem true-believin' religious fanatics who won't amount to a pile of creation science textbooks.
Stephen Elliott · 27 December 2005
Larry Fafarman · 27 December 2005
limpidense · 27 December 2005
Larry,
I mean, I WAS just curious enough to see your reaction to the wholesale and completely comprehensible trashing of your silly, dishonestly ignorant blow-hardings that I thought I'd check in for the sake of seeing how funny someone with nothing, not even a sense of humor, can be before I take a vow to simply scroll past whatever further tiresome nonsense (and I'm sure it will be a "till death you do part" period) you inflict upon those who are willing to waste time playing with silly wabbits like yourself, and I am glad to say you haven't disappointed me.
Oh, and I can easily answer your question!
Larry F. said:
"So tell me, who is (are) [I really DUG the parenthetical remarks!] the moron(s) here"
Why, YOU are, Larry! And it is a real pleasure to be the one to confirm it but, c'mon! You must have had a sneaking suspicion of the fact, eh?
P.S. I believe in your case it is properly spelled: m-o-r-A-n.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 27 December 2005
Stephen Elliott · 27 December 2005
jim · 27 December 2005
Larry Fafarman · 27 December 2005
Stephen Elliott · 27 December 2005
Larry Fafarman · 27 December 2005
Larry Fafarman · 27 December 2005
Alexey Merz · 27 December 2005
PvM · 27 December 2005
jim · 27 December 2005
Larry,
Check this: Waterloo in Dover: Comment 54595.
Note it contains a link to the primary resource at the York Daily Reporter archives and that is fee based. I think searching for "No Dover liability insurance" should get you the information you want.
Alexey Merz · 27 December 2005
Jim, there's really no reason to do Larry's Google searches for him. He's stated that he is impervious to evidence, anyway.
PvM · 27 December 2005
jim · 27 December 2005
Alexey,
I know. I just realized that this was one piece of evidence that had been oft quoted but not been referenced in this thread yet. Now he just has another piece of evidence he'll have to ignore.
k.e. · 27 December 2005
The neat feature of Creationist's world view is they get permission to completely disregard:-
authority of other religions,
authority of government,
authority of law,
authority of reality as revealed by science.
Their enemies are all of the above
Their hero's are liars
They have no problem justifying all of the above
They behave exactly the same as soldiers taking orders no questions asked
They use "God told me to do it" to justisfy all of the above-
The Neuremburg defense.
That makes them outlaws of the worst kind
Larry ---Think for Yourself
Google it you will get a surprise
Over to you Larry.
Tice with a J · 27 December 2005
The dung flew and the flames rose, and amidst the foul smell and scorching heat, all hope for reasonable discussion faded away, and the point of the original post was lost forever.
This discussion has not been a total loss (special thanks to PvM, and a few others whom I am too lazy to name here), but overall, it has degenerated into flames, name-calling, and empty threats. We can do better than this, my fellow pandas and people.
And Larry Fafarman? You may not have started this, but when someone trolls at you, the worst thing you can do is troll in response, and your actions stand as shining examples of what not to do in a discussion. I hope that in the future, you will do the research necessary to support your claims and show the level of civility you asked of the other posters.
Larry Fafarman · 27 December 2005
k.e. · 27 December 2005
Au Contraire Tice the 'discussion' has not been a total loss at all.
A revealing demonstration of the mindset by the typical creationist is always useful and undeniable.
Steviepinhead · 27 December 2005
scientific, any person who possessed even the feeblest quantum of curiosity about the amazing world that we find ourselves in, would have run not walked to look at those fossils. Even a person utterly lacking in curisoity, but who found themselves in an argument in which evidence of this potency had been cited, would have immediately checked out the fossils just to try to fashion some kind of counter-argument. Larry, of course, utterly ignores the existence of this line of evidence. He lives in that fantasy world where unsupported opinions count as evidence and where fervency of belief backed up with any handy misrepresentation ought to carry the day in a court of law. He wonders why we think he's a moron and why we're oh-so-mean to him. He can wonder about those things till the end of time. Anyone else who's been reading along will have had plenty of evidence with which to reach the inescapable conclusions long ago. Larry, I would hope that you had a Merry Christmas, but since you spent the holidays here--leaking brain cells you can't afford to lose all over the screen--it is too late for me to help you with that. But please do have a Happy New Year--because, as jim pointed out above, if 2006 confronts you with any real situations of the squeaky variety, your opinions aren't going to be worth diddly-squat.Alexey Merz · 27 December 2005
What are you on about, Tice? When a crazy person accosts me, I tell him he's crazy and to stop talking nonsense. When someone lies transparently I call him on it. When someone makes ungrounded assertions that are demonstrably incorrect and obviously uninformed, and then claims that it's up to me to provide evidence to the contrary, I will give him the benefit of the doubt once or twice, but if he presses on in the same vein, I will point out as publicly as possible that he is not arguing in good faith. This is what I and others on this thread have done.
It's simple: someone who lurches onto a public forum and spouts half-informed (and even that is overly generous) nonsense over a long series of posts while refusing to acknowledge numerous corrections by others does not deserve to have his feelings spared.
AC · 27 December 2005
Stephen Elliott · 27 December 2005
John Hinkle · 27 December 2005
Steviepinhead · 27 December 2005
Oh, and Larry, an insurance policy is a contract. You pay the premiums, regularly and on time, and they agree to pay you back if you incur certain specified kinds of losses.
Most policies don't end there. Hint: that's why they are multiple-page forms. By now, of course, we know you have difficulty reading multiple-page documents (like, oh, judicial decisions, biology textbooks, the Wedge document--oh, wait, that one really wasn't very long, but you still admit that you only read the summary).
Most liability policies not only agree to indemnify you--up to the limits of the policy and for the specific kinds of losses that are covered--but they also provide you with a lawyer to defend the claim against you. Given what it would cost you to pay for your own attorney, this feature is often even more valuable than the agreement to pay.
Except this free-defense feature doesn't come free either. The insurance company will defend you, and lay its money on the line, only if it gets to choose the lawyer and control the defense (again, within various legal limits, including the insurer's duties of good faith to its insured and to avoid taking positions that conflict with those of its insured).
Of course, if you're made of money--like the school board apparently was not--then you can also go out and hire your own personal lawyer to serve alongside the insurance defense lawyer as co-counsel, to watchdog the insurance lawyer, or even to take on the insurance company in the event that the insurer does something improper or incompetent.
What an intelligent insured--particulary an insured like the school board, which owes to its constituents the duty to properly manage the public funds entrusted to its care--does not do without a helluva good reason, is to simply refuse the insurer's attorney and to reject the insurer's right to direct the defense.
When a poorly-advised bunch of morons--excuse me, I meant the former school board--nonetheless proceeds to so reject and refuse, then--guess what?--the insurance company turns right around and says, "Oops, no company-appointed lawyer, no company-guided defense, no company-paid judgment."
Put in terms that even Larry ought to be able to understand: "Hey, if you bozos want to breach the contract of insurance, by all means, be our guests, but don't plan on looking to us when it all turns out less glowingly than the TMLC predicts."
Got that now, Larry? If so, good, 'cause it would be the first new item of information you've actually integrated since you arrived.
Or simply google: breach cooperation clause insurance.
Tice with a J · 27 December 2005
Alexey Merz · 27 December 2005
Tice with a J · 27 December 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 27 December 2005
I think we should all thank Larry. He demonstrated to the lurkers, clearly and without question, exactly why the IDers lost in Dover, and why they will also lose in Kansas.
Larry is flat-out lying to us when he claims his "scientific arguments against evolution" aren't religiously motivated. IDers lied to Judge Jones when they told him the same thing. The Kansas Kooks also lied to us by saying the same thing about their, uh, "scientific evidence against evolution" --- and then went on to tell the newspapers all about the religious motivation for their "scientific arguments".
Larry, despite repeated questions, refuses to tell us what his motivation is, if it ain't religious, and why it's only evolution that gets his panties all atwitter (and concidentally, it's only evolution that the fundie whackos have been ranting against for 150-plus years now). Alas, in court, they will NOT be able to avoid answering these questions. Also, they will have to tell the judge just exactly what these "scientific arguments against evolution" are, and then explain why they are absolutely identical in every way, word for word, with both ID and creation 'science' --- both of which have already been ruled illegal.
Larry, like his ID pals in Dover, is a deceptive evasive dishonest liar.
And judges, for some odd reason, don't like liars very much.
Perhaps that is why creationists/IDers have lost every single Federal court case they have ever been involved with. Every single solitary one. Without exception.
PvM · 27 December 2005
Larry Fafarman · 27 December 2005
PvM · 27 December 2005
Alexey Merz · 27 December 2005
Is it possible that you really are that lazy, Larry? Search the PDF yourself. I'd guess that the word "iota" is not used more than 2 or three times in the whole document. As for the rest I accuse you of being deliberately obtuse.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 27 December 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 27 December 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 27 December 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 27 December 2005
Larry Fafarman · 27 December 2005
I originally thought that the Panda's Thumb website was an open forum where people came to discuss the controversies concerning the origin of species. However, so far I have found no other ID or creationism proponents here, no neutral people, and a lot of supercilous evolutionists who rely mostly on ad hominem attacks, guilt-by-association, rudeness, lies, dogma, evasion, sarcasm, and nitpicking arguments. The other people left because they just got turned off by this bullshit. I have now concluded that the Panda's Thumb website is now mainly just a place where evolutionists come for mutual backscratching. I feel that Panda's Thumb is undeserving of the 2005 award it got from Scientific American magazine. I have concluded that the America Online message boards give a much better overview of the subject. The problem with the AOL message boards on the subject is that they have no or little activity for much of the time.
If I were really the bible-thumping lunatic-fringe fundy crackpot that you folks imply, I think that you folks would have stopped responding to my posts a long time ago.
I think that Judge Jones' statement "I am not an activist judge" will go down in history alongside Pres. Nixon's "I am not a crook" and Pres. Clinton's "I did not have sex with that woman."
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 27 December 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 27 December 2005
Hey Larry, before you ride off into the sunset on your snow-white horse, how about answering my last question to you:
I thought you said you didn't have religious motives, Larry. If so, then what do you care whether a designer exists or not, or whether people accept the existence of a designer or not? After all, you're NOT presenting a scientific theory of ID in classrooms --- you're just "presenting the scientific evidence against evolution", right?
Or are you just lying to us. Again.
jim · 27 December 2005
Lenny,
Hahahahahaha. I had a real good laugh and told that one to my wife with tears in my eyes :)
Larry,
Hahahahahaha. You troll.
Re: Scientific American award.
Once again your opinion doesn't count. I for one am not surprised.
Just out of curiousity, does your opinion count in *any* field? How about the people at work? Do they think your opinion counts?
I'm not aware of any lies told to you. Do you have any evidence or is this another unfounded assertion?
As to the others, well you see you started espousing a bunch of just plain untrue stuff. We corrected you and provided references so you could check for yourself. So now you're down to you thumping your bible and yelling that we're bullies. And those of us still reading this thread are down to the less polite stuff. If you'd go out and read the stuff we've provided and formulate some intelligent responses (for or against) based on that stuff, we'd all be a lot more polite. Until then, you're being treated as a troll.
Larry Fafarman · 27 December 2005
Steviepinhead · 27 December 2005
La La La La Larry.
Or was that, Ta Ta Larry.
I'd hope so, but that would just bring you back again, since you apparently subscribe to the belief that what people state most articulately is the opposite of what they believe. Oh, Larry, no, please don't leave on such a sour note! Pretty please, stick around and sermoROnize us some more!
(Which I guess would make you an evilutionist...)
Larry, the insurance coverage (limit on the amount the insurance company would pay in the event of a loss) was only $100,000, but that does not limit the company's duty to provide a defense. Companies frequently pay out far more to defend spurious claims than they would if they simply settled them within the limits of the policy.
So your fellow morons not only gave away $100,000 in potential coverage--not nearly enough to cover all that they will owe toward the plaintiffs' fees and costs, but $100,000 more than they now have available to them--but they also gave up a no-limit right to a defense by competent insurance defense counsel.
You, moron that you are, will now be thinking something along the lines of: "But one 'free' defense is as good as another."
Yeah, and one religion-blinded lawyer is just as good as one who is able to view the predicament the board was walking into more-or-less objectively.
And one thing that a bunch of creos *tell* you is a theory is just as good as one with 150 years of evidence behind it.
Lurkers for Larry · 27 December 2005
Larry, don't give up now. I know AOL is safer, and you can win more tokens, but please don't let the seeds you've planted here today whither and die. You put that crazy reverend guy in his place and now it time to go in for the kill.
Please Larry, don't let us down.
Don Baccus · 27 December 2005
Steviepinheads for Larry · 27 December 2005
PvM · 27 December 2005
Sorry to hear that Larry has decided that the criticism of his positions have become unbearable (and perhaps unanswerable).
His confusions about ID and scientific relevance or his unfamiliarity with ID claims as well as the Judge's ruling might have frustrated his efforts to communicate to us that all he was really arguing was:
It's legal to teach the controversy.
Of course IC is neither a 'controversy' scientifically speaking and ID's motivation to switch to 'teach the controversy' was disingeneous at best.
If larry is interested in teaching the controversy, then he should rely less on creationist arguments and try to present some scientifically relevant concepts.
Of course there is no rule against teaching nonsense or pseudo-science but that undermines Larry's stated purpose of 'teaching the controversy'.
ID is scientifically vacuous.
And yes, there are many controversies within evolution. Of course, many of them are to new and unresolved to be discussed in high-schools but some controversies which have been resolved can and have been presented such as the role of neutral mutations or the endosymbosis hypothesis.
Irreducible complexity has been shown to be inappropriately used to argue in favor for ID and has been shown to be scientifically severely flawed.
Why should we teach a flawed idea? Or is Larry in favor of teaching any and all flawed idea?
I doubt it.
Alexey Merz · 27 December 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 27 December 2005
Alexey Merz · 27 December 2005
Larry Fafarman · 27 December 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 27 December 2005
Larry, JUST READ THE GODDAMN RULING.
Jeeez.
k.e. · 27 December 2005
Gee Larry ......
Yeah its a bit hard to take...
All this stuff about the Fundamentalist project being sunk and all
Wow you were on a winner there for a while.....eh?
Pity about the LAST HONORABLE MAN IN THE GOP
Yeah.... he is a dirty rotten...scoundrel isn't he ?
Rotten to the core ....just when you had it all wrapped up.
Fired a shot across the bow of those pirates trying to take off with the truth and who at the same time were leaving a stinking pile of elephant droppings that they swore on a stack of bibles was the truth.
You were going to fix those dirty liberals once and for all.
Just like every other despot in history when they got their hands on the sepulcher of power and removed everyones liberties and had their highest courts change evidence to valueless nonsense and their "One True Word Of GODTM" as interpreted by Fundamentalists because it would destroy a belief in the creator but even worse (really) make people question their right to lie
Who was it that said
..."You can't fool all of the people all of the time"
JY · 27 December 2005
Steviepinhead · 27 December 2005
Larry, you wouldn't be passively "getting" a lot of contradictory information here if you'd ever learned to actively collect evidence and weigh it for yourself.
Just because you tell your lawyer in private that you murdered someone--which does make it "confidential" information that the lawyer can't reveal--doesn't mean that the cops, the prosecutor, or the judge can't ask you what you were doing on the night of the 14th between the hours of two and three in the morning... Or prevent them from asking you how the victim's blood got all over your clothes.
Or, just for you, let's use a simpler example. You tell your doctor "in confidence" that you need the doctor's help because you were injured when you ran a red light. The doctor enters this information in your "private" medical records. Then you go out and sue the other driver, dishonestly claiming that it was she who ran the red light.
Because you are suing to recover for the injuries treated by the doctor, the doctor's records and testimony have now become relevant evidence in a court proceeding that you brought on yourself. You now learn that, in so doing, you are considered to have "waived" the patient-physician privilege and that the otherwise-private admission you made to your doctor is now open evidence in your case. Oops!
In all seriousness, son, you need to go back up to the start of this thread. First re-read the second part of the title, the part about "poor reading skills."
And then re-read all the links you have been provided with (and ignored) and all the perfectly-fair questions you have been asked (but have failed to answer). And then, like Mary, you need to do some pondering...
Please, for your own good, do this now, before you post yet another of your increasingly uninformed comments.
PvM · 27 December 2005
PvM · 27 December 2005
In fact it seems that the email was shared by Nilsen with everyone present at the Board Curriculum Committee meeting.
Alexey Merz · 27 December 2005
Steve S · 27 December 2005
Anyway, IANAL, but IIRC, federal law generally doesn't protect attorney information, just client information. And only if the client asserts the priveledge.
In other words, Larry's grasp of the law is like his grasp of biology.
Larry Fafarman · 27 December 2005
Steviepinhead · 27 December 2005
I give up.
I think someone's been running one of those AI Turing tests on us.
It puts sentences together, but it can't be real. No real person could be this oblivious to tone.
PvM · 27 December 2005
Larry Fafarman · 27 December 2005
'Rev. Dr.' Lenny, I have answered some of your questions -- now maybe you could return the favor by answering a big one of mine --
Where is it written that the alleged validity of an existing scientific theory may not be scientifically challenged unless a plausible alternative scientific theory or hypothesis is presented at the same time?
Tice with a J · 28 December 2005
Larry Fafarman · 28 December 2005
PvM · 28 December 2005
Sigh. Time to let Larry vent his frustration. Must be hard to be on the wrong side :-)
Carol Clouser · 28 December 2005
PvM,
"Irreducible complexity has been shown to be inappropriately used to argue in favor for ID and has been shown to be scientifically severely flawed.
Why should we teach a flawed idea? Or is Larry in favor of teaching any and all flawed idea?"
I find these words of yours to be very revealing. You may not have explicitly intended it as such, but you have subconsciously exposed the unwarranted hubris I have seen in many of my colleagues in the scientific community. First you declare some idea "scientifically flawed", then you go from there, without even pausing to catch your breath, to the conclusion that it is "flawed" period. Do you not realize that an idea might not be scientific, yet have much merit?
Well, I have news for you. Here is a confession of a scientist. SCIENCE IS NOT THE ONLY WAY TO THE TRUTH. Despite its very many accomplishments, science remains a method limited by constraints. These are justifiably self-imposed constraints, but they are constraints nonetheless. And a solid argument can be made that certain other approaches to the truth are in some important ways perhaps superior to and more powerful than the scientific one. Mathematics comes to mind. Philosophy in some ways too. And any scientist with some sophistication should agree that this is so.
This is NOT to say that IC is not flawed on all counts. If something is truly "irreducibly complex", and that's a big "if", as defined by the ID folks, than that needs to be dealt with, honestly and forthrightly. I am not sure 14 years olds is the appropriate age group to do so, but it does belong in Biology class, where the issue comes up.
Stephen Elliott · 28 December 2005
seriously challengedcompletely dissproved evolution. What would you do with it? You could:- a) Write a valuable scientific paper showing your evidence to the scientific community. Answer any challengers and show evidence and experiments that confirm your challenge. Go on to win a Nobel prize and world renown. or would you. b) Not bother getting published in respected journals. Hire a PR firm to present your findings to the uneducated (in this area) general public. Demand that your challenge be taught to teenagers in high school. or maybe c) Do something completely different.Stephen Elliott · 28 December 2005
Larry Fafarman · 28 December 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 28 December 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 28 December 2005
Carol, do you, or do you not, think that your religious opinions should be accepted as scientific evidence?
Larry, if ID/creationism/"arguments against evolution" are not religious or based on religion, then why is Carol preaching her religious opinions here?
By the way, Larry, Carol's religious opinion is that the New Testament is full of crap. Do you agree with her opinion on that?
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 28 December 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 28 December 2005
Larry Fafarman · 28 December 2005
Stephen Elliott · 28 December 2005
bill · 28 December 2005
Larry and Carol sitting in a tree
D.I.S.S.I.N.G.
Larry's right that IC isn't rocket science, but why stop there.
IC isn't science, it's an opinion.
Too bad Sal's not here. You guys could have a threesome.
Larry Fafarman · 28 December 2005
PvM · 28 December 2005
Larry Fafarman · 28 December 2005
Larry Fafarman · 28 December 2005
Alexey Merz · 28 December 2005
Alexey Merz · 28 December 2005
PvM · 28 December 2005
PvM · 28 December 2005
PvM · 28 December 2005
KL · 28 December 2005
How many things in this operate on "public opinion"? Science doesn't give a hoot what the public thinks. Science education is not governed by public opinion. Medical schools don't teach what the "public" decides is important. Perhaps we as a society have gotten too pumped up on media generated opinion polls. Does it really matter if 60% of the public believes in ghosts? Does that mean that study of the paranormal belongs in high school physics class? That "haunting" becomes a standard diagnosis in medicine? That a defense attorney can offer a alternative explanation (a ghost did it) when defending his client against criminal charges?
A thinking person would easily agree that one values expertise: I get my legal advice from a lawyer, not a teacher. I get advice on what and how to teach in sciences from organizations like NSTA and experienced colleagues, not from my priest. I get health advice from my physician, not my younger brother (who is a ship pilot). And, if I have a question regarding an area that I know little about, I am not going to accept unsupported opinions from anyone, nor form my own opinions without educating myself as much as I can.
What is taught in secondary school science and college science is determined by scientists and science educators. Period. If someone has a problem with that they are free to learn something else, or teach their children something else. However, no complaining is allowed when they find that they are unqualified to join the scientific community as a researcher, can't get into a grad program, get turned down at med school, can't pass the AP exam in biology. You can come to my home and I'll teach you my opinions on the law, but I bet you'll fail the bar in every state.
Larry Fafarman · 28 December 2005
k.e. · 28 December 2005
Larry
Would you mind just explaining WHAT EXACTLY Irreducible complexity IS
You may be seduced by nonsense words but from where I sit they have absolutely no meaning whatsoever. Pure drivel.
Try writing a very short sentence that explains what those 2 words used together mean. No longer that 10 words.
The reason why the Judge arrived at his decision is that the scientist who coined the phrase Irreducible complexity revealed that it was a meaningless statement, he simply told the truth on the witness stand ,the Judge duly told the world.
Now here is a hint why you are
incapable of deducing nonsense from common sense, untruth from truth.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A640207
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obscurantism
Now since you are unable to EXPLAIN what Irreducible complexity IS (appart from nonsense)and thus proven your
Argumentum ad nauseam
Perhaps in your 'expert opinion' WHAT are several
scientifictestable evidential challenges toevolutionyour descent from apes and why Adam and Eve have Navels.Before you reply take a look at these arguments and choose something different
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_Defense
k.e. · 28 December 2005
And why did IC automatically become a religious concept when
Judge Jones decidedBehe told him that it is scientifically erroneous and a religious conceptJudge Jones is definitely an "activist" judge.
Ignoratio elenchi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi
Registered User · 28 December 2005
Carol and Larry, sitting in a tree, k-i-s-s-i-n-g,
First comes love, then comes marriage,
Then comes little creationist book-peddling idiots in a baby carriage.
Alexey Merz · 28 December 2005
To Behe's credit, his testimony under oath was honest. This was, of course, devastating to the case for ID-as-science.
Larry Fafarman · 28 December 2005
We can argue from now until doomsday about the scientific merits of irreducible complexity, or about whether or not it is OK to teach or discuss unaccepted science, erroneous science, or pseudoscience in public-school science classes. But to me, the basic question here is this -- does teaching or discussing IC in public-school science classes violate the constitutional principle of the separation of church and state ? My answer is "no." Judge Jones' answer is "yes."
PvM · 28 December 2005
PvM · 28 December 2005
k.e. · 28 December 2005
Larry Said
"We can argue from now until doomsday"
Argumentum ad nauseam
utterly pointless
you old dispensationalist
"Hope deferred makes the heart sick"
(Proverbs 13:12)
dispensationalist dementia
http://www.preteristarchive.com/dEmEnTiA/
Larry Said
"does teaching or discussing IC in public-school science classes violate the constitutional principle of the separation of church and state ? My answer is "no." Judge Jones' answer is "yes."
WRONG AGAIN
another False Statement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_statement
READ THE JUDGMENT
Judge Jones suggested "social studies"
Alexey Merz said
To Behe's credit, his testimony under oath was honest. This was, of course, devastating to the case for ID-as-science
Yes Alex his conscience is clear on that count.
If I was to be cynical however ....he may have had the smug knowledge in the back of his mind that the check was in the bank for his book
KL · 28 December 2005
"But to me, the basic question here is this --- does teaching or discussing IC in public-school science classes violate the constitutional principle of the separation of church and state ?"
Why else would anyone teach bad science, pseudoscience, creation science in science class? Because they have a goal to dumb down public education? Because some corporation stands to profit? Because some foreign country is trying to break down American society from within so they can take over? The plaintiffs in the Dover case suspected that the goal was religious, and after hearing all the evidence, Jones agreed. That violates the constitution. Jones could have discovered another goal instead of a religious goal, (though to be honest, I can't imagine what it would be) and then he may have had a different response, at least on the constitutional question (I am guessing, but I know little about constitutional law).
On the other hand, imagine this scenario: If there had been scientific merit in ID's claims, eventually we'd be adding it to curriculums nationwide as more research and publication strengthened and defined the theory. At the most, Jones might chide the school for being too hasty and urge them to wait until adequate curriculum materials were published.
Ooops, time to wake up from your dream and smell the expresso. That didn't happen.
jim · 28 December 2005
Since Judge Jones:
1) saw the IDM evidence and heard the IDM testimony in the trial
2) saw the plaintiff's evidence and heard the plaintiff's testimony in the trial
3) is knowledgeable in US Federal Law
4) cited case law to support his decision
5) cited the evidence presented to support his decision
6) and obviously you have NOT bothered to read his ruling let alone read through the trial transcripts
I think it would be the height of stupidity for anyone to care what you think.
Now if you want to get ID taught in philosophy, theology, or even political science; by all means, knock yourself out.
If you want to get ID taught as science, then tell the bozos behind the movement to *DO* the science, get their evidence submitted to the relevant journals, and get it accepted by the scientific community.
Otherwise any crackpot that wants their pet idea taught has an equally valid case to get their ideas taught. "I want science students taught that the sun is a giant ball of margarine!"
Alexey Merz · 28 December 2005
jlm, are you saying that the sun is not a giant ball of margarine? I had no idea....
KL · 28 December 2005
You silly thing. Everyone knows that it is a giant pepperoncini.
RAmen
k.e. · 28 December 2005
Don't forget Osiris and Isis
gregonomic · 28 December 2005
Paul Flocken · 28 December 2005
Tice with a J · 28 December 2005
Steviepinhead · 28 December 2005
Steviepinhead · 28 December 2005
Oops: make that "semi-clever computer program."
Larry Fafarman · 28 December 2005
sir_toejam · 28 December 2005
Larry, you're still here?
get me a soda would ya?
that's a good lad.
PvM · 28 December 2005
KL · 28 December 2005
So, you are saying you want pseudoscience and scientific error taught? You want IC, even though it is not a valid scientific criticism for evolution, taught to kids? Whatever for??? What would this accomplish? If you want to teach the "unknowns" or the "yet unsolved" parts of a scientific theory, why plug the gap with BS? or philosophy? or mysticism? What on earth does that accomplish? How does that strengthen science education? What you're saying makes absolutely no sense. Unless, of course, evolutionary theory specifically gets your panties in a wad, and therefore ANYTHING, no matter what, even crap, is better than teaching just evolution. Then, of course, your motive becomes the question.
Steviepinhead · 28 December 2005
Ahem.
As I think I just explained, and as gregonomic and others have pointed out as well, Larry's program doesn't really know how to read.
Having run out of its originally-programmed fund of stock sayings, Larry's program is now reduced to recycling things it's already "said."
Let's not push it too hard--our screens might start smoking as it expires. And at least here in Seattle, it's illegal to smoke inside.
Larry Fafarman · 28 December 2005
KL · 28 December 2005
Furthermore, Behe's testimony did tremendous damage to other scientific criticisms of evolution theory, some of them having nothing to do with design, intelligent or otherwise.
Which ones? What damage was done?
Alexey Merz · 28 December 2005
jim · 28 December 2005
Larry,
You should know that Behe *also* that stated that belief in God was necessary to believe in ID/IC.
Did you know that Behe's testimony agreed with Minnich, Dembski, Johnson, Wells, and many of the DI's published materials that ID/IC is not scientific and is religiously motivated.
You should know that Judge Jones saw this information in *BOTH* the plaintiff's and the defense's evidence and testimony.
Larry let me repeat that, the DEFENSE admitted that ID/IC was NOT science and WAS religiously motivated. Now why do you think you know better than the "experts" on it?
Alexey Merz · 28 December 2005
Larry Fafarman · 28 December 2005
Steviepinhead · 28 December 2005
Alexey Merz · 28 December 2005
jim · 28 December 2005
Larry,
But as you know Judge Jones, Behe, Dembski, Johnson, Wells, etc. all agree that ID *IS* religion and there IS Constitutional Law providing for the separation of church and state.
I think you'd have to admit that the people that do think IC makes sense are NOT scientists. If you won't admit this, then please provide us with one scientist's name that agrees that IC makes scientific sense.
Larry Fafarman · 28 December 2005
bill · 28 December 2005
Yikes, I'm beginning to miss Jon Davison!
How do you like them Larry-berries?
Larry Fafarman · 28 December 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 28 December 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 28 December 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 28 December 2005
Larry, are you gonna answer my goddamn questions, or aren't you.
If you are just "presenting scientific evdience against evolution", then what do you care whether there is a designer or not, and what do you care if other people accept the existence of a designer or not.
Oh, and if you are so fastidious about "science", why aren't you out there ranting and raving about the scientific controversies concerning geology or astronomy or chemistry? Why is it just "evolution" that gets your underwear all disarranged?
Wait, let me guess ---------- it's just MERE COINCIDENCE that (1) your target is exactly the same target as all those fundamentalist nutballs who have been attacking evolution for 150 years, (2) your arguments are precisely word for word the very same as theirs, and (3) when your ID pals tried to argue that they/your arguments were an "alternative scientific theory of ID" in court and lost, they suddenly changed their mind, decided that their/your arguments were NOT really an "alternative scientific theory of ID" after all, and are REALLY just "scientific arguments against evolution" that have nothing at all whatsoever to do with ID --- and you instantly began parroting their new argument.
All just mere coincidence, right? No connection at all, right?
You are a liar, Larry. A deceptive, evasive, dishonest liar.
Steviepinhead · 28 December 2005
At some point, it's going to get around to being that time.
(That kindly stop re-booting the 'bot time, I mean.)
In the meantime, though:
Son! (shrug) Son! (shrug) Son! (shrug) Son! (shrug)
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 28 December 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 28 December 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 28 December 2005
KL · 28 December 2005
Signing off here-I have had more rational arguments with a 13 year old.
One last question for Larry: Where were you "educated"? (i.e. where did you get your bachelors, masters, etc?) I want my students to avoid applying to any of your alma maters until I thoroughly check them out.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 28 December 2005
Steviepinhead · 28 December 2005
I've always loved that "maroon" line, Lenny, and I have to agree that "Larry" is a particularly-deserving representative of the species: I've called him a "m*r*n" quite a few times myself, and he's certainly been flaunting a "Kick My Stupid Heinie" sign ever since he got here.
But we've done the whole dance with him now at least three times over. Even the occasional lurkers have to be getting bored with this maroon by now.
I'm utterly anti-ban, but maybe we should have a limit of, oh, 150 comments per thread per troll, with appropriate exemptions for the truly entertaining ones, of course.
Which, sorry "Larry," you're not one of.
jim · 28 December 2005
KL,
I've had more rational discussions with my 7-year old...
Alexey Merz · 28 December 2005
I agree that this thread has jumped its shark, survived its porpoise. I'm done.
KL · 28 December 2005
Yeah, I tried googling you Larry. What do you do for a living other than writing newspaper editors about confederate memorials?
http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2005/102005/10122005/136617
http://www.annistonstar.com/opinion/2005/as-letters-1204-speakout-5l02r3809.htm
http://www.alligator.org/pt2/051129letter2.php
And meteor showers?
http://lists.meteorobs.org/pipermail/meteorobs/2004-September/001030.html
Is this all from you? What is your profession? I couldn't find any professional sites for you.
PvM · 28 December 2005
Alexey Merz · 28 December 2005
Oh. Oh, I see. Running away, eh? You yellow bastards! Come back here and take what's coming to you. I'll bite your legs off! (*)
(*) Quoted with all due deference to T.O.'s legendary P.N.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 28 December 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 28 December 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 28 December 2005
And Larry is too stupid to understand meteor showers . . . .
What REALLY causes them, Larry? The flying saucers, you silly.
Hey Larry, do you also think that flouridated water is a commie plot?
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 28 December 2005
Alexey Merz · 28 December 2005
One last point for any newbie lurkers who might stumble upon this thread: Larry's arguments are not markedly worse than those of John West, Bill Dembski, Michael Behe, Salvador Cordova, or anyone else affiliated with the DI or TMLC.
Larry Fafarman · 28 December 2005
sir_toejam · 28 December 2005
man, haven't you changed your batteries yet?
that's right, larry, you're a pink plush toy, beating on the same tin drum endlessly.
why do you persist?
the credits have rolled, man, go home already.
Alexey Merz · 28 December 2005
I guess I spoke too soon. Yipes.
Larry Fafarman · 28 December 2005
Tice with a J · 28 December 2005
jim · 28 December 2005
Larry, nope ID only has IC and SC.
carol clouser · 28 December 2005
Paul Flocken,
(1) I don't agree that PvM intended to type the word "scientifically (flawed)" again but was lazy enough not to do so. He can speak for himself and he chose not make that claim in his response. So who are you to read his mind better than himself?
(2) You state that "science is not in the business of finding 'truth', it is in the business of discovering the real world". What kind of nonsense is this? Do you know what you yourself are saying? Sounds to me like you are saying that science is in the business of finding the truth about the real world. Which is just about what I was saying.
(3) You can throw your silly insults about "nutjobs" and the like, and spend your life analyzing the motivations of him, her, them and they, and it changes the bottom line not a tad. Study after study shows that more than half of americans think that life in all its diversity appeared suddenly a few thousand years ago. This is the result of the status quo in education, whose victory in Dover is being celebrating here. The elephant in the room of the High School Biology class is ID/creationism. Ignoring it has produced the result cited above. It needs to be discussed, confronted, evaluated and analyzed. Let science teacher do their job. ID is an idea. Ideas are not killed by courts, attacking its proponents, force, laws, governments, ridicule or ignoring them. Ideas can only be killed by better ideas.
(4) You don't need to hypothesize about what I meant by "truth", my meaning was clear and straightforward. You are now descending into the sewer with Lenny by adopting his tactics.
(5) Your question about methods other than science contributing to physics, for example, is ridiculous. Physics by definition is a branch of science. Why don't you ask instead about the contribution of other methods to our knowledge of, for example, shapes and figures vs. the contribution of the scientific method. I would much rather see a convincing abstract mathematical proof than discover truths about shapes and figures via the scientific method. I think I can cite many more such examples.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 28 December 2005
Alexey Merz · 28 December 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 28 December 2005
Carol, do you, or do you not, think that science should accept your religious opinions as "evidence"?
And, since both you and Heddle claim to be speaking on behalf og God, why is it you don't say the same things? One of you says the New Testament is the word of God, one fo you says it ain't.
How can we tell which of you is right?
And why should science give a flying fig about your religious opinions anyway?
PvM · 28 December 2005
N. Nerode · 28 December 2005
"It does not matter whether irreducible complexity has been proven to be valid or not, because many scientific concepts that are taught have not been proven to be valid."
Read the finding of fact. The IC argument is falsifiable, yes -- and it has been very thoroughly falsified. In addition, it's never made a correct prediction.
I challenge you to name a "scientific concept that is taught" which has (a) been thoroughly falsified, and (b) has never made a correct prediction.
In fact there are very few falsified scientific concepts which are still taught at all. The only one I can think of is Newtonian mechanics, which is still taught because its predictions are *really close* to the current best theories, good enough for most situations -- and because the current theories (Einstein's relativity theory and quantum mechanics) are a lot more complicated and hard to use. And we admit all this to the students up front.
sir_toejam · 29 December 2005
Steviepinhead · 29 December 2005
sir_toejam · 29 December 2005
that almost sounded like an insult to monkeys, not what you intended, I'm sure?
Steviepinhead · 29 December 2005
No, absolutely no insult to the many intelligent monkeys I have personally known and had dinner with--or to any of their conspecifics, one and all--was implied.
What I meant was, if evolution is true, and monkeys and "Larry"s are somehow related by common descent, and there are plenty of intelligent and well-adapted and -evolved monkeys in the world, how could even one "Larry" have survived, survival-of-the-fittest wise? Shouldn't evolution have left "him" fafar behind, man?
Of could "Larry" not be a 'bot at all, but instead be the randomly-generated "product" of all those intelligent monkeys, trapped in medical testing facilities, bored out of their skulls, tippy-typing away while the lab assistants are dreaming their under-compensated lives away?
sir_toejam · 29 December 2005
haven't you ever hear the expression:
the exception proves the Larry, er rule?
Larry Fafarman · 29 December 2005
Registered User · 29 December 2005
One last point for any newbie lurkers who might stumble upon this thread: Larry's arguments are not markedly worse than those of John West, Bill Dembski, Michael Behe, Salvador Cordova, or anyone else affiliated with the DI or TMLC.
And Larry might actually be more honest than those stinkers because he at least admits that he's sympathetic to the arguments of Holocaust deniers.
You ain't lived until you spent the night drinking with West and Cordova, coming up with new terms for creationism, laughing about AIDS, and debunking the History Channel.
Good times.
sir_toejam · 29 December 2005
Was that one of those mixers where you partied with Carol, RU?
sir_toejam · 29 December 2005
sir_toejam · 29 December 2005
btw, larry, scientology has far more followers than ID.
does that make it science?
your logic is so bad, it's funny.
we're all laughing AT you larry.
enjoying it?
if so, perhaps you should consider become a professional clown? I hear there is always a need for rodeo clowns.
Steviepinhead · 29 December 2005
Urrghh.
The poor twit can't even parse the DI's frickin' statement. That's beyond m*r*nic.
Registered User · 29 December 2005
Larry F.
I think that a more important reason is that scientists are under great pressure to conform.
Sure, unlike really devoted religious people who never worry about whether anyone is watching or listening to them.
Registered User · 29 December 2005
Was that one of those mixers where you partied with Carol, RU?
The DI dudes don't like to party with the ladies around.
Go figure.
sir_toejam · 29 December 2005
lol
sir_toejam · 29 December 2005
I have a new Larry theory:
I think he's just a wanker who enjoys pulling our respective chains for the laughs.
nobody could be as dense as he is making himself out to be.
Alexey Merz · 29 December 2005
Lenny's Pizza Guy · 29 December 2005
Alexey, no! You know very well that no pizza foundation did any such thing!
I swan! Sometimes you PTers seem to forget which side of your pizza's got the sauce on it!
Larry Fafarman · 29 December 2005
Larry Fafarman · 29 December 2005
Registered User · 29 December 2005
And my Holocaust-revisionist argument is completely different from anything I have seen on holocaust denial/revisionist websites.
Too fxckin funny.
Registered User · 29 December 2005
Larry, could you do me a favor and finish one of your comments with a snappy tagline like "How do you like those brussel sprouts?"
That would make me feel really warm and fuzzy inside.
Larry Fafarman · 29 December 2005
Alan Fox · 29 December 2005
Larry
This site has had an air of anti-climax lately, with the Dover case over. Thanks for injecting a new fun topic.
PvM · 29 December 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 29 December 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 29 December 2005
Stephen Elliott · 29 December 2005
AC · 29 December 2005
AC · 29 December 2005
Curses. That should read "one is not rationally justified", of course.
Alexey Merz · 29 December 2005
Lenny's Pizza Guy · 29 December 2005
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.
carol clouser · 29 December 2005
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.
gregonomic · 29 December 2005
sir_toejam · 29 December 2005
sir_toejam · 29 December 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 29 December 2005
Tice with a J · 29 December 2005
Ed Darrell · 14 January 2006
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.
steve s · 14 January 2006
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.
exam · 28 February 2006
http://escorts.anzwers.net/mypics/uqnjnhkj/very.html complimentwhosewondered