The Discovery Institute squeaks back

Dr. Padian's demonstrative slides, prepared on the basis of peer-reviewing scientific literature, illustrate how Pandas systematically distorts and misrepresents established, important evolutionary principles.

Expert testimony revealed that this inductive argument is not scientific and as admitted by Professor Behe, can never be ruled out. (2:40 (Miller); 22:101 (Behe); 3:99 (Miller)). Indeed, the assertion that design of biological systems can be inferred from the "purposeful arrangement of parts" is based upon an analogy to human design. Because we are able to recognize design of artifacts and objects, according to Professor Behe, that same reasoning can be employed to determine biological design. (18:116-17, 23:50 (Behe)). Professor Behe testified that the strength of the analogy depends upon the degree of similarity entailed in the two propositions; however, if this is the test, ID completely fails.

The part where West accuses Jones of "delusions of grandeur" is especially priceless. (Projection, anyone?)

BTW, I've got an idea for a fashionable Sudden Appearance Theory. Life suddenly appeared not once, but twice. Once in the window, and once from the grassy knoll.

"Sudden Appearance Theory" - I like it. You should seek a Federal Grant to research it, or at least see if you can make some money writing press releases about it.

My favorite part was the headline: a classic case of "passive voice used to make opinion of institute lackey sound objective."

"It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy."

If you read the ruling, you'll notice how carefully Jones relies on evidence and precedent for every judgement he makes, in paragraph after paragraph. Does anyone find it out of character that the DI can't appreciate that approach?

Judge Jones, certainly not a liberal by any stretch of the imagination, showed the dishonesty and vacuity of the ID movement proponents and followers. Judge Jones also showed the flaws of the "ID theory" starting with the fact that they have no theory at all, from that point on everything related to ID is downhill.
Regardless of how careful Judge Jones is in crafting his arguments and judgment the IDiots will never appreciate his approach since they are completely dishonest and morally bankrupt.

Only Nixon could go to China. So it is that only a Bush appointee, and Christian, could squish intelligent design.

Given the length of the opinion (with which I agree), I wonder whether the judge had written the vast majority of it prior to trial and updated it as the trial went on. He would have known the issues prior to trial. The trial was a waste of time and money. And now the school board will apparently have to pay the plaintiff's costs and attorneys' fees.

"Sudden Appliance Theory"? Is that like a Bass-O-Matic in reverse?

The DI is going to have to go shopping for a new schtick. "Intelligent Design" has just been rubbished in the courts. Can we expect "Sudden Appearance Theory" to suddenly become fashionable?

"Sudden Emergence Theory of Intelligence"

...oh wait, I think that acronym is already taken...

Dubious Origins Of Fully Upright Sapients?

Re: "Sudden Appearance Theory".

Creationists already tried that about 15 years ago. (Unless there's some significant difference between "abrupt" and "sudden" that I'm not aware of.)

It didn't get nearly as far as the "Intelligent Design" scam, so they're going to have to get more creative next time around.

The part where West accuses Jones of "delusions of grandeur" is especially priceless. (Projection, anyone?)

— Julie

...said Dr. John West, Associate Director of the Center for Science and Culture at Discovery Institute, the nation's leading think tank researching the scientific theory known as intelligent design.

nice example of the complete ID divorce from reality.

if you tried to follow the case through the (not very comprehensive)descriptions by ID supporters, one of the few things you noticed was that the case was going very well for them. This included, for example, the unassailable competence of Behe's awesome testimony, and the contempt Jones had for Forrest's irrational, biased, unsholarly testimony. I think Evopeach was ready to bet the family farm on a ruling in favor of ID.

suddenly, an ID supporter is expected to believe that the court was hostile to the ID case all along. it must be tiring and depressing to maintain a head full of facts which don't properly fit together, and excuses for why every unanticipated observation really does fit into your belief system.

Discovery Institute, the nation's leading think tank researching the scientific theory known as intelligent design.

Dubious Origins Of Fully Upright Sapients?

— steviepinhead

Demsiki is quoted in the NYT as follows:

"I think the big lesson is, let's go to work and really develop this theory and not try to win this in the court of public opinion," Dr. Dembski said. "The burden is on us to produce."

So maybe there is some hope. When he produces nothing will be be embarrassed enough to walk away?

I found Judge Jones comment -- that ID didn't belong in a "science" class interesting. Because this is the point fundamentalists always chose to ignore. They could teach ID in a philosophy class, just as the could present the Bible, the Koran etc. in a philosophy or comparative religions class or even as literature. But their objection is not that it can't be taught but that it can't be integrated into the curriculum where ever they wish to place it as a counterpoint to the corrupting influence of materialism and secular humanism (which of course is corrupting the nation and youth of today).

It won't matter that the Judge was appointed by George W. Bush just like it didn't matter that the Judge in Schiavo case was a Republican and all the Bush and Reagan appointees at the appeals levels upheld his decision. You get excluded from the club once you rule the wrong way because you were either "brainwashed" or really a stealth liberal.

"I think the big lesson is, let's go to work and really develop this theory and not try to win this in the court of public opinion," Dr. Dembski said. "The burden is on us to produce."

"The burden is on us to produce." Dembski said, then gulped.

Good luck Bill! If you need us, we'll be in the cocktail lounge celebrating Kitzmas!

Purposeful Organizaiton Of Parts

"The burden is on us to produce." Wow! A statement from Dembski that makes some sense? What are the chances?!

His pet monkey must have randomly typed the sentence on Bill's keyboard.

"The burden is on us to produce." Wow! A statement from Dembski that makes some sense? What are the chances?!

Yeah, but if you read the comments on his blog by his disciples, they still don't get it.

Now, if they would just shut up and "do science" (or do enough to see that there is no science), they would be too preoccupied to rant.

Now here's a serious question.

It seems to me the "repackaging" of ID had already begun when the Disco Inst. started its "teach the controversy" campaign. The party line is that they don't demand the teaching of "intelligent design", but on promoting bogus criticism of evolution. (Or, as Ohio creationist educator and tragic DI martyr, St. Bryan of Leonard, phrases it: "teach scientific evidence both favoring and challenging evolution.")

So my serious question, to those better able than I to interpret legal tea leaves: Does the Dover decision have anything to say to that approach?

I've seen it! It's already begun (on arn.org)

It's now called "directed evolution"

"Sudden Appliance Theory"? Is that like a Bass-O-Matic in reverse?

— David Wilford

So my serious question, to those better able than I to interpret legal tea leaves: Does the Dover decision have anything to say to that approach [relabeling the anti-evolution package as "teaching the controversy"]?

— I

... Moreover, ID's backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID.

It is a testimony to the linguistic legerdemain of the DI that all of the misdirection in the slogan "Teach the Controversy" is contained in that innocent little "the" in the middle.

10) It mischaracterizes ID as a supernatural explanation even though it isn't and even though both pro-ID expert scientists testified it wasn't. In short, it lets the critics define ID rather than the proponents. 9) It overreaches the judicial arm by ruling that the nature of science is characterized by methodological naturalism and that intelligent design is not science.

It's now called "directed evolution"