West on the legal and ethical propriety of Judge Jones

I found the Defendants' memorandum of law in Opposition to FTE dated 2005-06-06. It is clear that even the defendants did not consider FTE's intervention supportable by law.

Ouch.

Kudos to the team of Pim and Tim. West's diatribe would be good for laughs if West and Co were not so deadly serious.

Indeed, lest we forget the "vice strategy", as proposed by Dembski et. al.

laughable, unless it becomes reality. Then we'd all be pretty screwed.

NEVER forget the motivations of these folks. They are psychologically unbalanced and are capable of anything when pressured.

When I think of John West I get an image of Yosimite Sam with steam shooting out his ears.

"RackafrazzinJudgegrumblemublesTarnation..."

lol

Something's been bugging me for a while now.

The creationists on the Dover School Board wrote a policy.

That policy was ruled illegal upon application of the Lemon test.

So where are all the funny graphics of "Of Pandas And People" proclaiming that "it's a Lemon!"? Come on, the people need humour dammit!

"...if this Court should find IDT to be the equivalent of creation science, which will result in the loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars to FTE..."

but wait, I'm confused ... dembski's latest opinion is that this ruling will have no impact on the ID movement apart from galvanizing its supporters...

I have a theory.
My theory (which, incidentally, is mine) is that John West is an idiot. It is, however, just a theory

I have a theory. My theory (which, incidentally, is mine) is that John West is an idiot. It is, however, just a theory

oh, btw, since Dembski mentioned his "main site" is designinference.com... what do we see as the most recent link there but:

The Vise Strategy: Squeezing the Truth out of Darwinists.

nuff said.

these folks wish violence done to the non-believers. need i say more?

Please note that West's observation was made with the benefit of hindsight. Had the defendants foreseen the emphasis that the judge's opinion would place on the Panda book, they might very well have supported the publisher's request to intervene.

I now see Judge Jones as a heavy-handed activist judge. Here are some of the things he did --

(1) He appointed himself to be the sole final judge of the scientific merits of irreducible complexity.

(2) In violation of attorney-client privilege, he quoted a private communication between the school board and the school board's Solicitor and used it against the defendants.(pages 111-112 of opinion)

(3) He essentially barred the school board from ever requiring that any criticism of evolution theory be taught or discussed in the Dover Area schools.

Comment #65500 Posted by snaxalotl on December 28, 2005 07:46 PM "...if this Court should find IDT to be the equivalent of creation science, which will result in the loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars to FTE..." but wait, I'm confused ... dembski's latest opinion is that this ruling will have no impact on the ID movement apart from galvanizing its supporters...

Had the publisher been allowed to intervene, it might have persuaded the judge to show the Panda book in a more favorable --- or less unfavorable --- light. As it is, the book and the publisher were tried and convicted in absentia.

1) He appointed himself to be the sole final judge of the scientific merits of irreducible complexity.

(2) In violation of attorney-client privilege, he quoted a private communication between the school board and the school board's Solicitor and used it against the defendants.(pages 111-112 of opinion)

(3) He essentially barred the school board from ever requiring that any criticism of evolution theory be taught or discussed in the Dover Area schools.

Please note that West's observation was made with the benefit of hindsight. Had the defendants foreseen the emphasis that the judge's opinion would place on the Panda book, they might very well have supported the publisher's request to intervene.

First, the interests FTE seeks to protect are remote and speculative at best and defendants adequately represent the sort of abstract and generalized interests in Intelligent Design Theory (IDT) FTE claims as its own. Second, the motives, activities and utterances of FTE have no bearing on the defendants' motion to make students aware of IDT and under these circumstance, introducing a new party and new issues into this litigation at this late date will needlessly complicate, delay and make more burdensome, the proper resolution of this dispute

Comment #65590 Posted by PvM on December 29, 2005 05:40 AM Larry said -- ****Had the publisher been allowed to intervene, it might have persuaded the judge to show the Panda book in a more favorable --- or less unfavorable --- light. As it is, the book and the publisher were tried and convicted in absentia**** Read the Judge's decision to deny FTE's motion for intervention before you make such silly comments.

Although the Judge denied the motion for intervention, he did grant the FTE status of Amicus Curiae.

*****1) He appointed himself to be the sole final judge of the scientific merits of irreducible complexity******. Nope, he did not and I encourage you to support your claim

****(2) In violation of attorney-client privilege, he quoted a private communication between the school board and the school board's Solicitor and used it against the defendants.(pages 111-112 of opinion)**** No he did not. The client provided the information voluntarily.

*****(3) He essentially barred the school board from ever requiring that any criticism of evolution theory be taught or discussed in the Dover Area schools.***** Again, no he didn't.

So many errors.

This is the part of West's statement that should have been quoted --

"FTE wanted to cross-examine the ACLU's witnesses as well as present its own experts, evidence, and arguments during the trial. Yet Judge Jones rejected FTE's motion for intervention. FTE was eventually allowed to submit a "friend of the court" brief to Judge Jones, but such briefs do not have the same status as evidence and arguments presented at trial, and the brief was limited to no more than 5,000 words (including footnotes). That's right, Judge Jones allowed FTE a mere 5,000 words to rebut literally hundreds of pages of testimony and allegations made by the ACLU. How is that for fair and impartial justice? Given Judge Jones' explicit refusal to allow FTE to present a defense in the Dover case, his condemnation of FTE's textbook was grotesque."

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/12/dover_in_review_pt_3_did_judge.html#more

This trial is increasingly looking like a travesty of justice.

There is often a big difference between what is legal and what is right. You obviously do not know the difference.

— Larry Fafarman

Would the defendants have voluntarily provided an attorney-client communication that was very damaging to them?

— Larry Fafarman

He enjoined the board from ever requiring that teachers "denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution." (see page 138 of opinion). That means that the board cannot even require that criticism of evolution be taught or discussed in philosophy class.

— Larry Fafarman

Regards the amount of stuff the FTE was allowed to do:

1) The judge has authority to restrict it as much as he likes. He was under no obligation to give the FTE any of his (and everyone else's) time at all. The default position for him to take was, in fact, "no, push off" - unless the FTE could provide a sufficiently convincing reason why they should be included.

2) The judge appears to have decided that the FTE was unlikely to add any value to the case that they couldn't summarise in 5000 words (I'd tend to agree - feel free to provide suggestions as to what all that cross-examining etc could have achieved if you disagree. Remember that we already had one party attempting to rebut the Kitzmiller lawyers' arguments).

3) If the judge had given the FTE free rein, it would have massively increased the length of the trial, incurring considerable further costs to all parties (not least the good ol' US of A).

3a) This is partially because the FTE waited til the last minute to file their request.

4) Therefore I provisionally conclude that the judge was in fact legally and morally correct in denying the FTE's request. I'd need to read up in more detail to be certain of this though.

5) This means that melodramatic comments about the trial being a travesty don't strike me as terribly convincing, and in fact only serve to feed my well-developed superiority complex. Please do not feed the complex.

Larry, you are blithering again.

Tell us about the meteor showers, Larry. (snicker) (giggle)

He enjoined the board from ever requiring that teachers "denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution." (see page 138 of opinion). That means that the board cannot even require that criticism of evolution be taught or discussed in philosophy class.

*****1) He appointed himself to be the sole final judge of the scientific merits of irreducible complexity******. Nope, he did not and I encourage you to support your claim See the sentence bridging pages 63-64 of the opinion...

Finally, we will offer our conclusion on whether ID is science not just because it is essential to our holding that an Establishment Clause Case 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.

Larry's "should have been quoted" quote doesn't help in the slightest. The FTE was not allowed to intervene, yes formally by the judge, but with the active and willing agreement of both plaintiffs and defendants. So constantly complaining that the FTE wasn't "allowed" to intervene is rather bizarre. West might as well be directing his outrage at the Dover school board for not wanting FTE either.

In addition, emphasizing the "mere 5,000 words" verbiage is just fake outrage. The rules were clear and Judge Jones even could have completely rejected the brief had he wanted to.

Hey, somebody ask Larry about the Holocaust . . . .

(snicker) (giggle)

Comment #65598 Posted by RupertG on December 29, 2005 07:30 AM Larry said -- *****He enjoined the board from ever requiring that teachers "denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution." (see page 138 of opinion). That means that the board cannot even require that criticism of evolution be taught or discussed in philosophy class.***** No, it does not mean that - and I encourage you to look the relevant words up in the dictionary, and then to examine how science and philosophy is actually done. There is a great difference between criticism and denigration/disparagement, and it is telling when people claim otherwise.

The judge himself says, on page 136, that "To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect." which is hardly the opinion of someone who wants to exalt it above criticism.

I read that sentence as the judge saying that he has to determine whether ID is science in order to decide the case --- which I think is unarguable --- and that he then HOPES that this will remove the need to do it again.

Are you saying that his expression of hope is equivalent to him establishing himself as the final arbiter on the subject?

Ah, OK, I'm getting the picture. This is one of those irregular areas of English grammar.

I indulge in meaningless semantic nitpicking
You provide proof of a major miscarriage of justice
He appoints himself Supreme Justice by wishing really, really hard

See also...

ACTIVIST JUDGE: one with whom I disagree, but cannot fault at law
LAW: Set of rules annoyingly contrived so as not to automatically confirm my prejudices
SCIENCE: A religion, promoted for perverse reasons by power-mad liberals
RELIGION: A science that would make our schoolchildren unique in the world, were it not irrationally denied them.
GOD: See DESIGNER
DESIGNER: Oooh, look at this pretty sea shell!

R

R

Comment #65603 Posted by stefan on December 29, 2005 07:48 AM Larry's "should have been quoted" quote doesn't help in the slightest. The FTE was not allowed to intervene, yes formally by the judge, but with the active and willing agreement of both plaintiffs and defendants. So constantly complaining that the FTE wasn't "allowed" to intervene is rather bizarre. West might as well be directing his outrage at the Dover school board for not wanting FTE either.

In addition, emphasizing the "mere 5,000 words" verbiage is just fake outrage. The rules were clear and Judge Jones even could have completely rejected the brief had he wanted to.

No, he did not have to determine whether ID is science --- he could have decided the case solely on the basis of the religious motivations of some of the school board members.

— Larry Fafarman

No --- but it does establish him as wanting to be the final arbiter on the subject.

Russell Wrote:

I have a theory.
My theory (which, incidentally, is mine) is that John West is an idiot. It is, however, just a theory

Note that this is NOT a scientific theory because it is not falsifiable!

Larry,

A minor point, but one worth making. In your #65589 you mention "Clinton's "I did not have sex with that woman."" That is a misquote. He said, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman," which was a truthful statement.

Posted by Larry Fafarman on December 29, 2005 05:29 AM (e) (s) ... Good grief --- I cannot believe the asininity of some of the messages on this website.

When was the last time anyone on this website conceded a point to me? Hasn't happened very often"

— Larry Fafarman

Comment #65589 Posted by Larry Fafarman on December 29, 2005 05:29 AM (e) (s) Good grief --- I cannot believe the asininity of some of the messages on this website.

Had the publisher been allowed to intervene, it might have persuaded the judge to show the Panda book in a more favorable --- or less unfavorable --- light.

As it is, the book and the publisher were tried and convicted in absentia.

Judge Jones is well on his way to becoming the most notorious judge in America. His statement "I am not an activist judge" will probably take a place in history alongside Nixon's "I am not a crook" and Clinton's "I did not have sex with that woman."

Comment #65588 Posted by Larry Fafarman on December 29, 2005 05:16 AM (e) (s) I now see Judge Jones as a heavy-handed activist judge. Here are some of the things he did --- (1) He appointed himself to be the sole final judge of the scientific merits of irreducible complexity.

(2) In violation of attorney-client privilege, he quoted a private communication between the school board and the school board's Solicitor and used it against the defendants.(pages 111-112 of opinion)

(3) He essentially barred the school board from ever requiring that any criticism of evolution theory be taught or discussed in the Dover Area schools.

So where are all the funny graphics of "Of Pandas And People" proclaiming that "it's a Lemon!"? Come on, the people need humour dammit!

— Corkscrew

It would be quite amusing to see the publishers of OP&P interviewed on a national program.

How do you think they would react to the "here are all the places you did a search and replace of 'creationism' with 'intelligent design' " ?

"When we said 'creationism', we didn't mean God or nuthin,....."
"The intelligent designer could be anyone (wink,wink)"
"We think the Earth is somwhere between 6,000 and 4,500,000,000 years old, it's an open question"
"As my good friend the president of the Southern Baptist Convention just explained, ID is NOT about religion"

The more the IDiots/YECtards talk, the dumber they look.

Attacked by the "Intelligent, educated segment of society" indeed.

He enjoined the board from ever requiring that teachers "denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution." (see page 138 of opinion). That means that the board cannot even require that criticism of evolution be taught or discussed in philosophy class.

Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources. To preserve the separation of church and state mandated by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Art. I, § 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, we will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID. We will also issue a declaratory judgment that Plaintiffs' rights under the Constitutions of the United States and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have been violated by Defendants' actions. Defendants' actions in violation of Plaintiffs' civil rights as guaranteed to them by the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 subject Defendants to liability with respect to injunctive and declaratory relief, but also for nominal damages and the reasonable value of Plaintiffs' attorneys' services and costs incurred in vindicating Plaintiffs' constitutional rights. Case 4:04-cv-02688-JEJ Document 342 Filed 12/20/2005 Page 138 of 139 139 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1. A declaratory judgment is hereby issued in favor of Plaintiffs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 such that Defendants' ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and Art. I, § 3 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 2. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 65, Defendants are permanently enjoined from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District. 3. Because Plaintiffs seek nominal damages, Plaintiffs shall file with the Court and serve on Defendants, their claim for damages and a verified statement of any fees and/or costs to which they claim entitlement. Defendants shall have the right to object to any such fees and costs to the extent provided in the applicable statutes and court rules.

He enjoined the board from ever requiring that teachers "denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution." (see page 138 of opinion). That means that the board cannot even require that criticism of evolution be taught or discussed in philosophy class.

ACTIVIST JUDGE: one with whom I disagree, but cannot fault at law LAW: Set of rules annoyingly contrived so as not to automatically confirm my prejudices SCIENCE: A religion, promoted for perverse reasons by power-mad liberals RELIGION: A science that would make our schoolchildren unique in the world, were it not irrationally denied them. GOD: See DESIGNER DESIGNER: Oooh, look at this pretty sea shell!

Larry, I still need to know what your alma mater(s) is(are). I spent the morning writing letters of recommendation, and I really need to know if I am sending any of my students down your path.

I am amazed. Some of you have been busy all night!

All night? I'm British, you insensitive clod! :P

Okay then, Corkscrew! You must think some of us Yanks are crazy, yes?

Wait, maybe you shouldn't answer that. My Brit relatives call us "savage Americans"... ;)

Posted by KL on December 29, 2005 10:45 AM (e) (s) ... I am amazed. Some of you have been busy all night!

Are you guilty of assuming a priori that all posters are in your time-zone?

Yup

Guilty as charged

Embarrassing, considering that what we Americans are so guilty of is seeing things only from our own point of view! Shame on me... thirty lashes with His noodly appendage.

(on top of proving my UK relatives correct)

Posted by KL on December 29, 2005 11:18 AM (e) (s) ... Shame on me... thirty lashes with His noodly appendage. ...

What is it with you americans and your kinky fetishes?

Posted by yellow fatty bean on December 29, 2005 10:26 AM (e) (s) "As my good friend the president of the Southern Baptist Convention just explained, ID is NOT about religion"

Posted by Larry Fafarman on December 29, 2005 05:16 AM (e) (s) Please note that West's observation was made with the benefit of hindsight. Had the defendants foreseen the emphasis that the judge's opinion would place on the Panda book, they might very well have supported the publisher's request to intervene. I now see Judge Jones as a heavy-handed activist judge. Here are some of the things he did ---...

Thinking about Keira Knightly in a pirate outfit is not THAT kinky...

Another point Larry,
Why do you not start objecting to Newtonian gravity being taught? After all that has already been proven incorect, and you could find loads of scientific papers (even experimental evidence) to back you up.

Scientists and the whole (technically) educated population know Newton is not quite right. Perhaps it is an evil conspiracy.

So why pick on evolution? What on Earth could your motivation be?

Judges are always ruling in cases where they are not themselves an expert witness. We see judges rule in medical malpractice cases all the time yet they themselves are not doctors. They must listen to the expert medial witnesses and decide what is a legitimate medical procedure or treatment and what is not. We see judges rule in business cases yet they do not own or manage businesses. We see them rule in construction disputes yet they are not home builders. So Jones' ruling that intelligent design creationism is not science does not in any way suggest he overstepped his bounds.

Judges are concerned with the application of the law and they rely on *expert* testimony to base their conclusions. The best intelligent design creationists represented spoke for the defense and gave it their best shot. Their best shot proved intelligent design creationism is not science.

It has already been noted that in the Dover trail the best witness for the plaintiff were the defense expert witnesses. This is because intelligent design creationism is NOT science. if you let intelligent design creationist speak their cause they cannot hide the fact that it is not science and is in fact warmer over creationism.

A side note -
Word to the wise, Larry Farma posts over on the LJWorld site (Kansas) and to put it in laymans terms he is crazy and unable to comprehend certain ideas.

Good luck trying to 'reason' with him.

Thinking about Keira Knightly in a pirate outfit is not THAT kinky...

— gwangung

...we will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID

Hey Larry, tell us about how meteor showers caused the Holocaust. Or is it the other way around?

With this decision, people like Larry can sense the impending demise of ID as a cryptocreationist strategy, and they're lashing out. Not surprising. Dembski closing his blog is probably another sign.

He would have closed it anyway, or farmed out the comments censorship to DaveScot or Salvador. By now, as someone else on this site put it, getting up every 15 minutes to remove all criticism was probably gettin real old.

Comment #65628 posted by Corkscrew on December 29, 2005 10:49 AM All night? I'm British, you insensitive clod! :P Comment #65634 posted by Corkscrew on December 29, 2005 11:35 AM What is it with you americans and your kinky fetishes?

funny how UK schools still manage not to throw religiously motivated psuedo-scientific nonsense into the mix.

Was the line "LOL ROFLMAO" really in "Inheret the Wind" ?

"FTE wanted to cross-examine the ACLU's witnesses as well as present its own experts, evidence, and arguments during the trial. Yet Judge Jones rejected FTE's motion for intervention. FTE was eventually allowed to submit a "friend of the court" brief to Judge Jones, but such briefs do not have the same status as evidence and arguments presented at trial, and the brief was limited to no more than 5,000 words (including footnotes). That's right, Judge Jones allowed FTE a mere 5,000 words to rebut literally hundreds of pages of testimony and allegations made by the ACLU. How is that for fair and impartial justice? Given Judge Jones' explicit refusal to allow FTE to present a defense in the Dover case, his condemnation of FTE's textbook was grotesque." http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/12/dover_in_re... This trial is increasingly looking like a travesty of justice. Comment #65594

Also, briefs exceeding the length limit are permitted with the approval of the judge.

No, he did not have to determine whether ID is science --- he could have decided the case solely on the basis of the religious motivations of some of the school board members.

We are free to apply any or all of the three tests, and to invalidate any measure that fails any one of them. The Supreme Court has not repudiated Lemon; in Santa Fe, it found that the application of each of the three tests provided an independent ground for invalidating the statute at issue in that case; and in Lee, the Court invalidated the policy solely on the basis of the coercion test. Although this court has typically applied the Lemon test to alleged Establishment Clause violations, see, e.g., Am. Family Ass'n, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco, 277 F.3d 1114, 1120-21 (9th Cir. 2002), we are not required to apply it if a practice fails one of the other tests. Nevertheless, for purposes of completeness, we will analyze the school district policy and the 1954 Act under all three tests.

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

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.

Hey Larry what is your take on the Raelian "atheist intelligent design" theory? I mean if we are going to teach the controversy shouldn't their theory be taught as well?

Although they make no mention of mouse traps, or Mt Rushmore, or similar scientific principles of intelligent design creationism, the Raelians claim to not only know who the designers are, they claim to be in contact with them. We're talking about a smoking gun here, fella.

Behe and Dembski propose the intelligent designer could be a space man or alien and it not neccesarily a God. If this is true why has neither Behe nor Dembski written about or explored the Raelian theory and evidence? The Raelians support intelligent design creationism yet Behe and Dembski seem to be ignoring them.

I mean the Raelians are saying "hey we are in touch with the intelligent designers" yet Behe and Dembski ignore them. What kind of science is that where they completley ignore a threory (or in this case evidence) that supports and sheds light on their own?

The intelligent design creationists say the designer may be a space man, the Raelians say they are in contact with the intelligent designing space men yet Behe and Dembski ignore them? How utterly unscientific of the IDC camp.

What up wif dat, Larry? Looks like Behe and Dembski really mean the intelligent designer IS God, otherwise they would be hooking up with the Raleians and doing some serious science with them.

I wonder if Behe and Dembski are simply jealous of Raelian "atheist intelligent design theory" and that's why they make no mention of it?

From what I can tell it appears the Raleians have scooped the intelligent design creationists.

What's your take on it?

Would the defendants have voluntarily provided an attorney-client communication that was very damaging to them?

— Larry

*****(3) He essentially barred the school board from ever requiring that any criticism of evolution theory be taught or discussed in the Dover Area schools.***** Again, no he didn't. He enjoined the board from ever requiring that teachers "denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution." (see page 138 of opinion). That means that the board cannot even require that criticism of evolution be taught or discussed in philosophy class.

With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.

— Judge Jones

We have been presented with a wealth of evidence which reveals that the District's purpose was to advance creationism, an inherently religious view, both by introducing it directly under the label ID and by disparaging the scientific theory of evolution, so that creationism would gain credence by default as the only apparent alternative to evolution, for the reasons that follow.

to add to PvM's comment, the FTE's book was listed in a catalog under the category "Creation Science."

Hey Larry what is your take on the Raelian "atheist intelligent design" theory? I mean if we are going to teach the controversy shouldn't their theory be taught as well? Although they make no mention of mouse traps, or Mt Rushmore, or similar scientific principles of intelligent design creationism, the Raelians claim to not only know who the designers are, they claim to be in contact with them. We're talking about a smoking gun here, fella.

— Mr Christopher

The purpose inquiry involves considering the policy language, "enlightened by its context and contemporaneous legislative history"213 --- including, in this case, the broader context of historical and ongoing, religiously driven attempts to advance creationism and denigrate evolution.214

Third, the Board made sure that the disclaimer denigrated evolutionary theory in students' eyes. Among other things, the Board ordered language removed from drafts of the disclaimer that would have communicated to students the strength of evolutionary theory by informing them, for example, that evolution is the "dominant scientific theory" and that there is a "significant amount of evidence supporting Darwin's theory.238 What was left was negative language telling students that evolutionary theory has "gaps for which there is no evidence" and that it is a theory and not a fact.239

Of course, the way in which parental concerns trench upon professional norms in this case allegedly depends exclusively upon the religious commitments of the parents. The aforementioned amicus brief argues that the sticker represents the "third generation" of opposition to the teaching of evolution. First, there was the outright prohibition of teaching evolution, ruled un-Constitutional by the Supreme Court in the 1968 case, Epperson v. Arkansas. Then came the "balanced treatment" statutes, ruled un-Constitutional in Edwards v. Aguillard (1987). The lesson we are to draw from this line of cases is that "the government is not permitted to suppress, disparage, or counterbalance the teaching of evolution in response to the objections of some religious groups."

Larry, you know what's really great about the church/state entwinement in Europe? It fosters apathy, if not the complete rejection of religion. The UK, Spain, France, Germany, and many other nations: they've all had precipitously falling rates of belief and church attendance, and they have institutional religion to thank for it. (The collaboration between churches and the darker aspects of European history [Franco-era Spain, you-know-what-era Germany] didn't help either.)

Daily school prayers become nothing more than empty words, recited while young minds wander to the more important topics of football and the opposite gender. An adolescent becoming aware of politics sees the church's ties to a demonstrably corrupt government. In becoming all-pervasive, religion just slips into the background noise of daily life.

The marriage of church and state will probably be the thing that kills fundamentalism for good in America. I've yet to decide if it would be worth the intervening decades of regression and barbarity.

Comment #65653 Posted by yellow fatty bean on December 29, 2005 02:02 PM Was the line "LOL ROFLMAO" really in "Inheret the Wind" ?

Jones had no choice but to address the question "Is ID science?" BOTH parties agreed that the Lemon Test was appropriate to this case (see p. 9 of Jones' opinion).

The first prong of the Lemon Test requires a government action related to the First Amendment to have a valid secular purpose. Despite the school board's overt religious motive for the ID policy, it still might have passed this first prong of the Lemon Test had ID been shown to be a scientific concept, since the inclusion of a scientific concept in a science curriculum is obviously a valid secular purpose.

However, the testimony of the **ID experts** themselves clearly dictated Jones' finding that ID is NOT science. Consider what the ID expert witnesses revealed in their testimony on this question:

1. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) states that science is limited to natural explanations about observable natural phenomena. Supernatural explanations are excluded because such forces cannot be observed, measured, or tested. Both plaintiffs and defendants recognize the NAS as the "most prestigious" scientific organization in the country (pp. 65-66).

2. ID experts Behe and Minnich testified that it is "implausible that the designer is a natural entity" and that ID does not exclude the possibility that the designer is supernatural (p. 67).

3. Defense experts Fuller and Minnich agreed that one goal of the ID movement is to change the ground rules of science to allow supernatural explanations. William Dembski, a prominent member of the ID movement, and the Discovery Institute agree. The Supreme Court recognizes supernatural explanations as "an inherently religious concept" (pp. 67-68).

4. Behe stated that if his broader definition of science were used, ID could be considered science. However, he admitted that his definition of science would also include astrology (p. 68).

5. Behe, Fuller, and Minnich concede that ID is not a theory by the NAS definition and that at most it is fringe science with no acceptance in the scientific community (p. 70).

6. Behe admitted there are no peer-reviewed scientific articles advocating ID. Nor is there any peer-reviewed scientific research to support his assertion that certain biological structures are irreducibly complex (p. 88).

In addition, every major scientific organization in the country which has taken a position on the scientific merits of ID has concluded that ID is not science (pp. 69-70).

Given this, Jones had no choice but to conclude that ID is not science and therefore the board's ID policy had no valid secular function. Thus, the ID policy fails the first prong of the Lemon Test. Game, set, match.

Well stated Fast Eddie

Comment #65626 Posted by Flint on December 29, 2005 10:44 AM Larry said -- *****He enjoined the board from ever requiring that teachers "denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution." (see page 138 of opinion). That means that the board cannot even require that criticism of evolution be taught or discussed in philosophy class.***** While the objections to this statement are entirely on target, it's interesting to understand why Larry would make this absurd claim in the first place.

Note how the judge treated irreducible complexity, the foremost concept of intelligent design. He did not say that it is OK to teach IC in the Dover schools if it is done in philosophy class

Actually, I think he did. There are references to doing just that in other type classes, that included philosophy.

Larry! You're back!

I still need to know your alma mater(s). Gotta get these letters posted.

oh god, no! larry has invaded another thread?

don't we have containment protocols for infectious disease?

His mind really belongs in the after the bar closes area.

Ask a stupid question and you get a stupid answer.

— Larry Fafarman

This is nothing but meaningless semantic nitpicking.

— Larry Fafarman

Jones also wrote on p. 137: "Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school **science** classroom."

He does NOT prohibit ID from other parts of the curriculum, only the science curriculum.

Moreover, Jones' denigrate-disparage comment when read in the context of the whole narrative does NOT mean criticisms of evolution cannot be taught. The history of the Dover situation, particularly Bonsell's and Buckingham's 2004 comments on evolution as well as the crafting of the actual ID statement, makes it clear the school board took scientifically unfounded pot shots at evolution. Bonsell and Buckingham also used strong-arm tactics to cow the science teachers into reducing the amount of classroom time allocated to evolution. THIS is what Jones was referring to with his denigrate-disparage injunction.

Note how the judge treated irreducible complexity, the foremost concept of intelligent design. He did not say that it is OK to teach IC in the Dover schools if it is done in philosophy class, or if it is not called "intelligent design" (which implies the existence of an "intelligent designer"), or if it is done in a manner that does not directly denigrate or disparage evolution theory, etc.. He just banned ID --- and consequently IC --- from the Dover schools completely, period. No ifs, ands, buts, or maybes. His ruling against anything that "denigrate[s] or disparage[s] the scientific theory of evolution" makes it clear that this policy applies to other criticisms of evolution as well

Jones also wrote on p. 137: "Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school **science** classroom." He does NOT prohibit ID from other parts of the curriculum, only the science curriculum.

Larry.

Over on another thread, you argued that Dover citizens shouldn't have to foot the "exorbitant legal bill" incurred by the attorneys for the plaintiffs.

But now you're arguing that the FTE should have been given the opportunity to defend "Of Pandas and People" during the case, which would surely have made the case even longer (but without affecting the outcome), and would therefore have cost the citizens of Dover even more?

Did anyone ever stop to think that maybe the reason people get so fed up with the whole creation/ID movement is that rather than doing honest research and posting honest results, they seem content to simply mislead the rest of us into going along with them?

— Greg H

A side note - Word to the wise, Larry Farma posts over on the LJWorld site (Kansas) and to put it in laymans terms he is crazy and unable to comprehend certain ideas. Good luck trying to 'reason' with him.

I don't care about "Larry" anymore at all. He's demonstrated himself to be a maroon many times over.

However, for the rest of the curious readers out there, please note the one word that "Larry" keeps overlooking everytime he goes after Judge Jones's proscriptions--the board may not require the district's science teachers to foist ID's psuedoscience on their students.

There's a big difference between telling this mendacious board what it cannot impose upon the science curriculum (what the judge actually did) and telling the science teachers themselves what they can and cannot appropriately teach (what the judge did not do).

Larry, let's take a look at what you cite with open eyes. I'll even highlight the important words in case your eyes are bad.

"we will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID."

Does that help? Do you see how teachers can still bring up ID or IC in classes? Yes, all of them. Even science class. But, the school board cannot require them to do so. There's no restriction of free speech here, since ID and IC have not been banned. There is an unholding of free speech.

-Dan

And no, he did not ban ID or IC, he just banned the Board from requiring teachers to teach ID or disparage/denigrate evolution.

— PvM

btw, didn't the new pro-science Dover school board even say that they intend ID will be discussed in social studies class?

Judge didn't rule against them doing that now, did he.

teachers are totally free to discuss any valid, scientific, secular criticisms of the theory of evolution

teachers are totally free to discuss any valid, scientific, secular criticisms of the theory of evolution

— I

er, not that there are any.

— sir_toejam

One of them should be along any minute now...

According to recent quotes from current (new) Dover board members not only does the Dover school plan on having intelligent design covered in a social studies class they are keeping that collection of garbage known as "of Pandas and People" in the school library. They do plan to get rid of the other 58 copies and keep just one.

So much for Larry's conspiracy to stifle free speech theory. Larry whether you like it or not intelligent design creationism is alive and well in Dover, just not as science and it's out of the science class (where it never had any business in the first place).

Hey Larry do you work for the Discovery Institute? If you don't already you probably should. When I read your comments and "unique" insight and compare it to John West I see a match made in an intelligently designed heaven.

Do you have any theology or English degrees? If so maybe you could get a job as a scientist at the DI?

Comment #65626 Posted by Flint on December 29, 2005 10:44 AM Larry said -- *****He enjoined the board from ever requiring that teachers "denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution." (see page 138 of opinion). That means that the board cannot even require that criticism of evolution be taught or discussed in philosophy class.***** While the objections to this statement are entirely on target, it's interesting to understand why Larry would make this absurd claim in the first place.

I'm gonna hate myself in the morning, but I have what i think is an interesting question for Larry about the role of government in morality:

why is polygamy illegal, Larry?

should it be?

What is the theory behind the value of monogomy? Is it religious or scientific?

Larry, didn't you post that exact same post in the other thread?

that's a big no-no. cross posting can get you ousted as a spammer.

Son, we already know you're a maroon.

Lacking your learning disability, however, it's really not necessary for you to remind us every half hour or so.

We get it already: you're a maroon!.

(Sigh.)

Larry:

You say: "In this context, his ruling against anything that "denigrate[s] or disparage[s] the scientific theory of evolution" may be interpreted as applying this absolute ban to other criticisms of evolution theory as well."

No. It. Can't.

It's clear that you *want* to interpret it this way so you can complain about it. But no reasonable reading of the entire ruling could be interpreted that way.

Larry, the horse is dead. Stop beating it.

Posted by Larry Fafarman on December 29, 2005 04:40 PM

Larry, are you not aware that Dover plans to have intelligent design creationism in a social studies class? Jones did not forbid intelligent design creationism from the classroom.

And were you not aware that criticizing and denigrating/disparaging are not the same? They can criticize all day long they cannot be *required* to denigrate and disparage.

Dude, try www.dictionary.com

And I was serious, if you have an English or Theology degree you should contact the DI and apply for a job as a scientist. I mean at the DI ther eis no0t must dinstinction between theology and biology so what the heck, give it a shot! I bet you'd get an interview.

Right on schedule, and as vacant as ever.

Can someone CTRL-C Larry? I think he's stuck in an infinite loop.

why is polygamy illegal, Larry?

Larry, are you not aware that Dover plans to have intelligent design creationism in a social studies class? Jones did not forbid intelligent design creationism from the classroom.

And were you not aware that criticizing and denigrating/disparaging are not the same? They can criticize all day long they cannot be *required* to denigrate and disparage.

Dude, try www.dictionary.com

And I was serious, if you have an English or Theology degree you should contact the DI and apply for a job as a scientist. I mean at the DI there is not much dinstinction between theology and biology (they're practically the same at the DI) so what the heck, give it a shot! I bet you'd get an interview.

Hey Larry, you might want to go here and see how you score. When your index finger gets tired from pressing the keys on your calculator, come on back and let the rest of us know how you did.

ah, there it is. thanks alexey.

Comment #65689 Posted by cogzoid on December 29, 2005 03:50 PM Larry, let's take a look at what you cite with open eyes. I'll even highlight the important words in case your eyes are bad. "we will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID." Does that help? Do you see how teachers can still bring up ID or IC in classes? Yes, all of them. Even science class. But, the school board cannot require them to do so. There's no restriction of free speech here, since ID and IC have not been banned. There is an unholding of free speech.

No, that does not help

Well if they are so intimidated why are they planning to talk about intelligent design creationism in social studies class in Dover?

Astonishingly they seem to have been able to not only read all 139 pages but also understand what Judge Jones' intent was.

The current Dover board gets it, the Dover teachers get it, you seem to be the only one who desn't get it. Well you and the Discovery Institute.

[Judge Jones] should have chosen his words very carefully. He did not.

OK, guys, at what point do we post a "Do Not Feed The Trolls" sign on Larry's stuff?

at what point do we post a "Do Not Feed The Trolls" sign on Larry's stuff?

OK, guys, at what point do we post a "Do Not Feed The Trolls" sign on Larry's stuff?

Ask a stupid question and you get a stupid answer.

Corkscrew, you are British? LOL ROFLMAO You hypocrite! You fraud! (sorry for the rudeness --- that is just a line from the play, "Inherit the Wind," loosely based on the 1925 Scopes Monkey trial) Britain has no separation of church and state ! England and Scotland have official state religions ! Daily prayer is required in the public schools (I guess you don't call them "public" --- I don't know what you call them) ! The government funds church schools ! See ----http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/features/mi... And you accuse us of having "kinky fetishes"?

— Larry Fafarman

(3) He essentially barred the school board from ever requiring that any criticism of evolution theory be taught or discussed in the Dover Area schools.

— Larry Fafarman

Any teacher who might want to do so will be intimidated by the above ruling.

— Larry Fafarman

How many people are going to bother searching the whole 139 pages of this long-winded opinion in the hope of finding an exception to the above ruling?

I bet I can read it to anyone for an even better rate than Ed. I'm a starving student! If you like I'll even use funny voices like a mother reading "Go, Dog, Go!"

This is a nice forum, or "virtual pub", by the way. Anyone know where I can get a "virtual Jack and Coke"?

OT, but important to anyone who uses windows XP:

I just got nailed by some very nasty spyware that utilizes a newly found exploit in WMF files specifically under windows XP. I'ts all over the tech news right now.

anywho, if you want to avoid having to spend the rest of your day trying to restore your system, I highly suggest avoiding any new internet sites until MS posts a fix.

I think good anti-spyware detectors might catch this, but maybe not (didn't work for me).

just thought you should know.

Larry didn't know the basics of what communications are priveledged before calling the judge a "jackass" on the issue. To expect him to read the judge's full opinion is bordering on insane.

His ruling against anything that "denigrate[s] or disparage[s] the scientific theory of evolution" makes it clear that this policy applies to other criticisms of evolution as well.

Comment #65675 Posted by Larry Fafarman on December 29, 2005 03:21 PM (e) (s) "Absurd claim"? OK, we don't even need to look at the judge's above statement --- let's just look at the rest of the ruling --- "we will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID." (from page 38 of the ruling) Note how the judge treated irreducible complexity, the foremost concept of intelligent design. He did not say that it is OK to teach IC in the Dover schools if it is done in philosophy class, or if it is not called "intelligent design" (which implies the existence of an "intelligent designer"), or if it is done in a manner that does not directly denigrate or disparage evolution theory, etc.. He just banned ID --- and consequently IC --- from the Dover schools completely, period. No ifs, ands, buts, or maybes. His ruling against anything that "denigrate[s] or disparage[s] the scientific theory of evolution" makes it clear that this policy applies to other criticisms of evolution as well.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1. A declaratory judgment is hereby issued in favor of Plaintiffs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 such that Defendants' ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and Art. I, § 3 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 2. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 65, Defendants are permanently enjoined from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District. 3. Because Plaintiffs seek nominal damages, Plaintiffs shall file with the Court and serve on Defendants, their claim for damages and a verified statement of any fees and/or costs to which they claim entitlement. Defendants shall have the right to object to any such fees and costs to the extent provided in the applicable statutes and court rules.

How many people are going to bother searching the whole 139 pages of this long-winded opinion in the hope of finding an exception to the above ruling?

Folks who want to know what they're talking about.

This obviously excludes you, or else you wouldn't have pulled that howler about privileged communications or a "total" ban of ID.

The above statement was the judge's final ruling. He should have chosen his words very carefully. He did not.

Actually, he did. But since you can't be bothered to either read the whole thing or understand the legal context of the decision, I can see why made such mind numbingly stupid statements.

He DID write 139 pages. He expected folks to read ALL of it to understand his decision. You CAN'T take shortcuts. You CAN'T get lazy. Or you're going to get scorched in any discussion (like what's happening now)

Do it right, or don't do it at all.

Larry is willing contribute hundreds of lines of ignorant blather to a comment thread but is too lazy to read 139 pages of big type. He clearly can read. He clearly doesn't want to. Maybe he's afraid of reading things that will prove him wrong. Poor lazy Larry. Poor, poor cowardly Larry.

Poor Larry.

Comment #65722 Posted by cogzoid on December 29, 2005 06:24 PM First it was "essentially barred": Larry Fafarman wrote: ***(3) He essentially barred the school board from ever requiring that any criticism of evolution theory be taught or discussed in the Dover Area schools.**** Now it's only intimidation: Larry Fafarman wrote: ****Any teacher who might want to do so will be intimidated by the above ruling.**** I'll count that as progress in changing Larry's mind. And since the Dover school board is willing to teach ID in social studies class his intimidation idea is quite moot.

Comment #65743 Posted by roger Tang on December 29, 2005 08:13 PM Larry wrote -- ****How many people are going to bother searching the whole 139 pages of this long-winded opinion in the hope of finding an exception to the above ruling?**** Folks who want to know what they're talking about.

Also, a large part of the opinion is very dry reading,

and it would not be long before a lot of readers forget what they were looking for, even if they knew that they were supposed to be looking for something in the first place.

so earlier the judge should be blamed for not considering as priveledged information that didn't qualify two (possibly three) ways, and then larry said the judge should be blamed for deciding whether ID is science like both parties asked, and now the judge should be blamed for how someone else will misinterpret a sentence out of context.

It is easy to see why ID isn't accomplishing anything.

OK, guys, at what point do we post a "Do Not Feed The Trolls" sign on Larry's stuff?

— Bill Gascoyne

Any science teacher who introduced ID into her classroom would be larridotic.

Comment #65742 Posted by Moses on December 29, 2005 08:09 PM Larry, you jacknapes, you don't even understand the ruling. The opinion is 139 pages and pretty much follows the normal decision structure. Only at the very end is the decision which is the ORDER to which the parties must comply. Everything you've been citing IS NOT THE ORDER. THIS IS THE ORDER: NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1. *********** 2. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 65, Defendants are permanently enjoined from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District. 3.************<

Sigh... LArry, stop blaming others for your inability to read the Judge's ruling.

No, it is not moot. Somewhere in the USA, some school board or school board legal advisor is going to take a cursory look at the opinion, read the final-ruling statement that I cited, and conclude that the opinion says that ID must be excluded entirely from the schools.

— Larry Fafarman

They are not likely to bother to search the whole 139-page opinion in the hope of finding an exception to that final-ruling statement. That statement is by far the most important single statement in the whole opinion, and the judge blew it. It shows that he did not even fully understand the key points of his own ruling.

— Larry Fafarman

And nowhere does the opinion expressly say that science teachers may introduce ID into the classroom on their own. What Dover science teacher would dare to do that now?

— Larry Fafarman

OK, so according to the official ORDER, the school board may still require teachers to read a statement saying that evolution theory is the biggest hoax in the history of science, so long as ID is not mentioned.

— Larry Fafarman

I keep seeing Judge Jones called all sorts of names, given all sorts of labels, and generally denigrated and disparaged as both a person and a Judge. Couldn't some of the more egregious accusations, such as those from West, be considered libel and prosecuted as such?

Larry, you, like most ID/C peddlers, are *far* too arrogant and weak (in mind, body, and spirit) to ever believe that you aren't Divinely Inspired. I, however, have a rather bad upper back and neck ache right now due to the Designer's total Incompetence at designing the human body. . . .

Furthermore, do you have evidence that the Theory of Evolution is a hoax? If not, retract your claim.

Best regards.

Bill Gascoyne wrote: OK, guys, at what point do we post a "Do Not Feed The Trolls" sign on Larry's stuff?

Tip for Larry: ride the new horse, Sudden Appearance Theory

Creationism Horse died.

Scientific Creationism Horse died.

Intelligent Design Horse died.

And a piece of advice. Contact your pals at FTE and have them write an entirely new book. Be very careful to destroy all copies of all drafts. Start with SAT and stay with SAT.

Mull this over for at least 20 years, then return.

I think it's a winning strategy.

A large percentage of what happens here is troll feeding. It often dominates threads, necessitating a Bathroom Wall. Serious questions in comments get one or two responses, troll comments can get dozens.

A large percentage of what happens here is troll feeding. It often dominates threads, necessitating a Bathroom Wall. Serious questions in comments get one or two responses, troll comments can get dozens.

While I'm not a lawyer and I don't read legal decisions for a living, I've read a few hundred, and I found Judge Jones' decision one of the most entertaining I've ever seen. If it has any dry parts, I can't find them. Instead, the temptation is to quote paragraph after paragraph, page after page. Jones is clear, complete, and dead nuts accurate with every sentence in the whole 140 pages.

I can't see any confusing or hair-splitting coming out of this decision, because no matter what argument the IDologists make, it's possible to extract half a dozen direct quotes that answer the argument unambiguously and with no confusion about context.

And as a result, West and the DI (and fellow travellers) are having a particularly hard time misconstruing the decision. Instead, they are reduced to raising points about "ethics" and "propriety" and other hazy denigrations and disparagements, rather than genuine criticism. Hilariously, some apologists are even reduced to claiming that denigrations and disparagements ARE genuine criticism.

I find it most gratifying that in response to all of this kvetching, the response is a direct quote from the decision. Those quotes invariably make it clear exactly how transparently dishonest the complaints are. There is simply no plausible argument that someone has innocently misunderstood anything anywhere in the decision.

OK, *I* have a question. I've been trying to think of a way to ask this for awhile, but UnMark's last post gave me the opening. I teach anatomy to college students, and for a long time now (since even before the masking of creationism as "intelligent design") I've been telling my students that if they want any evidence of how humans weren't the product of divine creation that they didn't have to look any further than the flaws in the human design itself. Let's face it, with spinal columns that curve in a way to guarantee that an upright biped would have back problems, arches that fall, wisdom teeth that get impacted, and collar bones that don't serve any function in an animal that doesn't swing from tree to tree, not to mention male nipples, the human body is anything but evidence of an all-wise creator.

My question is: Does anyone know of a site that has compiled all the really imperfect characteristics of the human body that argue more for our common ancestry with tree-dwelling primates than for our creation in some divine being's image? If not, does anyone have any other contributions for the list? My students will forever be grateful.

Steve, I did a bit of looking for such a site, but as far as I can tell, no one's posted a really thorough look at all our imperfections. Several people make the argument, but they're too lazy to assemble all the evidence. It may exist, or you may have to do it yourself, in which case, go forth and conquer. On an amusing note, when I googled imperfect human body, the first thing that came up was Gray's Anatomy.

However, I have to dispute your philosophical point. I believe in an all-wise creator, but I also believe that suffering is an important part of this life. Part of my philosophy/theology is that we cannot know true joy without knowing true suffering. God wants us to know true joy, so he has given us a life of suffering. Once this life is over, we will get perfect bodies and I'm sure we'll appreciate them.

Incidentally, I also believe that God only gives obvious signs of his existence to those that already believe, so he will never allow irrefutable evidence of him to exist. Christian though I may be, ID is against my religion.

To Steve:

My better half, a professor of psychology (he teaches a neurophysiology course) is compiling such a list. I'll see if I can get it. If I am allowed to give an email address on this forum, I can get you linked up tomorrow.

To Larry:

Do you ever sleep? I am still waiting on that alma mater(s). I've got more letters to write tomorrow.

I also believe that God only gives obvious signs of his existence to those that already believe

— Tice

Part of my philosophy/theology is that we cannot know true joy without knowing true suffering.

KL: Who is this 'Larry' person you speak of? (see Comment #65782)

There's a section in the TalkOrigins site that covers this. The specific page is Evidence for Jury-Rigged Design in Nature.

I think there are abundant additional examples available. Here are some (mostly taken from the TalkOrigins pages) that I composed for a blog.

How about the design of having the testes form inside the abdomen of men, then have to pass through the abdominal wall and down to the scrotum, thereby leaving a weak spot (two, actually) in the wall. This spot, called the inguinal canal, can herniate, allowing the intestines to slop out under the skin. Herniation both screws up the intestine and cuts off/slows the blood flow to the affected testis. This will affect 1 in 3 men. What a great "Intelligent Design."

In human males, the urethra passes right through the prostate gland, a gland very prone to infection and subsequent enlargement. This blocks the urethra and is a very common medical problem in males. Putting a collapsible tube through an organ that is very likely to expand and block flow in this tube is not good design. Any moron with half a brain (or less) could design better male "plumbing".

And how about the vagina, aren't women lucky? There's an old joke going around about this poor design: what kind of designer would route the sewer pipes right through the center of the entertainment center?

How about our vestigal tail (coccyx)? Why would any designer put in the skeleton of a tail if we didn't need one?

And since you brought it up, how about the widom teeth? Did your mouth have room for them or did you have to have yours pulled like I did?

While we're talking about teeth, without modern dentistry, the "design" of your teeth would cause you to have to do without them past the age of about 30... Would you care to tell me how that is a good design?

How about the appendix? How many people have died from having this vestigal (serves no purpose) organ get infected? Doesn't seem like an Intelligent Design to me...

It can hardly be said that the human knee is well designed for kneeling. Prolonged kneeling can lead to an expansion of the bursa in front of the patella, a condition known as housemaid's knee. Doesn't seem like an good idea for a Designer to not equip its creations with the ability to perform the very actions that "he" wishes them to perform - bend their knees in prayer.

What about the clever "Design" of the human elbow. At the knob on the lower end of the humerus the ulnar nerve is exposed just under the skin. A sharp blow by a hard object causes that numbing, painful sensation called "striking the funny bone" (a pun on the name of the bone).

There are some additional design flaws that appear in the manufacturing process of humans: the fetal lanugo, the grasping reflex, the Moro reflex, and the fontanelles (areas of the brain only protected by skin, not hard bone). Even the adult human skull is too thin to provide adequate protection to the gigantic brain and the absence of brow ridges leaves the eyes poorly protected.

Need I go on?

When can we expect issuance of the recall notice on "his" defective engineering skills?

All in all, your "Intelligent Designer" would have his PE license revoked and have his butt sued off if he lived in this country.

(note, I borrowed heavily from posts at both PT and TO for this "composite". I have, alas, lost the references).

OK, point taken. Just because something is suboptimal doesn't necessarily make it a flaw. I guess I'm thinking of characteristics of the human body that just don't make sense if the basis of the body is the image of a creator god (with all the associated omnipotence that's supposed to come with that). If the suboptimal characteristic results in a greater likelihood of having health problems, I guess I'd call it a flaw, but I'm not feeling too picky on that requirement.

As for it being a profitable exercise... I use it as a pedagogical tool to get my students to think about anatomy in a historical (= evolutionary) context. They would prefer to just memorize the names of bones so they'll do better in med school. *I* want them to think about how the bones got to be the way they are, and hitting them with an assessment of "suboptimality" pulls some of them out of their complacency a little bit. Verbal tricks, I know, but a teacher has to do whatever he or she can.

Comment #65768 Posted by cogzoid on December 29, 2005 10:10 PM Larry said -- ****OK, so according to the official ORDER, the school board may still require teachers to read a statement saying that evolution theory is the biggest hoax in the history of science, so long as ID is not mentioned.***** Nope, try again, that's still just denigrating the theory, and not actually criticizing it. But, at least you understand the requiring part.

To jim: great list!

Add: muscles to move the ears, hackles on the back of our necks that "rise" in response to a threat, our sparse body hair and going into "goosebumps" when we are cold.

To Tice with a j:

huh? #65782? I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I don't understand. I assume the failing is mine. Can you explain?

To Larry:

I'm still waiting...

To jim: great list!

Add: muscles to move the ears, hackles on the back of our necks that "rise" in response to a threat, our sparse body hair and going into "goosebumps" when we are cold.

To Tice with a j:

huh? 65782? I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I don't understand. I assume the failing is mine. Can you explain?

To Larry:

I'm still waiting...

So what's being asked is, just how suboptimal does something need to be, before we should consider it a "flaw". So this doesn't strike me as a profitable enterprise.

This spot, called the inguinal canal, can herniate, allowing the intestines to slop out under the skin

I think if I were created in the image of the Christian God, I'd at a very minimum be immortal, invulnerable to trauma, aches and pains, disease or aging, have wisdom out the wazoo, be able to perform miracles up through Class 2 (creating whole universes being Class 1), and have constant ready access to 72 virgins of AT LEAST movie actress moxie (and be able to service them all without any thought of performance anxiety). All of which should be child's play for anyone with Class 2 miracle qualifications.

Anything short of that ought to be considered a flaw. Especially aging and death. Bummer, man.

I should think if I were created in the image of the Christian God, I'd be immortal and invulnerable to aches and pains, trauma and disease, aging and death. I should be able to perform nothing less than Class 2 miracles (Class 1 being the ability to create whole universes). I should have ready access to 72 virgins of at least movie actress moxie, and be able to service them all without any thought of performance anxiety. (these should all be inherent in Class 2 miracle qualifications anyway)

Anything short of this should be flaws, big time.

I should think if I were created in the image of the Christian God, I'd be immortal and invulnerable to aches and pains, trauma and disease, aging and death. I should be able to perform nothing less than Class 2 miracles (Class 1 being the ability to create whole universes). I should have ready access to 72 virgins of at least movie actress moxie, and be able to service them all without any thought of performance anxiety. (these should all be inherent in Class 2 miracle qualifications anyway)

Anything short of this should be flaws, big time.

I should think if I were created in the image of the Christian God, I'd be immortal and invulnerable to aches and pains, trauma and disease, aging and death. I should be able to perform nothing less than Class 2 miracles (Class 1 being the ability to create whole universes). I should have ready access to 72 virgins of at least movie actress moxie, and be able to service them all without any thought of performance anxiety. (these should all be inherent in Class 2 miracle qualifications anyway)

Anything short of this should be flaws, big time.

I should think if I were created in the image of the Christian God, I'd be immortal and invulnerable to aches and pains, trauma and disease, aging and death. I should be able to perform nothing less than Class 2 miracles (Class 1 being the ability to create whole universes). I should have ready access to 72 virgins of at least movie actress moxie, and be able to service them all without any thought of performance anxiety. (these should all be inherent in Class 2 miracle qualifications anyway)

Anything short of this should be flaws, big time.

I should think if I were created in the image of the Christian God, I'd be immortal and invulnerable to aches and pains, trauma and disease, aging and death. I should be able to perform nothing less than Class 2 miracles (Class 1 being the ability to create whole universes). I should have ready access to 72 virgins of at least movie actress moxie, and be able to service them all without any thought of performance anxiety. (these should all be inherent in Class 2 miracle qualifications anyway)

Anything short of this should be flaws, big time.

I should think if I were created in the image of the Christian God, I'd be immortal and invulnerable to aches and pains, trauma and disease, aging and death. I should be able to perform nothing less than Class 2 miracles (Class 1 being the ability to create whole universes). I should have ready access to 72 virgins of at least movie actress moxie, and be able to service them all without any thought of performance anxiety. (these should all be inherent in Class 2 miracle qualifications anyway)

Anything short of this should be flaws, big time.

I should think if I were created in the image of the Christian God, I'd be immortal and invulnerable to aches and pains, trauma and disease, aging and death. I should be able to perform nothing less than Class 2 miracles (Class 1 being the ability to create whole universes). I should have ready access to 72 virgins of at least movie actress moxie, and be able to service them all without any thought of performance anxiety. (these should all be inherent in Class 2 miracle qualifications anyway)

Anything short of this should be flaws, big time.

I should think if I were created in the image of the Christian God, I'd be immortal and invulnerable to aches and pains, trauma and disease, aging and death. I should be able to perform nothing less than Class 2 miracles (Class 1 being the ability to create whole universes). I should have ready access to 72 virgins of at least movie actress moxie, and be able to service them all without any thought of performance anxiety. (these should all be inherent in Class 2 miracle qualifications anyway)

Anything short of this should be flaws, big time.

I should think if I were created in the image of the Christian God, I'd be immortal and invulnerable to aches and pains, trauma and disease, aging and death. I should be able to perform nothing less than Class 2 miracles (Class 1 being the ability to create whole universes). I should have ready access to 72 virgins of at least movie actress moxie, and be able to service them all without any thought of performance anxiety. (these should all be inherent in Class 2 miracle qualifications anyway)

Anything short of this should be flaws, big time.

Comment #65766 posted by cogzoid on December 29, 2005 10:06 PM Larry Fafarman wrote: ****They are not likely to bother to search the whole 139-page opinion in the hope of finding an exception to that final-ruling statement. That statement is by far the most important single statement in the whole opinion, and the judge blew it. It shows that he did not even fully understand the key points of his own ruling.**** Your laziness does not equal his misunderstanding. I read all 139 pages and he has a very lucid style. It was actually an interesting read. Although, I'm actually interested in the matter at hand. Perhaps you can back up your claim that he didn't understand his own ruling?

OT followup:

7 hours after infection by the latest trojan exploit of XP; I'm finally getting a handle on the last traces of it.

I have spent a lot of time repairing PC's and networks for money for many years, and this is the worst infection I have ever seen.

It's documented here:

http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=175701152

fair warning - make sure your anti-spyware AND anti-virus proggies are up to date, and avoid any strange websites until MS releases a patch.

again, this only applies to those using XP; other MS OS's and other OS's in general don't apply.

cheers

OT followup:

7 hours after infection by the latest trojan exploit of XP; I'm finally getting a handle on the last traces of it.

I have spent a lot of time repairing PC's and networks for money for many years, and this is the worst infection I have ever seen.

It's documented here:

http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=175701152

fair warning - make sure your anti-spyware AND anti-virus proggies are up to date, and avoid any strange websites until MS releases a patch.

again, this only applies to those using XP; other MS OS's and other OS's in general don't apply.

cheers

I should think if I were created in the image of the Christian God, I'd be immortal and invulnerable to aches and pains, trauma and disease, aging and death. I should be able to perform nothing less than Class 2 miracles (Class 1 being the ability to create whole universes). I should have ready access to 72 virgins of at least movie actress moxie, and be able to service them all without any thought of performance anxiety. (these should all be inherent in Class 2 miracle qualifications anyway)

Anything short of this should be flaws, big time.

OT followup:

7 hours after infection by the latest trojan exploit of XP; I'm finally getting a handle on the last traces of it.

I have spent a lot of time repairing PC's and networks for money for many years, and this is the worst infection I have ever seen.

It's documented here:

http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=175701152

fair warning - make sure your anti-spyware AND anti-virus proggies are up to date, and avoid any strange websites until MS releases a patch.

again, this only applies to those using XP; other MS OS's and other OS's in general don't apply.

cheers

test

I should think if I were created in the image of the Christian God, I'd be immortal and invulnerable to aches and pains, trauma and disease, aging and death. I should be able to perform nothing less than Class 2 miracles (Class 1 being the ability to create whole universes). I should have ready access to 72 virgins of at least movie actress moxie, and be able to service them all without any thought of performance anxiety. (these should all be inherent in Class 2 miracle qualifications anyway)

Anything short of this should be flaws, big time.

I should think if I were created in the image of the Christian God, I'd be immortal and invulnerable to aches and pains, trauma and disease, aging and death. I should be able to perform nothing less than Class 2 miracles (Class 1 being the ability to create whole universes). I should have ready access to 72 virgins of at least movie actress moxie, and be able to service them all without any thought of performance anxiety. (these should all be inherent in Class 2 miracle qualifications anyway)

Anything short of this should be flaws, big time.

OT followup:

7 hours after infection by the latest trojan exploit of XP; I'm finally getting a handle on the last traces of it.

I have spent a lot of time repairing PC's and networks for money for many years, and this is the worst infection I have ever seen.

It's documented here:

http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=175701152

fair warning - make sure your anti-spyware AND anti-virus proggies are up to date, and avoid any strange websites until MS releases a patch.

again, this only applies to those using XP; other MS OS's and other OS's in general don't apply.

cheers

I should think if I were created in the image of the Christian God, I'd be immortal and invulnerable to aches and pains, trauma and disease, aging and death. I should be able to perform nothing less than Class 2 miracles (Class 1 being the ability to create whole universes). I should have ready access to 72 virgins of at least movie actress moxie, and be able to service them all without any thought of performance anxiety. (these should all be inherent in Class 2 miracle qualifications anyway)

Anything short of this should be flaws, big time.

Comment #65766 posted by cogzoid on December 29, 2005 10:06 PM Larry Fafarman wrote: *****They are not likely to bother to search the whole 139-page opinion in the hope of finding an exception to that final-ruling statement. That statement is by far the most important single statement in the whole opinion, and the judge blew it. It shows that he did not even fully understand the key points of his own ruling.***** Your laziness does not equal his misunderstanding. I read all 139 pages and he has a very lucid style. It was actually an interesting read. Although, I'm actually interested in the matter at hand. Perhaps you can back up your claim that he didn't understand his own ruling?

Comment #65766 posted by cogzoid on December 29, 2005 10:06 PM Larry Fafarman wrote: *****They are not likely to bother to search the whole 139-page opinion in the hope of finding an exception to that final-ruling statement. That statement is by far the most important single statement in the whole opinion, and the judge blew it. It shows that he did not even fully understand the key points of his own ruling.***** Your laziness does not equal his misunderstanding. I read all 139 pages and he has a very lucid style. It was actually an interesting read. Although, I'm actually interested in the matter at hand. Perhaps you can back up your claim that he didn't understand his own ruling?

Comment #65766 posted by cogzoid on December 29, 2005 10:06 PM Larry Fafarman wrote: *****They are not likely to bother to search the whole 139-page opinion in the hope of finding an exception to that final-ruling statement. That statement is by far the most important single statement in the whole opinion, and the judge blew it. It shows that he did not even fully understand the key points of his own ruling.***** Your laziness does not equal his misunderstanding. I read all 139 pages and he has a very lucid style. It was actually an interesting read. Although, I'm actually interested in the matter at hand. Perhaps you can back up your claim that he didn't understand his own ruling?

This site has gone nuts again. Genuinely terrible software.

Not necessarily bad design, but there was a bright and inventive high school biology teacher in Austin, Texas, who came up with a list of questions that intelligent design cannot answer, but that evolution can.

Now, if only I can find that list . . .

SORRY, FOLKS, MY MULTIPLE POSTS (THREE) WERE NOT INTENTIONAL. SOMETHING IS WRONG WITH THE WAY THE SYSTEM IS OPERATING. I AM CAREFUL TO CLICK JUST ONCE ON THE "POST" BUTTON, BUT SOMETIMES I GET MORE THAN ONE POST.

Also, the order was missing two prohibitions that he said he intended to put in the order (enjoining the school board from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID). See pages 138 and 139 of the opinion. That is the kind of thing I mean when I say that he did not understand his own ruling.

The software is being upgraded right now. Some functionality may be lacking and some instability may be observed.

again, this only applies to those using XP; other MS OS's and other OS's in general don't apply.

I find it still fascinating that Larry finds the ruling hard to read

Here's the list.

Stephen Bratteng of Austin put this together: Here are questions that evolution can answer, but intelligent design cannot:

13 Questions

1. Why does giving vitamin and mineral supplements to undernourished anemic individuals cause so many of them to die of bacterial infections.
2. Why did Dr. Heimlich have to develop a maneuver to dislodge food particles from people's wind pipes?
3. Why does each of your eyes have a blind spot and strong a tendency toward retinal detachment? But a squid whose eyesight is just as 10 sharp does not have these flaws?
4. Why are depression and obesity at epidemic levels in the United States.
5. When Europeans came to the Americas, why did 90 percent of the Native Americans die of European diseases but not many Europeans died of American diseases?
6. Why do pregnant women get morning sickness?
7. Why do people in industrialized countries have a greater tendency to get Crohn's disease and asthma?
8. Why does malaria still kill over a million people each year?
9. Why are so many of the product Depends sold each year.
10. Why do people given antidiarrheal medication take twice as long to recover from dysentery as untreated ones?
11. Why do people of European descent have a fairly high frequency of an allele that can make them resistant to HIV infection?
12. And close to home: Why do older men often have urinary problems?
13. And why do so many people in Austin get cedar fever?

Ed:

Is there a list of answers to those questions available somewhere on the web? I tried googling that list and couldn't find anything. I'm curious to hear all the answers.

Why should people have to read the whole goddam opinion to find what is supposed to be in the order?

Because not everyone are lazy idiots like you. This is how legal opinions are written

Don't like that answer? How about this one---Not everyone is a dishonest hack like you who like to quote mine parts of the decision to try to distort it.

Stop being a lazy ass and do your homework.

Comment #65843 Posted by PvM on December 30, 2005 01:16 AM Larry wrote -- ****Also, the order was missing two prohibitions that he said he intended to put in the order (enjoining the school board from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID). See pages 138 and 139 of the opinion. That is the kind of thing I mean when I say that he did not understand his own ruling.**** While Larry initially was arguing that no comments critical to evolution could be taught or required to be taught, he now has reached the opposite conclusion.

But if Larry believes that the judge's ruling only extends to the final page then he may be in for a surprise.

Who are you anyway, PvM? How come I see your name as the author of so many of the opening comments of these comment threads? Why is there apparently no way for me to start a new thread if I am so inclined? On the AOL message boards, any AOL member can start a new thread. In a Google group I belong to, any registered user can start a new thread. Does Panda's Thumb have members who have special privileges?

Yes. They're called owners and People Who Run This Blog. You do know what a blog is, right? And you know the different ways they operate, right?

Why is there apparently no way for me to start a new thread if I am so inclined

Ed Darrell:

I'm not sure I see the distinction. Why isn't "goddidit" as adequate an ID answer to these questions as to any other questions? Granted, evolutionary theory provides *detailed, coherent* answers to these questions, but surely that's not a requirement.

Meanwhile, I see Larry is still struggling to misconstrue the decision in his favor. Apparently this is easier in his mind if he reads only a single page of the decision. After all, all those other pages don't actually mean or say anything, do they? Of course not. That's all noise. The actual *decision* says only what Larry wants to believe it says. That's all that's required, right? Maybe if Jones weren't a Lutheran, he'd have some clue what he wrote, eh?

sir toejam:

Please, make an effort to understand the difference between your and you're. Hint: the second is two words. If you were to spell them out rather than attempt a contraction, you wouldn't bungle the contraction so regularly.

oh please, flint. it's late. surely you can find something more productive to comment on than my typos? especially when you automatically make the assumption i don't know the difference.

I can understand if it's a personal pet peeve of yours, but assuming i don't know the difference borders on insulting.

don't go there.

sir toejam:

Yes, I confess it's a pet peeve. It is NOT a typo on your part, however; you've been in flagrant violation of the rules of apostrophe usage for some while now. If you DO know the difference, then you are merely admitting to carelessness. Is that what you really want to do?

Here's a proposal: make no contractions. Spell them out. This will protect you against the deadly "it's" (which is NOT a possessive, it's a contraction), which you haven't got right yet.

Incidentally, I think nearly every point you make is right on target. No rational person can fault your content. So why demean it with carelessness? Language and presentation matter.

It is NOT a typo on your part

er, change guitly to guilty :p

Comment #65865 Posted by roger tang on December 30, 2005 02:52 AM Larry said -- ****Why should people have to read the whole goddam opinion to find what is supposed to be in the order?**** Because not everyone are lazy idiots like you. This is how legal opinions are written. Don't like that answer? How about this one----Not everyone is a dishonest hack like you who like to quote mine parts of the decision to try to distort it. Stop being a lazy ass and do your homework.

Comment #65868 Posted by Sir_Toejam on December 30, 2005 03:02 AM Larry said -- ****Why is there apparently no way for me to start a new thread if I am so inclined**** It's a common thing on many blogs that posting is by invitation only. the original contributer posts on PT are done in similar fashion. it allows for a measure of control that is absent from AOL or google message boards. you might also try reading the disclaimer and site rules listed on this very site. there's that laziness again, lalalarry. doesn't it bother you that everbody here thinks your pathetic? who are you trying to convince, anyway? you probably would have a more agreeable time over at arn.org.

Larry time for an update
What is the mental disease where reality in not properly processed by the mind?
By the way you lost, stop crying and go home.

Nice to see some irrational criticism of the UK in the depths of this thread. No, the UK does not have a separation of the church and the state, yet - bizarrely - the UK is a lot less religious than the US.

I've said this before, but for those who might have missed it, I think the less fundamental part of the US populace should be pushing very hard to have religion taught in public schools - comparative religion that is. Teach all the religions on an equal footing. Turn all the 'teach the controversy' and 'it is only fair to hear all sides' arguments around and stuff them back down the throats of the fundies.

Larry,
PvM is PvM's real name. They are the initials of Pim van Meurs. Something you would know if you had bothered to learn something of the website you have polluted with so much manure.

Tim,
I've always thought that it's because Americans had their religious freedom handed to them on a silver platter, where Europeans had to earn theirs by blood. Oceans of it. Therefore fundametalist types don't really know what religious oppression truly is and by extension don't know what freedom really is. Well, off to work. Check in this afternoon.
Sincerely,
Paul

Regards Sir Toejam's off-topic info about spyware infections that use the new WMF vulnerability:

You don't have to use a different operating system to be immune, you just have to use the firefox browser. Which currently is far better than IE on other grounds too*. Plus you'd be helping Open Source gain popularity and contributing to the death of the evil Microsoft empire (my pet causes #32 and #47 respectively).

I should point out that it is possible to be infected if you're using firefox, but only by actually downloading the .wmf file and opening it manually. If you're dumb enough to do this despite knowing about the exploit, you're on your own :P

*usability, functionality, extensibility, standards compliance, innovation (the new CANVAS tag, for example), security, non-evilness etc

Why can't you give a civil answer to a civil question? Is it really that hard?

— Larry

I could not find the "site rules," and the "disclaimer" section did not have the information that you gave above.

— Larry

Why doesn't PvM post under his real name? And how come so many of the other commenters here do not use their real names? What are they hiding from?

— Larry

Yeah, everybody here thinks I am pathetic. So they keep desperately trying to counter my arguments by using straw men, making ad hominem attacks, quoting me out of context, making nitpicking criticisms, etc., etc..

— Larry

not for nothing, but i do have a graduate degree in biology from berkeley, and several articles published, so i DO know how to write, typos aside.

I've had a book published too. Well only 4 copies were made, but one of those copies made it into the Library of Congress :).

Of course my book has nothing to do with biology!

Numerical Investigation of Equilibrium Chemistry of Hydrogen Injection into a Supersonic Combustion Ramjet

How many people are going to bother searching the whole 139 pages of this long-winded opinion in the hope of finding an exception to the above ruling?

— Larry

...fundametalist types don't really know what religious oppression truly is and by extension don't know what freedom really is.

— Paul Flocken

Comment #65907 posted by Grey Wolf on December 30, 2005 07:37 AM Given that, in the process of this thread, you have been asked over 20 questions, none of which you have actually answered (like, do you know the difference between disparaging and criticizing?), doesn't this comment strike you as more than a little hypocritical, Larry?

They are in the right hand side of the main page of this blog. Did you even look for them?

PvM are his initials. His full name is regularly spelled out - something close to Pim van Meuer, but probably not exactly that (sorry, PvM).

Besides, I have used Grey Wolf for as long as I have been on the Internet, and thus is a perfectly good name - you can email me, etc, and it is always the same person behind it.

Your only point has mutated from "the judge has forbidden criticism of Evolution" to "The Judge has cowered teachers into submission".

You call "nitpicking" the fact that there is a difference between criticism and disparagement

You fail to present evidence for your own ad hominems ("Evolution is the biggest hoax EVER!"

And of course, you are criticizing a document you have not even read - doesn't that strike you as odd, Larry?

That last post was a very childish lash out of a person who, lacking any real substance, is reduce to crying "unfair" when his arguments are shown to be empty and/or wrong.

Criticism is disparagement by definition --- even constructive criticism.

Larry! You're back! Need to know your alma mater(s), Buddy. Got another batch of recommendation letters going out.

Tim Hague commented the "the UK does not have a separation of the church and the state".

More picky than relevant, but it does: despite the forces of antidisestablishmentarianism the Anglican church was disestablished in Ulster around 1870 and in Wales some 50 years later.

[Apologies Tim but I couldn't miss an opportunity to use the word antidisestablishmentarianism. There, I've done it again. Hooray!]

Seeing the behavior of some of the evolutionists on this website has only increased my doubts about evolution.

Guys the troll is obviously just laughing and has no intention of addressing any of the points made to him. Dont waste your time here. Its typical creationist strategy,

10 IGNORE arguments against claims
20 MAKE new claims
30 GOTO 10

He's a holocaust denier? I wonder if he is a kinist too?

...the October 18, 2004 resolution and November 19, 2004 press release (collectively, "the ID Policy").

we will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID.

2. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 65, Defendants are permanently enjoined from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District.

Liesure Suit Larry Wrote: Seeing the behavior of some of the evolutionists on this website has only increased my doubts about evolution.

Comment #65946 Posted by AC on December 30, 2005 10:23 AM 139 pages is hardly long-winded. I downloaded and read it the day it became available as a PDF in various places on the 'net; i.e., the day of the ruling. I found it to be a clearly-written document despite the detail it goes into, and thus a relatively quick read.

Mark already posted the definition of criticism.

Here are the other two definitions needed.

Disparagement: To speak of in a slighting or disrespectful way; belittle.
To reduce in esteem or rank

Denigrate
to attack the character or reputation of; speak ill of; defame

Oh and on the Evolution is a hoax thingy and the whole rest of this long discussion. Perhaps, in Larry's case this could all be classifed as Argumentum Ad Consequentiam.

That's o.k., Larry. Your behavior here has not improved my opinion of holocaust deniers.

For me, his Holocaust denial just further reinforces my low opinion of Creationists.

I missed this disgusting behavior from him...links?

Larry said: What strikes me as odd is when people claim that a 139-page document says something specific but do not quote or cite the page(s) of the document passage where it is said --- and when asked for the information just say, "read it yourself."

Another said You call "nitpicking" the fact that there is a difference between criticism and disparagement

Numerical Investigation of Equilibrium Chemistry of Hydrogen Injection into a Supersonic Combustion Ramjet

the opinion is especially ambiguous because the conclusion says that three specific prohibitions were going to be included in the official order but only one of them was actually included.

"we will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID."

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1. *********** 2. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 65, Defendants are permanently enjoined from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District. 3.************

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1. A declaratory judgment is hereby issued in favor of Plaintiffs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 such that Defendants' ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and Art. I, § 3 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 2. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 65, Defendants are permanently enjoined from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District. 3. Because Plaintiffs seek nominal damages, Plaintiffs shall file with the Court and serve on Defendants, their claim for damages and a verified statement of any fees and/or costs to which they claim entitlement. Defendants shall have the right to object to any such fees and costs to the extent provided in the applicable statutes and court rules.

— Judge Jones

Students will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin's theory and of other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent design. Note: Origins of Life is not taught.

The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin's Theory of Evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part. Because Darwin's Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations. Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves. With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the Origins of Life to individual students and their families. As a Standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on Standards-based assessments.

I am a friend of Larry Fafarman. I am posting this message on his behalf. He wrote the message.
John C.

=============================================

From Larry Fafarman --

My last post has been "temporarily" blocked because I am an alleged "abusive" commenter.

There is definitely a double standard here. On this website, I am regularly called an idiot, lazy, a fundy, pathetic, etc.. A large percentage of the responses I get are not polite. I try to stay polite myself, but there is just so much of this stuff that I can take lying down. I was not given the exact reason why I was bumped, but I suspect it was because I called another commenter a "stupid moron." But that commenter had called me lazy, an idiot, and a dishonest hacker. How many commenters have been bumped for sending abusive posts to me?

Furthermore, bumping me might have caused the loss of a lot of text if I were not in the habit of saving my text before submitting it.

I was considering sending my last post under a different name and email address, but it would have been obvious who it was from and that would have gotten me into even more trouble.

I would like to know when I can start posting again so I can send the rebuttal that was blocked.

I will make a deal -- I will be civil in my posts if others will be civil in their responses to my posts. Is that unreasonable?

Larry whined
Furthermore, bumping me might have caused the loss of a lot of text if I were not in the habit of saving my text before submitting it.

add incompetent

Guys here is something to think about. At this point the majority of posts are directed at Larry or by Larry. Larry has demonstrated he has no intention of understanding the issue at hand. He demonstrates a lack of fundamental reading/comprehension skills and he obviously has an agenda. He is not here to learn or share information or use reason to find a worthwhile conclusion. Nor has he offered any credible criticisms.

I saw him over at LJWord prior to him showing up here and people went round and round with him for days/weeks over the identical issues and complaints. He didn't "get it" over there any more than he is getting it here.

I fed him a few times and you are free to feed him as well. But you'd be wise to hold a funeral for any fantasies you might have that Larry is going to at some point understand what you are saying.

Some of the well written and thought out responses to Larry would be easy for a 9 year old to comprehend. We're talking about intelligent design creationism here and a court ruling, not rocket science. Larry is still having a hard time distinguishing between terms like "criticise" and "denigrate or disparage".

He lacks an ability to see the flaw in his own arguement(s) and finds a simple 139 page document intellectually overwhelming. Then he claims his doubts about evolution are being magnified because people aren't treating his idiotic notions with more respect.

Read his posts and the many responses. This is not someone who is seeking a better understanding or even bringing up good points or criticisms, this is someone who is trolling for reactions. If anything in his delusional world he is convincing us that we are mistaken.

His notion that some of the conduct here makes him doubt evolution is even more is quite revealing. What does he want us to do, get on our knees and beg him to give evolution a chance? Who cares what Larry believes or doubts? What difference does his opinion make?

I'm glad we don't have people like Larry on our side. I am glad he is an intelligent design creationist.

Anyhow...Based on what I have seen of Larry at another site this back and forth with him will go on for weeks if not months if we keep feeding him.

As I said, who cares what he thinks? He is one grain of sand on a beach the size of California. Only a hard core intelligent design creationist could stand more than 5 minutes with him. Does anyone have the ARN forum link we could point him to where he could find his intellectual equals?

Don't get me wrong, there is a weird pleasure in making fun of the intelligent design creationist ideas, but keep in mind this guy is never going to get it no matter how simple it is explained to him.

No one here is going to "save" Larry or convince him of anything. He is not going to ever "come around". If he was looking for intellectual "truth" he would have found it in the first couple of responses.

If we are not careful he will end up in every thread here and post the same intellectual feces that he was expelled in this one.

Anyhow...

I missed this disgusting behavior from him...links?

The last guy I know to go by initials was "Evil Dr. P," Paul Mirecki, the Kansas University religious studies professor who became a national laughingstock for posting on an atheist Internet forum that a course labeling ID as a mythology was a "nice slap in the big fat face of the fundies." Under pressure, he withdrew the course and resigned as department chairman. Hear about him?

— Larry Fafarman

Mr Christopher is 100% correct This larry dude is a typical internet troll. He exhibits all aspects of trollism.

By feeding him you are wasting your time and giving him satsisfaction.

Dont waste your time.

Larry Farma bings us this insight: ...I believe that the Jewish holocaust was exaggerated. A "systematic" Jewish holocaust was impossible because the Nazis had no reliable way of identifying Jews and non-Jews... There is certainly a parallel between persecution of Holocaust deniers and persecution of evolution deniers.

You don't have to use a different operating system to be immune, you just have to use the firefox browser

Dembski would have loved Larry.

Regarding a list of "issues" with human physiology, this was posted to a forum I frequent:

http://www.felbers.net/fa/2005/11/25/designing-women-and-men/

To attempt to bring this thread back closer to the original topic, I had asked in my previous post, and recieved no reply, whether or not all this slandering of Judge Jones by the likes of the DI is grounds for libel charges. I'm not a lawyer by any stretch of the imagination, so I don't know what constitutes legal grounds for such charges. (Although I do realize that libel and slander charges usually only make the lawyers rich....)

Best regards.

Everyone's calling Judge Jones a great man, a sage beyond his time, because he made a rational decision on this one case. This is something which I am finding slightly annoying, and have decided to speak about. Really, he did his job. Besides, with such a thorough job the attorneys for the plaintiffs did of making their case, combined with bad decisions on the part of the defense attorneys, it seems that Judge Jones made the only decision which was rational in light of the evidence.

I'm trying to think of an example of an issue which seems obvious (at least to me) what the rational decision is, and on which we do not know Judge Jones's opinions, but sadly, I can only think of those politically charged issues, such as gay marriage and the humanness of an embryo (as it relates to abortion, stem-cell research, and the morning-after pill). So, going with the latter topic: we don't know what, before a huge case in which it is pointed out that the fetus doesn't even have a brain for a month (I think that's the timescale) -- or that fertilization of the egg doesn't even occur for a couple days! (thank you, Discovery Health Channel), Judge Jones's opinions on such a topic would be. At best, we can really only credit Judge Jones for making a rational decision based on the information given by the attorneys on both sides -- that is, we can only credit him for being good at his job. I personally think the status of "real hero(es) of this case" would be more properly bestowed on, say, the attorneys for the plaintiffs. Though I will give the judge kudos for compiling a work which pulls together all sorts of arguments against evolutionary theory, along with well-reasoned refutations.

Ah, the myths that abound about lawyers, not that West is helping things out here! In any event, no one is going to get rich trying to sue West--for free speech-vigorous public debate purposes, the Supreme Court has made it very difficult to libel or slander a public figure involved in a controversial, newsworthy topic.

It would be like trying to sue me for suggesting that Bush (or Clinton, or Reagan, or Carter, or Ford, or Nixon, or Johnson, or Kennedy, or...) was a consummate idiot.

Assuming a basic lack of integrity on the part of the loser, the most predictable thing that the losing side says about a judge is to accuse him or her of bias, "activism," etc.

I can assure you that Judge Jones is inured to this kind of behavior. Indeed, he expected it and predicted it in his opinion.

The more West whines, lies, exaggerates, evades, and goes through every stage of a fit of the vapors, the more he reveals himself and his associates for the losers that they are. The point of unmasking his petulance is not to lay the groundwork for suing him, but just to confirm to any doubters that West is indeed what we have always claimed him to be--a dishonest and morally repugnant scam artist.

Comment #66021 Posted by Ubernatural on December 30, 2005 01:24 PM Larry, The Judge didn't need to specify the "other two" prohibitions because they are both already covered by the simple English sentence that is the main part of the order (#2 above). The Judge explains in his body of his decision that he found that: 1) the ID Policy "denigrate[d] or disparage[d] the scientific theory of evolution" and 2) the ID Policy is a religious, alternative theory known as ID. >>>> THEREFORE all he had to do was prohibit the school board from maintaining the ID Policy.

Everyone's calling Judge Jones a great man, a sage beyond his time, because he made a rational decision on this one case. This is something which I am finding slightly annoying, and have decided to speak about. Really, he did his job.

Which really DOES deserves all the praise, given the haphazard record of appointees of this administration.

Larry; go HERE:

http://www.arn.org/

and stay there, would ya?

Anyone who thinks criticism is indistinguishable from denigration is incapable of rational argument, which requires one without the other. It would be unfair to them to pretend otherwise.

R

Everyone's calling Judge Jones a great man, a sage beyond his time, because he made a rational decision on this one case. This is something which I am finding slightly annoying, and have decided to speak about. Really, he did his job. Besides, with such a thorough job the attorneys for the plaintiffs did of making their case, combined with bad decisions on the part of the defense attorneys, it seems that Judge Jones made the only decision which was rational in light of the evidence.

I think probably most reasonable people expected intelligent design creationism to lose in the Dover trial. Anyone who read the testimony could see how flawed and un-scientific the IDC "theory" is and also how underhanded the Board had been.

I think the "shock and awe" (extensive Jones praise) regarding Jones's ruling has to do with how thorough and well crafted the ruling was. That was not something I had expected.

Evolution and biology are not easy topics to follow for us laymen, we have to read some parts a few times :-) Yet Jones displayed an exceptional grasp and understanding of complex subjects in addition to his legal expertise.

True, he was only doing his job but I don't think many people expected such a thorough and well thought out ruling thus the new Jones Fan Club.

Maybe one day if West tires of his campaign of character assasination or runs out of nasty things to say about Jones he might actually read the ruling. Maybe.

Those "two prohibitions" are not "strangely omitted" from the order. The statement itself is nothing but a denigration of evolution, and the order prohibits the "ID Policy", which is both religiously motivated and not an alternative scientific theory. It is unreasonable to expect the order to be a copy-and-paste of the preceeding 138 pages. The order boils them down to actions which must result from them. It is the sum, the bottom line.

These prohibitions do not apply to "teaching ID in non-science classes", in the sense of presenting the idea of ID the way religions are presented in a comparative religion class. They also don't apply to "teaching criticisms of evolution other than ID", because scientific criticism of any theory belongs in a science class. If ID were scientific, and if the Dover "ID Policy" was not tantamount to character assassination, there wouldn't be a problem.

I emphasize "scientific criticism" to note the contrast between science and non-science, and between criticism and denigration. The Dover "ID Policy" aimed to blur both distinctions in an unconstitutional way. Thus the ruling.

Judge Jones did his job well. This is a comment on law and legal procedure - nothing more. You can disagree with the law, or the procedure, or snotty atheists, or science, et cetera, ad infinitum. They are separate issues, and they do not refute the simple fact: Judge Jones did his job well.

The problem seems to really be that, despite his not being a lawyer nor having any clue as to what constitutes a good or bad legal decision, Larry is pontificating to us as if he had a clue. This is exactly what West, also not a lawyer, is doing. But Larry doesn't have a clue, as it has been demonstrated by numerous people numerous times how clear and unambiguous this ruling is (and he doesn't even have a clue about the meaning of basic words).

Furthermore, lawyers who have examined the ruling (minus DI shills) have not had any such reservations about its meaning. Were it really that ambiguous, you can bet that legal experts from all over the map would be jumping on it. They're clearly not doing so.

Let's get this straight, the length and clarity of the opinion are irrelevant --- it should not be necessary to search back through the opinion for possible express or implied modifications (additions, exceptions) to the official order. Reasonable people would not even expect to find such modifications. It is OK to require a search for background information that does not change the meaning of the official order.

Comment #66099 posted by AC on December 30, 2005 03:58 PM Those "two prohibitions" are not "strangely omitted" from the order. The statement itself is nothing but a denigration of evolution, and the order prohibits the "ID Policy", which is both religiously motivated and not an alternative scientific theory. It is unreasonable to expect the order to be a copy-and-paste of the preceding 138 pages.

These prohibitions do not apply to "teaching ID in non-science classes", in the sense of presenting the idea of ID the way religions are presented in a comparative religion class.

They also don't apply to "teaching criticisms of evolution other than ID", because scientific criticism of any theory belongs in a science class.

I emphasize "scientific criticism" to note the contrast between science and non-science, and between criticism and denigration.

Numerical Investigation of Equilibrium Chemistry of Hydrogen Injection into a Supersonic Combustion Ramjet

If you think that West's defamation of Judge Jones was bad, what about Pat Buchanan's reference to Jones as a "Neanderthal" ? LOL

http://realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-12_28_05_PB.html
"The Dover defeat notwithstanding, the pendulum is clearly swinging back. Darwinism is on the defensive. For, as Tom Bethell, author of 'The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science,' reminds us, there is no better way to make kids curious about 'intelligent design' than to have some Neanderthal forbid its being mentioned in biology class."

Ugh. It's ba-aa-aa-ck!

To Tice with a j: huh? #65782? I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I don't understand. I assume the failing is mine. Can you explain?

I think I just had a Doh! moment. This is much like saying the voices in the walls only make themselves audible to those who already hear them! In fact, come to think of it, this is EXACTLY the same. And perhaps for the same reason.

Comment #66087 Posted by RupertG on December 30, 2005 03:22 PM (e) (s) Anyone who thinks criticism is indistinguishable from denigration is incapable of rational argument, which requires one without the other. It would be unfair to them to pretend otherwise.

The basic belief is that God will only reveal himself to those who are truly ready to accept the consequences of his existence.

Larry Farma bings us this insight: ...I believe that the Jewish holocaust was exaggerated. A "systematic" Jewish holocaust was impossible because the Nazis had no reliable way of identifying Jews and non-Jews... There is certainly a parallel between persecution of Holocaust deniers and persecution of evolution deniers.

Thank goodness someone had the sense to believe in the FSM. Otherwise as we cleaned up piracy, we'd doom the Earth to become a run-away hothouse (think Venus).

Do you ever find it depressing, the infinite number of really kewl gods who unfortunately have never had the opportunity to make themselves known, for no better reason than that nobody believes in them enough to let them strut their stuff? What a terrible, undeserved limbo those gods must inhabit, waiting for someone to come along and set them loose.

Darwinism is on the defensive

I couldn't successfully google this. Can someone tell me where Larry dropped this little bon mot?

someone posted the links to lalalarry's musings either in this thread or the other one lalalarry beat himself senseless in.

quick check reveals it must be in the other thread; just look for the thread with the most posts in the last week.

Larry; go HERE:

http://www.arn.org/

and stay there, would ya?

All I ever really needed to know about life, I learned playing D&D. :)

do you still play?

I think the ruleset is up to version 3.5 now.

I just bought 4 of the v3.5 books for my eldest child. I still have the original v1.0 AD&D hardbound books and even one of the paper (D&D) copies printed before that.

I still have the original v1.0 AD&D hardbound books

god, i'm getting tired. make that YOUR kid, not you're kid. i think someone's gonna hit me for typing that.

Whap.

thanks, i needed that.

Some commenters here have been asking other commenters to not answer my posts. That is very bad form. I don't do that to other commenters. Individual commenters here should decide for themselves whether my posts are worth answering (obviously, a lot of commenters have decided that my posts are worth answering).

Also, a lot of the responses to my posts just say that I don't know what I am talking about and that I don't listen to the responses I get. In contrast, I try to answer specific arguments that others raise.

The strategy here is obvious. Some commenters are trying to discredit my arguments by making me the issue.

Some commenters here have been asking other commenters to not answer my posts. That is very bad form. I don't do that to other commenters. Individual commenters here should decide for themselves whether my posts are worth answering (obviously, a lot of commenters have decided that my posts are worth answering).

Also, a lot of the responses to my posts just say that I don't know what I am talking about and that I don't listen to the responses I get. In contrast, I try to answer specific arguments that others make.

The strategy here is obvious. Some commenters are trying to discredit my arguments by making me the issue.

Some commenters here have been asking other commenters to not answer my posts. That is very bad form. I don't do that to other commenters. Individual commenters here should decide for themselves whether my posts are worth answering (obviously, a lot of commenters have decided that my posts are worth answering).

Also, a lot of the responses to my posts just say that I don't know what I am talking about and that I don't listen to the responses I get. In contrast, I try to answer specific arguments that others make.

The strategy here is obvious. Some commenters are trying to discredit my arguments by making me the issue.

SORRY, FOLKS, FOR THE MULTIPLE RESPONSES. THE REASON THIS TIME IS THAT I WAS DESIGNATED AN "ABUSIVE" COMMENTER (BECAUSE I HAD THE TEMERITY TO ANSWER IN KIND TO THE ABUSIVE POSTS DIRECTED AT ME), AND SO WHEN I TRY POSTING I SOMETIMES GET A MESSAGE THAT MY POSTS ARE TEMPORARILY BLOCKED AND THAT I SHOULD SUBMIT MY POST LATER. SO I SUBMIT MY POST LATER BUT AFTERWARDS FIND THAT MY PREVIOUS SUBMISSIONS OF THE POST HAVE SHOWN UP AS WELL.

I couldn't successfully google this. Can someone tell me where Larry dropped this little bon mot?

Larry Farma bings us this insight: ...I believe that the Jewish holocaust was exaggerated. A "systematic" Jewish holocaust was impossible because the Nazis had no reliable way of identifying Jews and non-Jews... There is certainly a parallel between persecution of Holocaust deniers and persecution of evolution deniers.

— Arden Chatfield

SORRY, FOLKS, FOR THE MULTIPLE RESPONSES. THE REASON THIS TIME IS THAT I WAS DESIGNATED AN "ABUSIVE" COMMENTER (BECAUSE I HAD THE TEMERITY TO ANSWER IN KIND TO THE ABUSIVE POSTS DIRECTED AT ME), AND SO WHEN I TRY POSTING I SOMETIMES GET A MESSAGE THAT MY POSTS ARE TEMPORARILY BLOCKED AND THAT I SHOULD SUBMIT MY POST LATER. SO I SUBMIT MY POST LATER BUT AFTERWARDS FIND THAT MY PREVIOUS SUBMISSIONS OF THE POST HAVE SHOWN UP AS WELL.

— Larry

Lol the stupidity of this guy knows no bounds.

But yeah please dont feed the troll.

Comment #66353 Posted by PvM on December 31, 2005 04:25 AM The blog software prohibits the submission of postings too close together to prevent spamming. So you are not designed an abusive commenter because "you had the temerity to answer in kind to the abusive post direct at you".

do you still play?

Larry, your side lost.

Unless you have something new to say, please shut up and go away. Thanks.

I HAD THE TEMERITY TO ANSWER IN KIND TO THE ABUSIVE POSTS DIRECTED AT ME

I still have the original v1.0 AD&D hardbound books and even one of the paper (D&D) copies printed before that.

By the way, Happy New Year, everyone.

And remember, don't drink while you're driving --- you'll spill your drink that way.

:)

Some commenters are trying to discredit my arguments by making me the issue.

Lenny,
I just went to the PT homepage to scan the recent comments. Of the ten eight were yours. I've had little running personal bet with myself for a while now about when I would see all ten with your name. Your getting close man. Try a little harder. Honestly, it seems a little like PT is become little more than all Lenny, all the time.

Is that an observation, or a complaint?

Of the ten eight were yours.

it seems a little like PT is become little more than all Lenny, all the time.

Up until the last statement, I was only trying to be funny. More observation than complaint. There is always enough interesting things here to read that it's not like you're interfering. And of course at the moment you've got nothing on LaLaLarry for intrusiveness.

This of course from someone who has been intrusive at times too.

Sincerely,
Paul

test

test

test

Weird. I just posted three comments as fast as the browser would let me, without getting the error message.

So take heart --- you'll be rid of me soon enough.

True, there's not much to do now except celebrate, and it's the perfect time of year. Judge Jones's 139-page supernova burns brightly in the sky, and we can all get tore up and have a good time celebrating the Discovery Institute's Waterloo.

Sadly, we can't play a drinking game where you do a shot every time Dembski bans someone for disagreeing with him, because he took his ball and ran home and is now crying and pounding his fists into the bed.

Has anyone noticed that in comment #66190, "John C." says

"As I explained (Comment #66074, of this thread)"?

Looking back at comment #66074, it is authored by Larry Fafarman. But in comment #66029, we see:

"I am a friend of Larry Fafarman. I am posting this message on his behalf. He wrote the message.
John C."

So what's going on here? Are John C. and Larry the same person, is John C. still allowing Larry to post under his name, or is it that John C. just can't remember if he or his friend made the comment?

I think a clarification is in order:

Under "Panda's Thumb Comment Integrity Policy", I see:
6. Posting under multiple identities or falsely posting as someone else may lead to removal of affected comments and blocking of the IP address from which those comments were posted, at the discretion of the management.

Just thought you'd all be interested.

True, there's not much to do now except celebrate

I am a friend of Larry Fafarman. I am posting this message on his behalf.

You mean like "Partial Observer"?

Under "Panda's Thumb Comment Integrity Policy", I see: 6. Posting under multiple identities or falsely posting as someone else may lead to removal of affected comments and blocking of the IP address from which those comments were posted, at the discretion of the management.

Comment #66425 Posted by GvlGeologist on December 31, 2005 12:06 PM Has anyone noticed that in comment #66190, "John C." says "As I explained (Comment #66074, of this thread)"? Looking back at comment #66074, it is authored by Larry Fafarman. But in comment #66029, we see: "I am a friend of Larry Fafarman. I am posting this message on his behalf. He wrote the message. John C." So what's going on here? Are John C. and Larry the same person, is John C. still allowing Larry to post under his name, or is it that John C. just can't remember if he or his friend made the comment?

Sockpuppeting has long been a creationist standard.

Given Larry's recent whining about his lack of comrades here, it is no surprise to me if he decided to bring a few of his imaginary friends.

Well, no surprise, given the extensive history of clumsy liars among the lesser lights of creationists; when even the leaders like West make such easily discovered lies, it's no surprise that the followers make such stupid lies.

Larry you still have everything backwards you said

If Larry read Larry's posts as carefully for Larry's ideas as Larry do(oes) for searching for violations of the site rules, maybe Larry could at least make a futile attempt at countering PT arguments.

Boy.... you should have no trouble dealing with this.

For 'SwiftBoating' West for The Discovery [of muck on political opponents and media mind control] Institute

For 'SwiftBoating' West for Creationism(Brainwashing) renamed to 'SwiftBoating' Design by the 'SwiftBoating' Designer.

For Larry for being the perfect target.

But heh Larry's a professional looser so he has to take their side.
Dey evn hve der own song.

Way down South dem gud old days they're not Fogotten
Whopping n*gg*rs and pick'n cotten
Oh... Dem gud old days back 'ome.

Here is the whole song
http://members.aol.com/quentncree/lehrer/dixie.htm

Re Larry's #66442:
If it was an innocent mistake, I apologise for the implication. I did say "I think a clarification is in order" - part of the quote that was left out by Larry (what a surprise).

Having said that...

Larry said:
"maybe you could at least make a futile attempt at countering my arguments."

Why should I make a futile attempt when there have been so many successful attempts already? The fact that you don't understand these refutations doesn't negate the fact that you have been repeatedly refuted here.

Larry. ARN. GO!

Comment #66241

Anyone who thinks criticism is indistinguishable from denigration is incapable of rational argument, which requires one without the other. It would be unfair to them to pretend otherwise.

— Larry Fafarman

I never said that. You are putting words in my mouth.

Comment# 65967 Criticism is disparagement by definition --- even constructive criticism.

— Larry Fafarman

"As for commenters who have disparaged my knowledge of the law --- I have appealed to the US Supreme Court twice as a pro se (self-represented) litigant. If you think that is easy, I suggest that you try it."

Big fat whoop-de-doo. Being a self-represented litigant in a case hardly requires much knowledge of the law, and it certainly doesn't connote that one is able to read and understand legal opinions. All it really requires is for one to be able to fill out the proper paperwork to file an appeal.

How did those Supreme Court cases go, btw? Did they even hear them?

How did those Supreme Court cases go, btw? Did they even hear them?

Comment #66486 Posted by Mark Decker on December 31, 2005 05:41 PM "As for commenters who have disparaged my knowledge of the law --- I have appealed to the US Supreme Court twice as a pro se (self-represented) litigant. If you think that is easy, I suggest that you try it." Big fat whoop-de-doo. Being a self-represented litigant in a case hardly requires much knowledge of the law, and it certainly doesn't connote that one is able to read and understand legal opinions. All it really requires is for one to be able to fill out the proper paperwork to file an appeal.

How did those Supreme Court cases go, btw? Did they even hear them?

Larry Barf.again .....the professional looser says

Larry really did not have a snowball's chance in hell, but appealing to the Supreme Court/PT/anything Larry disagrees with... was a good exercise.

In what Larry ?

Out of the mouths of babies... Larry projects his inner delusion ......a snowball in hell

Big fat whoop-de-doo. Being a self-represented litigant in a case hardly requires much knowledge of the law, and it certainly doesn't connote that one is able to read and understand legal opinions. All it really requires is for one to be able to fill out the proper paperwork to file an appeal.

And asserting one is a party to a case takes even less. Just a big mouth.

Sounds like Mr. West and other ID supporters. All mouth, no knowledge.