Judge Jones: A Devout Christian?

I wonder what John West's definition of a "devout" Christian is?

Indeed. There never was a big tent. Not really. They were happy to lure in people people of somewhat divergent views in order to beef up their numbers, but they didn't really want people who weren't 100% in lockstep. This dispute just makes it a bit more obvious that the whole movement really is driven by the rightwing fundies and no one else.

I suspect that John West's definition of a "devout Christian" is one who allows someone else (preferably John West) to think for them.

I assume the John West definition of a 'devout Christian' that accords best with the evidence is 'a person who professes to be a Christian whose political stance I like'.

Remember that these people adore Ronald Reagan as a 'devout Christian' despite the fact that he went to church perhaps once or twice a year and was divorced. If you make up for it in other ways, they're flexible with their standards.

I don't care if Jones is a devout Rastafarian. (shrug)

I don't care if Jones is a devout Rastafarian

For his part, Dembski hopes the conversation that began at the Torah and Science conference will continue, and that some Jewish scientists will eventually lend their talents to the intelligent design movement. "It would be huge in terms of PR because it would give lie to this idea that this is just a conservative Christian thing," he explains. "It would also expand our talent pool immensely."

sounds like the "big tent" is starting to shrink quite a bit, I'd say :)

— Sir_Toejam

For his part, Dembski hopes the conversation that began at the Torah and Science conference will continue, and that some Jewish scientists will eventually lend their talents to the intelligent design movement. "It would be huge in terms of PR because it would give lie to this idea that this is just a conservative Christian thing," he explains. "It would also expand our talent pool immensely."

The only two reasons to give a flying fig about Juge j's religious leanings are:
a. To establish West is a liar.
b. To demonstrate that conservative Christians with half a brain, who have considered the actual evidence, don't have any problem coming down against the vacuity and inanity of ID and for evolution.

I find it fascinating to consider West's underlying concept here, which is that Jones's religious beliefs can entirely invalidate his rulings as a judge. Rather revealing, no?

a. To establish West is a liar. b. To demonstrate that conservative Christians with half a brain, who have considered the actual evidence, don't have any problem coming down against the vacuity and inanity of ID and for evolution.

The point here is to challenge the media's effort to turn Judge Jones into something he's not in order to defend a biased and sloppy ruling.

When and why did projection turn into such a valuable debate tool?

There is nothing less Christian than so-called "Intelligent Design"...nothing less based upon faith. To say that the only reason one believes in God is that there are gaps in scientific knowledge is to say that when science (inevitably) fills those gaps, one's belief will end. In 1805 they didn't understand the evolution of the eye; today we do. What we do not understand today will be solved tomorrow. None of this impacts faith.

To a true believer (of any faith) science is a gift, not a conflict. Gaps in scientific knowledge could never be used to support faith. Those who actually read the New Testament (as opposed to those who hear it from fundamentalist fanatics) will remember "Doubting Thomas" who wanted to find evidence so that he could believe.

I like the modern expression of "swiftboating" that has now been attached to it.

This is more like a "borking". The swiftboat vets were eyewitnesses to specific events, and leveled specific charges at Kerry. This attack against Judge Jones is a fusillade of spitballs by comparison. There's no there there.

Judge Jones: A Devout Christian? PvM posted Entry 1858 on December 29, 2005 04:00 AM (opening comment of thread) West is arguing that the media is portraying Judge Jones "as a conservative Republican who is devoutly religious". While I have various news reports in which Jones is described as a Bush Republican appointee to the court, I have failed to find any references to Judge Jones being a devout Christian.

I agree that West's quotation and questionable interpretation of Jones' confirmation interview was out of line, but otherwise I feel that West's criticisms of Jones tend to be on target.

— Larry

Comment #67186 posted by PvM on January 3, 2006 11:43 AM Larry wrote: I agree that West's quotation and questionable interpretation of Jones' confirmation interview was out of line, but otherwise I feel that West's criticisms of Jones tend to be on target. That was the extent of West's 'criticism' of Jones in part 4.

But being on the losing end of the lawsuit, what else is one to do? Even Larry seemed to resort to ad hominems to describe the Judge.

This really reminds me to advocate for a Slashdot-style comment system on Panda's Thumb. It reduces concerns of censorship, while allowing people to get away from the trolls.

Have you tried ARN yet Lalalarry?

Dear Mr. West:

I read your online comments on the Kitzmiller case. I agree that the portion of Judge Jones' decision holding that intelligent design is not science was unwarranted. But not because he is or is not an activist. His decision was simply an intemperate and angry attack on the Dover board members who told bold-faced lies. Federal court judges have immense power which is of course subject to abuse like all power.

You are not giving proper weight to the gravity of the lying. All lawyers know that witnesses lie on the stand from time to time. But truth and lies are not as black and white as some presume. There are degrees of lies running from a slight stretching of the facts as perceived to malevolently knowing the consequences of the lie and adopting it with a view of defrauding the law. In the latter case, as in the Dover matter, a Federal judge is offended that his citadel of truth-seeking has been desecrated. Anger follows. When he addressed the primary question on everyone's mind: "Is intelligent design science", he did so with vindictiveness.

You are right to criticize the court, but for the wrong reason.

Nor is your point about judicial restraint entirely correct. It is true that in Wallace vs. Jaffree the Supreme Court stated that a violation of the Constitution could be proven solely based on an unlawful purpose behind State activity. That is, prong one of the Lemon test. But the doctrine of judicial restraint, while wholly applicable at the Supreme Court level, though often ignored, is somewhat less so at the Circuit Courts of Appeal level, and even less for the trial court. I am familiar with many decisions of appellate courts where the district court is chided for failing to decide all issues in the case so as to avoid multiple appeals. If on a three-prong test the lower court decides the case on one prong (clearly that was the case here) and the appellate court reverses on that point, the case must go down and be re-tried on the undecided issues Of course, at the conclusion of the trial it was quite apparent that the case would not be appealed thereby making clear that Judge Jones' decision was not motivated by the completeness rule. The case was too badly tried to be appealed.

A very successful personal injury lawyer was once asked. "You have an impressive record of court wins: What is the most important factor in your success?" The lawyer thought for a moment and said simply: "Client intake." And that is a lesson that The Thomas More Law Center ignored.

When a Federal District Court judge says that your chief protagonist lied on the witness stand, you have brought the wrong case to trial. That is generally true. In a case involving the First Amendment ban on teaching religion in schools, where one test for the propriety of the action is the "purpose" of the activity being challenged --- secular or religious --- you should not have even considered bringing the suit. The court said that the Thomas More Center had been looking for a case to bring to test intelligent design as an alternative or complement to Darwinism. The Center should have kept up the search.

If this case was one appearing in a John Grisham novel, it would turn out that the members of the Dover School Board were undercover agents for the ACLU, who had trumped up the activity to inveigle the anti-evolution crowd into defending a hopeless case.

You argued that the court ignored the evidence based primarily on its dismissal of the amicus brief including evidentiary appendices filed by the FTE the organization that published Of Pandas and People. That is incorrect. Filing of an amicus brief is predicated on a successful motion. Grant of the motion is completely discretionary with the court. That which may be refused in total may be ignored in part. Moreover, amicus briefs are rarely filed in the District Courts. In short, the brief and appendices were not evidence and could be properly ignored by the court. He did.

The Pandas problem was not with the court but with the lawyers. When the motion to intervene was denied, FTE could have appealed (but frankly, it would have been fruitless -- the requirements of Rule 24 could not be met). But here is the enigma to someone on the sidelines. Why didn't the defendants call a witness from the FTE. That evidence was undoubtedly admissible. You don't have to be a party to offer support to an existing party. Even if, as I suspect, FTE may not have wanted to place its witness in the hands of defendants lead counsel, they could have pressured the defendants to be appointed co-counsel for presenting their own witness. It was foolish of defendants' counsel and the FTE. The points made in the amicus brief are good, though not entirely convincing. Pandas is now dead. It is tainted beyond hope. Today a biology teacher is more likely to recommend Mein Kampf as supplemental reading on eugenics than Pandas on intelligent design.

A similar point can be made about your complaint that the court ignored the peer-reviewed papers about intelligent design. There are not enough papers to weigh against the Darwinism papers to win that battle. The evidence that should have been presented was two-fold. First, it is premature to make a comparison. Second, peer-review is a support program for the existing scientific paradigm. Why wasn't Frank Tipler (Uncommon Dissent) or some comparable witness there to testify that peer review is not historically important, that it merely entrenches orthodoxy, and that there are numerous historical examples where a new theory, later accepted, was hooted down when originally introduced.

Nor do I agree that the effect of the decision is minor, befitting a lower court ruling. Technically, that is true. But as evident from the court's reliance on McLean and similar references to that case in the Edwards Supreme Court case, a lower court opinion may take on an importance beyond its binding legal effect. Judge Jones was obviously attempting to establish his own opinion on the same level as McLean. That was arrogant, to be sure. But what is done is done. The real concern is the popular ramifications of the case which I measure as devastating.

First, a survey of press reports during and after the Kitzmiller trial demonstrates that the press views the result as a decisive win for evolution regardless of how narrow the decision. The hostility toward religion was an echo of the attitude toward the religious right. And no self-respecting journalist would want to be caught without having gotten in some licks that the Board's action is an exemplar of religious fanaticism. The Dover School Board, again in the Grisham mode, was an agent of the New York Times.

Second, you will not find a single school teacher in the country that will now deviate from the Darwinian line. The Dover school teachers stood up to the Board (refusing to read the "Statement" on evolution to each biology class) and will be lauded by the Darwinists. To teach Darwinian evolution earns kudos, to criticize it could jeopardize your job. Easy decision.

Third, no School Board, no State legislature, no Board of Education will allow a curriculum that challenges Darwin. To do so would be to invite removal. Ironically, they will read the Dover case as proof that a Board that allows the teaching of intelligent design will be turned out by the voters. In fact, the reason that the Dover Board was ousted is more likely to have been the blatant mendacity of the three leading members of the Board. The lesson should be that school board members cannot engage in chicanery, lying, subterfuge and skullduggery. But it won't be read that way, especially in the press.

Fourth, the irrefutable theory of irreducible complexity of Michael Behe will etiolate. Another unsolved problem for natural selection conveniently swept under the rug. It joins a long and increasing list. Birds did not develop feathers to fly. Fish did not develop limbs to walk on land. The Cambrian explosion remains a mystery. The origin of all life simply excluded from the theory. And so on.

Fifth, intelligent design is dead in the schools of the United States. It was killed aborning. It will now be met with even greater contempt by the biology establishment than pre-Kitzmiller. No academic research program will ever see the light of day -- the stigma of Kitzmiller will prevail. Editors of scientific journals will not even distribute submitted papers for peer review, thereby denying ID adherents of the evidence needed to overcome Judge Jones' harsh treatment. Intelligent design bears the scarlet letter of fundamentalist religion. It cannot be saved in the courts.

Those who see evolution both as a bad theory and as the springboard for human secularism need to regroup.

Paul Adams

January 9, 2006

Fourth, the irrefutable theory of irreducible complexity of Michael Behe will etiolate. Another unsolved problem for natural selection conveniently swept under the rug. It joins a long and increasing list. Birds did not develop feathers to fly. Fish did not develop limbs to walk on land. The Cambrian explosion remains a mystery. The origin of all life simply excluded from the theory. And so on.

— Paul Adams

I doubt Paul Adams' long post is worth picking apart. Adams, like the rest of our creationists, seems to feel that Jones decided as he did for the usual reasons:

1) Jones was peeved that some of the defendents lied, and this influenced him to make rash and unsupported (except by facts, but who's counting?) statements.

2) A proper set of defendents would have disguised their religious motivations and effects more cleverly, making a clear constitutional decision more difficult.

3) "Darwinism" is the establishment-approved doctrine, rubber-stamped by the establishment, and not sociologically subject to question. (As usual, Adams equates ANY disagreement with RELIGIOUS disagreement. Since religion is disallowed in science class, valid science must ipso facto be disallowed. What's the difference?)

4) The usual Orwellian "war is peace" statements. Here we find the howling thigh-slappers "the irrefutable theory of irreducible complexity" (which isn't a theory, it's specific claims each of which is thoroughly refuted), "hostility toward religion" (how dare they restrict science class to mere science?), abuse of power, "unsolved problem for natural selection", and to cap it off, the claim that "the stigma of Kitzmiller" will ensure that "academic research program will ever see the light of day." As though "academic research" and teaching religion as science are the same thing.

However, I do agree with Adams that "Intelligent design bears the scarlet letter of fundamentalist religion." It IS fundamentalist religion, nothing else.

ID is good! We lost because you only saw the bad bits!

— IDiot

OK, show us the good bits.

— scientist

ID is good! We lost because you only saw the bad bits!

— IDiot

Intelligent design bears the scarlet letter of fundamentalist religion. It cannot be saved in the courts. Those who see evolution both as a bad theory and as the springboard for human secularism need to regroup.

Fourth, the irrefutable theory of irreducible complexity of Michael Behe will etiolate. Another unsolved problem for natural selection conveniently swept under the rug. It joins a long and increasing list. Birds did not develop feathers to fly. Fish did not develop limbs to walk on land. The Cambrian explosion remains a mystery.