Judge for himself

This is truly heartening. Thanks, Pim.

Bob

Our christmas present was indeed a big pony.

Disheartening for the vocal majority, would you not say? Heartening for those of us on the side of church-state separation and sound science.

There was something I said in the opinion that was grossly misunderstood...

Sorry. The Philly Inquirer had his name wrong.
He is Judge John E. Jones III

I get the feeling that despite all the personal attacks on Judge Jones' character, and all the IDists trying to pick apart his words, he's quite comfortable with letting history judge his opinion and ruling.

Disheartening for the vocal majority, would you not say? Heartening for those of us on the side of church-state separation and sound science.

— t.f.

PvM posted Entry 2067 on February 26, 2006 08:37 PM Judge Jones said -- "The controversial part of the ruling was whether intelligent design is in fact science. Lost in the post-decision debate was that both sides, plaintiffs and defense, asked me to rule on that issue."

The Dover v Kitzmiller decision, contrary to ID pundits' predictions, has already become a foundation for other legal cases and challenges.

Judges aren't supposed to be "neutral", they're supposed to be disinterested and impartial. Then they make a decision if favour of one side or the other. If they were "neutral" they wouldn't be able to make a decision.

And I'm astonished that anyone, even a troll, would suggest that a judge should refuse to rule on a question put before him by BOTH parties, and one that was a major part of the case! Bizarre.

It's also bizarre that Larry/AndyH/whatever-your-name-is
is still going over this old ground and repeating the activist judge rubbish. Haven't you heard, you're supposed to be "teaching the controversy" now. Or is it "sudden emergence theory" this week?

Andy H. which is a pseudonym for "Super Activist" Lawrence Fafarman a person who actually thinks that denigrating evidential material will promote his views on the Holocaust, evolution, US law, smog tax, and mad cow disease.

Again tries to misinform.

Keep going Larry your plainly insane and constant attacks on people of good character, a concept that obviously is beyond your realm of being, like Judge Jones completely discredits your side of the argument.

Is Larry a ____________ ? (Fill in the blank dear reader)

"Here is how different kinds of judges would have ruled ---

Non-activist judge ---
Pro-ID school board was replaced by anti-ID school board. Case is moot. Dismissed."

You're not being logical here. Jones is a non-activist judge, and he didn't rule like that. Ergo, you're wrong.

"Also, Jones was supposed to put himself in the position of an "objective observer" and not in the position of an "expert" who heard several days of expert testimony. An "objective observer" is supposed to be better informed than the average citizen but is not supposed to be an expert --- it would be unreasonable to base an "effects" test on how an expert would view something."

And that is exactly what Jones has done, you silly liar:

"People have asked me, "Did you sort of make yourself an expert? Did you read up on things?" and the answer is no, I didn't..."

"What if Judge Jones had been really skeptical and refused to accept such far-fetched Darwinist arguments as the notion that jawbones evolved into middle-ear bones ? What if Jones had turned the tables and ruled that Darwinism is not science ?"

What if the Earth was flat?

"The Dover decision is certainly not a foundation, because being the opinion of a single judge of the lowest rank of federal courts, it has little value as precedent."

Heh, you silly bugger. Of course it is. It is an intellectual foundation. Nobody claims it is a precedent in a legal sense. Don't you get tired of being wrong?

There were a lot of ellipses in that interview, but like the man said, "The opinion speaks for itself."

But, don't you just know that Dembski and the other DI hacks are thinking, "If only I had testified, we would have won." Or, if they are more honest than I think they are, "I am so glad I wasn't there on the witness stand. I would have got creamed like Behe. Now I can pretend that it didn't count because (fill in the blank) didn't testify."

Then they sharpen their quills (they are in the middle ages) and write, "The purposeful arangement of parts ... the origin of life ... teach the controversy."

Thanks Pim.

uh... Gary
I'm pretty sure 'Count' William Dembski
is happy to be 'guilt' free and quixotically gloating over his 'untainted' book sales and his solipsistic lecture circuit.

He knows the only way for his pig to fly is change the 'rules' for the definition of science and changing the constitution.
Both will have to get past non-activist Judges.
Seems those pesky enchanted windmills are getting bigger.

Philadelphia Inquirer, please, with an I, sometimes known as the Inky.

You're confusing it with The National Enquirer. (Or maybe the Cincinnati paper of that name.)

Larry appears to be conducting some kind of long-term test to see whether if he repeats the same four or five absurd statements enough times, they will become true.

Larry is just a bad looser. He has sour grapes. Never once, not once, did he actually consider that Judge might be right.

Comment #82390 Posted by hehe on February 27, 2006 12:14 AM You're not being logical here. Jones is a non-activist judge, and he didn't rule like that. Ergo, you're wrong.

Also, Jones was supposed to put himself in the position of an "objective observer" and not in the position of an "expert" who heard several days of expert testimony.

And that is exactly what Jones has done, you silly liar: "People have asked me, "Did you sort of make yourself an expert? Did you read up on things?" and the answer is no, I didn't..."

What if Judge Jones had been really skeptical and refused to accept such far-fetched Darwinist arguments as the notion that jawbones evolved into middle-ear bones ? What if Jones had turned the tables and ruled that Darwinism is not science ?

What if the Earth was flat?

The Dover decision is certainly not a foundation, because being the opinion of a single judge of the lowest rank of federal courts, it has little value as precedent.

Heh, you silly bugger. Of course it is. It is an intellectual foundation. Nobody claims it is a precedent in a legal sense.

Comment #82387 Posted by Charlie B on February 27, 2006 12:01 AM And I'm astonished that anyone, even a troll, would suggest that a judge should refuse to rule on a question put before him by BOTH parties, and one that was a major part of the case! Bizarre.

Posted by Andy H. on February 27, 2006 03:50 AM (e) ... On the contrary, Jones considered himself to be an expert on the basis of the expert testimony that he heard in court. He claimed that he was better qualified to rule on the scientific merits of ID than any other judge in the country.

I said that on the issue of whether intelligent design was science, that there wasn't a judge in the United States in a better position to decide that than I was. [Commentator Phyllis] Schlafly interpreted that as my saying that I am so brilliant and erudite that I could decide that better than anyone else could. What I meant was that no one else had sat through an intensive six weeks of largely scientific testimony...

Judge Jones admitted that evolution theory is flawed. That at least is a start.

— Andy H.

The Dover decision is not binding as an intellectual foundation, either. Other judges are free to come up with their own opinions about the scientific merits of ID...

— Andy H.

Please show me where the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure says that a judge is obligated to rule on a question just because both parties asked him/her to.

— 'Andy H.

You will also hear from John Haught, a theologian, who will explain that intelligent design is not new science. It is old theology, the argument for the existence of God that has been around for centuries.

— Eric Rothschild (for the plaintiffs, in his opening statement)

The board believed that intelligent design was not creationism. They knew what that was, the Book of Genesis. They concluded that intelligent design was science.

— Patrick Gillen (for the defendants in his opening statement)

"WHO is not being logical here ?"

You, obviously.

"You are obviously begging the question --- you are not even trying to be subtle about it."

Begging the question if what you were doing.

"Not only was the case moot, but the defendants could not appeal, which was an additional reason for declaring the case to be moot."

Again, obviously, Since the judge ruled, the case was not moot.

"On the contrary, Jones considered himself to be an expert on the basis of the expert testimony that he heard in court."

It's just another of your lies. The truth is the opposite of what you claim, as is proven by Jones' interview.

"He claimed that he was better qualified to rule on the scientific merits of ID than any other judge in the country."

And he was.

"Judge Jones admitted that evolution theory is flawed. That at least is a start."

No he didn't. So once again you're exposed as a liar.

"The Dover decision is not binding as an intellectual foundation, either."

Intellectual foundation cannot be binding, retard.

"Other judges are free to come up with their own opinions about the scientific merits of ID or --- as I suggested --- not rule at all on ID's scientific merits but just rule that irreducible complexity is non-religious and that even though IC might be bogus science, there is no separation of bogus science and state."

Nobody claimed otherwise.

He was not obligated to rule on whether ID is science --- or good science --- just because both sides asked him to.

Comment #82406 Posted by Stephen Elliott on February 27, 2006 04:06 AM Posted by Andy H. on February 27, 2006 03:50 AM "He claimed that he was better qualified to rule on the scientific merits of ID than any other judge in the country." So he was,

because. "I said that on the issue of whether intelligent design was science, that there wasn't a judge in the United States in a better position to decide that than I was. [Commentator Phyllis] Schlafly interpreted that as my saying that I am so brilliant and erudite that I could decide that better than anyone else could. What I meant was that no one else had sat through an intensive six weeks of largely scientific testimony..." Which part of that is untrue?

Comment #82407 Posted by Evo_Turk on February 27, 2006 04:13 AM Andy H. wrote: "Judge Jones admitted that evolution theory is flawed. That at least is a start." You are wrong. He said that evolutionary theory is imperfect. Anyway there are no perfect theories in science. Your argument is ridiculous.

Flat earth
4004 bc about 9 am
humours (humor)
stork theory of baby making (delivery)
Darwin's recantation
geocentrism
and the beat goes on and on and on into the 21st century

I am appalled at the depth of willful ignorance openingly displayed by idapologists.

Must be worth the money?

"Imperfect" is just a euphemism for "flawed." An "imperfect" diamond is the same as a "flawed" diamond. We are really getting nitpicking here.

No theory is perfect, so Holocaust-denying antisemite Fafarman is exposed as a demagogue once again.

"Imperfect" is just a euphemism for "flawed." An "imperfect" diamond is the same as a "flawed" diamond. We are really getting nitpicking here.

— Andy H.

"We don't really know that --- somewhere there may be a judge who studied the controversy on his/her own and who has more general knowledge about it than Judge Jones does."

Are you playing the "He didn't hear the real ID" card? Gee, the moment he gets completely taken apart in court, the ID crowd is all too ready to disown Michael Behe. It must suck to have no job security as a proponent of ID when your pet theory goes belly-up.

Anyway, the point is that Judge Jones heard the best testimony from prominent members of the ID camp. What any layperson spends six months researching on the internet, Jones was taught by the best and brightest in six weeks.

Comment #82409 Posted by Charlie B on February 27, 2006 05:06 AM Of course he had to rule on whether ID was science when it was the crux of the case.

"Funny, before the Dover decision was released, no one was willing to predict publicly whether Judge Jones would rule on the scientific merits of ID, but after the decision was released a lot of people have said that he had no choice but to rule on that issue."

Nothing strange here. If he wouldn't rule on that, he would prove that he is an activist judge.

Funny, before the Dover decision was released, no one was willing to predict publicly whether Judge Jones would rule on the scientific merits of ID, but after the decision was released a lot of people have said that he had no choice but to rule on that issue.

— Andy H.

Larry, your arguments are not imperfect, they are flawed. Own medicine tastes good here lad?

Rather than read another thread derailed by Andy/Larry, I am going to see if I can start a area Judge Jones fan club.

Andy H. "Not only was the case moot, but the defendants could not appeal, which was an additional reason for declaring the case to be moot."

Why couldn't the defendants appeal? I have no doubt that they had no *intention* of appealing a loss, given that the new board members were mostly elected on their anti-ID stance. But the fact that the composition of the board had change was no barrier to their legal rights and obligations. It was the board of education that was sued, not the individual members, and the board of education continued and continues to exist-if they choose to pursue this matter, nothing is preventing them. (Except their own good sense & political will to live.)

Funny, before the Dover decision was released, no one was willing to predict publicly whether Judge Jones would rule on the scientific merits of ID, but after the decision was released a lot of people have said that he had no choice but to rule on that issue.

Comment #82384 Posted by Andy H. on February 26, 2006 11:21 PM (e)

uh... Gary I'm pretty sure 'Count' William Dembski is happy to be 'guilt' free and quixotically gloating over his 'untainted' book sales and his solipsistic lecture circuit.

— k.e.

Evo_turk quoted Judge Jones thusly:

To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions. (pp. 136-137, Kitzmiller v. Dover decision)

And The Crankcase Who Shall Remain The Opposite Of Nameless has yet to respond to this. He also has yet to respond to the numerous questions about why he insists on using multiple names. Not up to a real grownup debate, are you?

Not only was the case moot, but the defendants could not appeal, which was an additional reason for declaring the case to be moot.

— B.F.

...forgot to add that, obviously, the defendants had (and have) the ability to appeal the case. You are completely wrong. Perhaps you are under the impression that the outgoing board members themselves were the defendants. If only that were true! Then they would be footing the bill instead of the taxpayers.

Posted by improvius on February 27, 2006 09:18 AM (e) ... The judge should not have done this. Neither party made a motion to dismiss the case. Also, the policy in question was not removed until after the judge's decision. And on top of that, the plaintiffs were seeking damages and a declaratory judgement. There was no legal reason to moot the case. I'm amazed nobody pointed all this out yet.

Which is why the point needs to be repeatedly made that Dembski's 'work' on Complex Specified Information is based on Behe's Irreducible Complexity - which of course was shown to be utterly worthless as as criticism of evolution by the judge.

— Tim Hague

"... thus a complicated machine was gradually built up whose effective working was dependent upon the interlocking action of very numerous different elementary parts or factors, and many of the characters and factors which, when new, were originally merely an asset finally became necessary because other necessary characters and factors had subsequently become changed so as to be dependent on the former. It must result, in consequence, that a dropping out of, or even a slight change in any one of these parts is very likely to disturb fatally the whole machinery; for this reason we should expect very many, if not most, mutations to result in lethal factors ..." Muller 1918 p. 464, italics in the original.

— Muller in 1918

Posted by KL on February 27, 2006 07:41 AM (e) Rather than read another thread derailed by Andy/Larry, I am going to see if I can start a area Judge Jones fan club.

Only 13 of the 42 comments on this thread do not deal with Andy/Larry, so he may properly be considered the subject. I submit to you that the methods Panda's Thumb employs to deal with trolls are an abject failure.

— steve s

Steve S:
"Only 13 of the 42 comments on this thread do not deal with Andy/Larry, so he may properly be considered the subject. I submit to you that the methods Panda's Thumb employs to deal with trolls are an abject failure."

re: abject failure - IMO, no, I don't think so. I remember when I was new to this debate, I enjoyed reading the responses to trolling, and I learned a lot from poster's responses. Yes, Larry is an idiot, BUT, again IMO, a useful idiot. My $.02.

Then, of course, people should ignore him (That will be hard, but maybe it could be done if a standard response were posted to his drivel.

I'm actually glad that (most) cranks are not banned from PT. It shows that dissent is not stifled. Here's a suggestion for dealing with the crank: When he posts, the moderator should put up a standard comment, something like, "This is Larry, posting as Andy, or possibly under another name. He has shown that he does not understand any subject relevant to evolution, nor many subjects not relevant to evolution. These subjects include: biology, chemistry, physics, mathematics, imaginary numbers, and the workings of the US legal system. He is only seeking attention, so please do not give it to him."

Thanks, Laser. I suggest the following modification of your standard message:

"This is Larry Fafarman, who is known for posting under other names. He has shown that he does not understand any subject relevant to evolution, nor many subjects not relevant to evolution. These subjects include: biology, chemistry, physics, mathematics, imaginary numbers, the Holocaust, and the workings of the US legal system. The overwhelming majority -- if not all -- of the assertions and opinions he posts here are repetitions of assertions and opinions already debunked in previous threads. He is only seeking attention, so please do not give it to him."

I'm with J-Dog. Larry-Who-Is-Legion echoes the sentiments of many who write letters to the editor in our local papers. Those writers are completely wrong, also, and they are just as impervious to rational argument.

Nevertheless, like J-Dog and me, there are many who read those letters and responses who are not unteachable. And not ever reader knows all the answers that seem obvious to many who respond to Larry the F.

I think posting standard responses is a good idea, especially noting that they are standard responses and that the topics "Me-Myself-and-Larry" & clones have brought up have been dealt with before, without any counterargument. (Which is what RB posted in while I was writing this!)

...and ben!

Andy H wrote... "This case was not like, say, product liability cases where the judges often must decide on the merits of scientific theories in order to decide the cases."

Yes, this was very much like a product liability case. The proponent's claims for the product were based on its alleged scientific merits. The plaintiffs' position was that the claims were fraudulent and that they were damaged by those claims. Fraud and and material damage were upheld on the basis of exposing the scientific dishonesty.

'Everybody should just not feed the troll'.

http://www.therealmartha.com/WANews/duh_Garfield.jpg

why don't you tell us that nobody should steal things while you're at it.

There needs to be a system where comments like Larry's encounter friction, if the purpose of the comments section is to discuss the attached post. Nobody said ban the trolls, but presumably the goal at PT is not to have trolls hijack every last thread. Right now, that's the primary function of PT comment sections.

I think that comments by "Andy H' are useful. While judge Jone's decision was wonderfully reasoned and sound in every respect, it has little impact out here in the trenches. Those of us trying to practice science AND deal with these cretins can always use a good clean written example of the twisted and bizarre "logic" that is used to to miseducate our students. In fact, I whole-heartedly endorse the idea of someone creating a compendium of this clown's posts as a sort of short course in creationist rhetoric and polemics.

FYI, this weekend I saw three programs on our local TV (in Arkansas) devoted to "debunking" evolution, one full length letter in the paper, and a couple of short letters.

"This is Larry Fafarman, who is known for posting under other names. He has shown that he does not understand any subject relevant to evolution, nor many subjects not relevant to evolution. These subjects include: biology, chemistry, physics, mathematics, imaginary numbers, the Holocaust, and the workings of the US legal system. The overwhelming majority --- if not all --- of the assertions and opinions he posts here are repetitions of assertions and opinions already debunked in previous threads. He is only seeking attention, so please do not give it to him."

I thought posting under multiple names was not allowed here? Larry threatened to do this on the '1000-post' thread (he also threatened to invent an IP address scrambler to get around any ban - to much amusement). Anyone care to check?

It was pointed out to Larry that whatever name he posted under his trademark crankery is such a dead giveaway that no-one would be fooled by it.

Andy H is so transparently Larry - especially his peculiar take on the US legal system - that he only succeeds in making an even bigger fool of himself by trying to pretend he's someone else.

He is a useful fool sometimes however - I find that some of the posts which demolish his arguements to be very informative - and as Larry is really the best that the pro-ID crowd can offer - it shows that not only is the 'science' of ID vacuous - but the 'big guns' of the movement have vacated the field in favour of a hapless troll.

Just in case 'Andy H' is considering 'bearing false witness' perhaps he'd like to take my Larry Farfarman test:

'Andy H' do you agree with any of the following statements:

1. The confederate flag is a symbol of a breakaway movement from the USA and should not be flown from public buildings.

2. Holocaust 'revisionism' is simply a variety of Holocaust 'denial'.

3. I don't live in Los Angeles

4. I don't ride a bicycle.

5. I do not consider myself to be an expert on US law.

6. I've never tried to take a case to the Supreme Court

- now think carefully before you answer - you know what happens to people who 'bear false witness'. Failure to respond will be considered by myself as final evidence that you are indeed Larry F.

He admitted it earlier.

By the way, someone said but now I can't find it that this case didn't set precident??? Huh??? A ruling by a federal judge not being precident? Any laywer arguing in another case will have the luxury of reading off an amazingly well reasoned opinion in a prior case. That is kinda what precident is right? I mean, you would have to overturn the precident set by Judge Jones if you wanted to arrive at a different legal conclusion, right?

by hehe:
"Heh, you silly bugger. Of course it is. It is an intellectual foundation. Nobody claims it is a precedent in a legal sense. Don't you get tired of being wrong?"

BWE,
Not exactly. Only "courts of record" (courts of the appeals level or Federal courts where the decisions are published) set precedent. And precedent only applies when the court is in your "chain of command" so to speak. That is, decisions in the 9th Circuit are not precedent in the 3rd, but they are precedent for all the lower courts in the 9th.

There is nothing in the Kitzmiller decision that legally prevents the exact same case from being heard in another district. [But, lawyers in those districts are free to refer to Kitzmiller as much as they like. They just have to demonstrate that it applies.] Perhaps the ID crowd can get a "non-activist" judge who will find in their favor. That would actually help the case get to the higher courts, because higher courts are more likely to choose to hear cases which have resulted in major opposing decisions.

But the theocratic fundamentalists are unlikely to quit even if the Supreme Court decides again that "teach the controversy-intelligent design-creation science" is just religion and does not belong in the science classes of government schools.

So Panda's Thumb, the Secular Web, the AAAS, the NCSE, the ACLU and friends will still be here, hacking at the leaves of evil (trolls and DaveScott), and striking at the root (the DI and all the other creation science "institutes").

By the way, someone said but now I can't find it that this case didn't set precident???

— BWE

He was not obligated to rule on whether ID is science --- or good science --- just because both sides asked him to. The case was real simple. Here is how different kinds of judges would have ruled ---

— Andy H

What if Judge Jones had been really skeptical and refused to accept such far-fetched Darwinist arguments as the notion that jawbones evolved into middle-ear bones ? What if Jones had turned the tables and ruled that Darwinism is not science ? Another judge might rule the other way --- no other judge is bound by Jones' decision, maybe not even in Jones' own Middle District of Pennsylvania federal district court.

The Dover decision is certainly not a foundation, because being the opinion of a single judge of the lowest rank of federal courts, it has little value as precedent. In fact, the 9th Circuit federal court of appeals --- the largest federal appeals court circuit in the USA --- used to have a rule that no district-court opinion could be cited in any brief or opinion of the 9th Circuit. Also, the Dover decision has a lot of flaws which may seriously impair its value as precedent.

Personally, while I find many of the scientific writings here to be of interest, I find I am much more entertained by witnessing trolls being completely demolished.

Please feed the trolls. Fatten them up for the kill.

On the topic of "precedent", after conferring with a co-worker who actually has a legal degree (I do not), I was told this:

It would be misleading to call Dover precedent. Quite simply, as explained above, precedent is set by a higher/equal court, and a lower/equal court is bound to follow it, within the same "tree" (the 2nd circuit doesn't have "precedent" from the 8th circuit, say, but the supreme court our the 2nd itself could set precedent for the 2nd and all subsidiary courts). This precedent would only be binding in Judge Jones' jurisdiction, as a result.

This is what the ID folks are squawking about. They, however, miss a very important point:

A well-written and well-crafted decision, along with all the accompanying evidence, can be entered into evidence at another trial, if my understanding is correct. Judges are also much more apt to find the rulings of other similarly unbiased judges highly persuasive. Thus, while Jones' decision sets no precedent, it provides a foundation for several things. First, as a simple road-map for defeating ID in future cases based on a successful plaintiff approach. Second, as a vehicle for influencing the opinion of a judge by demonstrating that one of his peers has already conclusively shot down ID in a very legally vehement manner. Third, as a demonstration of duplicity on the part of the defendents, which would call their credibility into question if the same tactics/witnesses were used in a future defense. Lastly, as a piece of evidence to establish a non-scientific paper trail and history for ID, as it is yet another ruling that would be used in the Lemon and Establishment tests.

So no, it is not precedent, but yes, it has the potential to be highly influential (as we are already seeing in Ohio).

Thanks AD, that's the message I was trying to get across

Do you think this means "evolutionary theory is flawed"? That is absolutely ridiculous Andy. On the contrary he claims that ID is flawed so it shouldn't be in science classrooms.

"Not only was the case moot, but the defendants could not appeal, which was an additional reason for declaring the case to be moot." The judge should not have done this. Neither party made a motion to dismiss the case.

Also, the policy in question was not removed until after the judge's decision.

And on top of that, the plaintiffs were seeking damages and a declaratory judgement.

Perhaps you are under the impression that the outgoing board members themselves were the defendants. If only that were true! Then they would be footing the bill instead of the taxpayers.

The Dover opinion said -- "To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions."

Yes, this was very much like a product liability case. The proponent's claims for the product were based on its alleged scientific merits. The plaintiffs' position was that the claims were fraudulent and that they were damaged by those claims.

I am going to see if I can start a area Judge Jones fan club.

So ID is "flawed" whereas evolution theory is just "imperfect."

— Andy H

Judge Jones' awareness that the case was not likely to be appealed emboldened him to show a lack of restraint in his decision.

— Andy H

The notion that evolution was driven solely by random mutations and natural selection is not testable in the same sense that ID is not testable.

— Andy H

That was not the basis of the suit --- the basis of the suit was the claim that mentioning ID in public-school science classes violates the constitutional separation of church and state. However, there is no constitutional separation of bogus science and state.

— Andy H

Great --- that will only provide further evidence that many Darwinists are just cultists. Maybe this new Jones cult will end up like the last one --- the Jim Jones People's Temple cult in Jonestown, Guyana. Maybe you can even celebrate Jones' birthday, like Darwin's birthday was celebrated on Evolution Sunday. When I read that one Evolution Sunday celebration included a "Darwinian" birthday cake, I almost threw up.

— Andy H

The notion that evolution was driven solely by random mutations and natural selection is not testable in the same sense that ID is not testable.

Another repetitive post by Andy Larry Don't Call Me Stupid Farfinginsinthin, containing no assertion that hasn't been debunked here at least twice before. What a loser.

Andy H wrote in #82490... "However, there is no constitutional separation of bogus science and state."

You are right. Its not illegal, its just heinously immoral to use high school children to further a cultural/political agenda.

Larry regurgitated:

That was not the basis of the suit --- the basis of the suit was the claim that mentioning ID in public-school science classes violates the constitutional separation of church and state. However, there is no constitutional separation of bogus science and state.

So then your admitting that ID is bogus science? And if it is why shouldn't it be ruled against? Are we now expected to teach our kids bogus science? Where are you going with this?

I'm just waiting to hear an ID proponent accuse Judge Jones of not being a "Real Christian." (tm). Cuz, you know, a real Christians would follow the agenda of Jerry "Tinky Winky" Falwell, Pat "He/They Deserved It" Robertson, et al. brilliant minds of science and the law.

Comment #82493 posted by PvM on February 27, 2006 02:27 PM

That was not the basis of the suit --- the basis of the suit was the claim that mentioning ID in public-school science classes violates the constitutional separation of church and state. However, there is no constitutional separation of bogus science and state.

But that was not the argument. The argument was that ID served a valid secular purpose since it was scientific. Since it was found to fail this claim, its secular purpose was a sham.

Comment #82507 posted by J. Biggs on February 27, 2006 03:31 PM So then your admitting that ID is bogus science?

And if it is why shouldn't it be ruled against?

With apologies to Lenny, who won't be off work for another hour or so:

Just shut up, Larry. Nobody cares what you think.

My argument was that irreducible complexity is non-religious because it does not mention anything connected with religion.

And Larry's ultimate retreat to the explanatory power of faith leaves him with yet another dilemma:

Well I would like to spare even you the bad news, Larry, faith-healing doesn't work any better than faith-science.

Which is going to be a problem when you finally seek help for your multiple personality/cognitive dissonance disorder.

Comment #82493 posted by PvM on February 27, 2006 02:27 PM That was not the basis of the suit --- the basis of the suit was the claim that mentioning ID in public-school science classes violates the constitutional separation of church and state. However, there is no constitutional separation of bogus science and state.

But that was not the argument. The argument was that ID served a valid secular purpose since it was scientific. Since it was found to fail this claim, its secular purpose was a sham.

If something is non-religious, then there is no need to show that teaching it serves a valid secular purpose. My argument was that irreducible complexity is non-religious because it does not mention anything connected with religion.

Because --- as Thomas More said in the play "A Man for All Seasons" --- "The world must construe according to its wits. This court must construe according to the law."

I'm amazed nobody pointed all this out yet.

I think Lenny's "Shut up, Larry" takes care of it nicely.

now think carefully before you answer - you know what happens to people who 'bear false witness'.

Larry's not a fundie. Larry's not even an IDer. Larry is just a crank.

Move larry's comments to the bathroom wall where they belong.

Comment #82481 Posted by AD on February 27, 2006 01:08 PM Quite simply, as explained above, precedent is set by a higher/equal court, and a lower/equal court is bound to follow it, within the same "tree" (the 2nd circuit doesn't have "precedent" from the 8th circuit, say, but the supreme court our the 2nd itself could set precedent for the 2nd and all subsidiary courts). This precedent would only be binding in Judge Jones' jurisdiction, as a result.

A well-written and well-crafted decision, along with all the accompanying evidence, can be entered into evidence at another trial, if my understanding is correct. Judges are also much more apt to find the rulings of other similarly unbiased judges highly persuasive. Thus, while Jones' decision sets no precedent, it provides a foundation for several things.

PvM, I think it's time to keep Larry from derailing another thread. I suggest you move him to the Bathroom Wall.

If anything Larry the F says is true, then real legal intelligences ought to be able to easily demonstrate that Judge Jones' ruling and opinion are flawed, not just imperfect.

The exact same case could be brought in nearly any appropriate venue outside of Judge Jones' district and tried almost verbatim, if the plaintiffs and defendants so choose. That judge could find just the opposite. Then there would be an excellent chance that the case would be heard on appeal, even if there were no legal errors.

So Larry and all your other personas, you guys need to get together and file suit in your local federal court (because it is a federal question):

The case will probably go in your favor, because God will make sure you don't get stuck with another activist judge.
The other side will certainly appeal, since those ACLU lawyers will want to hike up their fees.
You-all will win again.
The ACLU will appeal again, to the Supreme Court.
All those conservative, non-activist justices will finally throw out the legal hogwash that has been preventing American public school children from learning the truth about Darwinism.
Old man Charlie will be buried good and deep and Christian Morality will once again rule Our Great Land.

Get going! Don't wait! Souls are being lost because of your lolly-gagging with these losers on the Panda's Thumb.

(God told me to write this to show that He has power over everyone, even atheists).

Why censor Andy for expressing such nonsense ideas which merely serve to underline his disconnect from reality.
Andy has to abandon most of reality and logic to accuse the judge.
Personally I believe his comments serve as a fair warning to our children...
That's your brain on ID children.

One thing that can be said about Jones is that he certainly was not unbiased.

It is true that McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education --- the decision striking down an Arkansas law requiring balanced treatment of creationism and evolution theory in the public schools --- has been widely cited, despite being just an unappealed district court decision. So what opponents of the Dover decision need to do is to point out flaws in the Dover case in order to help prevent the Dover decision from being widely accepted. These flaws are not just in the written opinion itself but are also in the procedural decisions of Judge Jones. Here are some of the mostly objective flaws in Jones' written opinion and procedural decisions ---

(1) Showing blatant prejudice, the Dover opinion said that the answer to the question of whether ID is science "can likely be predicted" by the finding that "both an objective student and an objective adult member of the Dover community would perceive Defendants' conduct to be a strong endorsement of religion" ! The Dover opinion said --- "We have now found that both an objective student and an objective adult member of the Dover community would perceive Defendants' conduct to be a strong endorsement of religion pursuant to the endorsement test. Having so concluded, we find it incumbent upon the Court to further address an additional issue raised by Plaintiffs, which is whether ID is science. To be sure, our answer to this question can likely be predicted based upon the foregoing analysis." --- emphasis added, from page 63 of the Dover opinion, {link deleted} That one statement alone is enough to blow the whole opinion out of the water.

(2) Jones refused to admit the Of Pandas and People book's publisher, Foundation for Thought and Ethics (FTE), into the case as an intervenor and then thoroughly trashed the book in his written opinion. One of Jones' reasons for denying the motion to intervene was that it was "untimely," though it was filed a humongous four months before the start of the trial. The lame excuse was that it was too late to intervene because the depositions of the expert witnesses were almost over, but the FTE could have simply waived the rights to depose the plaintiffs' expert witnesses or to introduce new witnesses. There was not much point in deposing the expert witnesses anyway, because they had each submitted written statements to the court and had long paper trails before then. FTE was later allowed to submit an amicus brief, but amicus briefs do not carry the same weight as admission as an intervenor. A lot of amicus briefs go unread by judges. As an intervenor, FTE would have had many of the same rights as an original defendant, maybe even the right to file a separate appeal (I don't know). The denial of the motion to intervene is on ---{link deleted}

(3) Jones rejected an amicus brief from the Discovery Institute on the grounds that this brief was a "back door" way of introducing the ideas of Dembski and Meyer --- who had withdrawn as expert witnesses --- into the case file. But amicus briefs carry far less weight than oral trial testimony (as I said, many amicus briefs are not read by judges), so there was no advantage to using this "back door" approach.

(4) The Dover opinion quoted a private message that the school board received from its attorney and used this message to bash the defendants, and gave no explanation as to how this message lost its attorney-client privilege.

(5) Jones created confusion by stating in the conclusion section of the opinion that three specifically-worded prohibitions were going to be included in the official order and then including only one of them in the official order.

(6) The Dover opinion gauged public opinion about the ID rule by counting editorials and letters to the editor in newspapers. A less meaningful way of gauging public opinion could scarcely be imagined.

(7) The original school board members and their legal representatives had no chance to have the decision reviewed by a higher court.

(8) Jones might have shown more restraint in his written opinion had there been a reasonable chance of appeal.

Comment #82543 Posted by J. Biggs on February 27, 2006 06:09 PM in your original statement you do not mention IC. Scientists and "activist" judges are not as stupid as you think. Both see through this charade of pretending that ID does not imply some sort of deity or my favorite, a space monkey designer. Not only that but ID is merely an untestable conjecture with religious implications.

IC is only part of the ID creationism sham meant to confuse the public.

Larrandy said:
"Whenever I mention ID, I automatically include IC (irreducible complexity)."

Let's go down the list:
1) Is IC evolvable? Yes
2) Does the IC proponent know this? Yes
3) Is IC in any way evidence for ID? No
4) Does Larrandy realise all that? Who knows? Who cares?

"The correct judicial standard is how IC would be viewed by an objective observer"

An objective observer, once showed that IC systems can evolve without an intelligent designer's help, would conclude the same as everyone except ignorant creationists: that at best IC is completely irrelevant to the discussion, since both evolution and intelligent designer can produce them.

"It is natural for ID proponents to concentrate their efforts where they have the most support, and the support for ID is far greater in the general public than in the scientific community."

Herein lies the ultimate problem with creationists: they really see nothing wrong in bypassing science peer review. Larrandy is perfectly ok with teaching crap and lies to children, and ignoring the professional people that can tell you why they are lies and crap. Like snake oil peddlers, essentially.

"One of the reasons for that is similar to the answer to the question of why robbers rob banks --- "because that is where the money is.""

You know, I like that example. The same amount of ethics is involved in both. Yep, sounds exactly like ID to me.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf

Shut up, Larry.

Does Andy Larry Farfignugenginsinthin represent the ID movement as a whole, or just its special-ed wing?

Does Andy Larry Farfignugenginsinthin represent the ID movement as a whole, or just its special-ed wing?

— Raging Bee

It has often been asked why ID proponents have concentrated their efforts on political action and PR instead of first seeking widespread acceptance in the scientific community. One of the reasons for that is similar to the answer to the question of why robbers rob banks --- "because that is where the money is." It is natural for ID proponents to concentrate their efforts where they have the most support, and the support for ID is far greater in the general public than in the scientific community. I think it is strange that the support for ID should be far greater among the general public, because basic evolution theory, in contrast to advanced theories in physics that use advanced mathematics, is not hard for lay people to understand.

— Larry, posing as Andy, fooling nobody

Comment #82632 Posted by W. Kevin Vicklund on February 28, 2006 03:30 AM Blatant quote-mining. The judge did not say that the answer to whether ID is science can be predicted by the finding that objective citizens would be an endorsement of religion. Instead, he said that the prediction could be based on the analysis used to determine endorsement.

The motion was filed over 5 months after the initial complaint was filed, and less than a month before discovery was scheduled to end (not just the deposition of expert witnesses).

Larry's assertion that there was no need to depose the plaintiff expert witnesses is absurd, but meaningless because it was the deposition of the witnesses that FTE was planning on calling that was at issue. If the FTE waived the right to introduce new witnesses, they would not be able to introduce any evidence. In other words, they would be unable to make any contribution. And the denial of the motion very clearly indicates that the FTE intended to call three witnesses --- Larry might want to read the full paper before he makes such absurd claims.

Larry's claim that judges do not read amicus briefs is also absurd. If a brief is entered into the record, the judge (or jury) must be conversant with the contents....

(3) Jones rejected an amicus brief from the Discovery Institute on the grounds that this brief was a "back door" way of introducing the ideas of Dembski and Meyer --- who had withdrawn as expert witnesses --- into the case file. But amicus briefs carry far less weight than oral trial testimony (as I said, many amicus briefs are not read by judges), so there was no advantage to using this "back door" approach.

Those ideas were already in the case file (actually, it looks like the term is "master file"). They were not, however, admitted to the record. This was a transparent attempt to get something, already present in the master file, into the record by intervening established procedures. Admitting it would be judicial activism.

(4) The Dover opinion quoted a private message that the school board received from its attorney and used this message to bash the defendants, and gave no explanation as to how this message lost its attorney-client privilege.

The judge is under no obligation to explain in his opinion how any evidence was admitted

(5) Jones created confusion by stating in the conclusion section of the opinion that three specifically-worded prohibitions were going to be included in the official order and then including only one of them in the official order.

Only in your mind. No one else seems to be confused, Larry. The one that was included encompassed all three.

(6) The Dover opinion gauged public opinion about the ID rule by counting editorials and letters to the editor in newspapers. A less meaningful way of gauging public opinion could scarcely be imagined.

To the contrary, it showed that significant numbers of people within the community viewed ID as being religious and the actions of the board as being religious....... More than half of the editorials and letters viewed it as a religious issue.

(7) The original school board members and their legal representatives had no chance to have the decision reviewed by a higher court.

They also weren't individually liable. That's corporate law. Only way around it for this case would be judicial activism.

(8) Jones might have shown more restraint in his written opinion had there been a reasonable chance of appeal.

Mere speculation. The extent of his opinion was consistent with all of his other rulings in this case. Every time he had to rule on something that had multiple prongs (any one of which would cause a failure), he ruled on all the prongs being contested, even if one had already been failed. This is thoroughness, not judicial activism.

Laser THAT is an insult to bank robbers!
They don't do it for laughs.

ur....neither is Lawrence "I'm not a Holocaust denier just a revisionist" Fafarman of course but yeah...... free entertainment.

Although the same joke over and over can only be funny if it's the "Aristocrats" in this case the punchline is Lawrence Fafarman does the whole act by himself and it's called the "Revisionist"

...maybe all the librarians in his neighborhood are Jewish which may explain why Larry just can't get into the act of creation.

But seriously Larry you have all the elements of a Shaggy Dog Story
1. long (and ideally tedious) exposition
2. unexpected recognition of a familiar saying
3. story has nothing to do with the usual context
4. is not aware of the multiple meanings of the words in the phrase
5. the surprise ending of the joke cannot be recovered by "explaining" the joke to the audience
6. the humor (if any) is then derived from the fact that the joke-teller held the attention of the listeners for a long time
7. no reason at all (an anticlimax).
8. characteristic phrases that are repeated many times
9. turn out to have nothing whatsoever to do with the "punchline," such as it is.

Do you have a brother by any chance Larry?

"The Bell Ringer joke"

Sorry Larry wrong joke

The Man and the Clown.

Larry Andy Fubarman wrote:

...the finding regarding the scientific merits of IC was based only on a scientific analysis of IC. (Hey, Larry, you misspelled "ID!")

As usual, he unintentionally admits that the scientific vacuity of ID is indeed proven by scientific analysis of ID, then continues to wheeze about any peripheral-to-irrelevant matter of which he can find any mention. This has got to be the least coherent crank I've ever encountered. Hell, I've heard more coherent bollocks from Lyndon LaRouche!

Hey Larry did you get your Fan Mail off to
David Irving. ?

Comment #82647 Posted by Grey Wolf on February 28, 2006 07:03 AM

Whenever I mention ID, I automatically include IC (irreducible complexity).

Let's go down the list: 1) Is IC evolvable? Yes 2) Does the IC proponent know this? Yes

Posted by Raging Bee on February 28, 2006 10:55 AM

...the finding regarding the scientific merits of IC was based only on a scientific analysis of IC.

(Hey, Larry, you misspelled ID!)

I disagree

I do not accept

I also have big doubts

I think

Posted by Andy H

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.

I disagree that IC is evolvable.

I do not accept the idea of exaptation, the idea that irreducible systems are often created from parts that had other functions outside the system.

Exaptation does not change the facts that (1) the parts must all simultaneously come together in their final forms to create the complete system and that (2) parts that previously had essential functions outside the system would not be available for creating the system unless duplicates could be created.

I also have big doubts concerning co-evolution and the propagation of beneficial mutations in sexual reproduction.

I think that right now the ID/IC proponents are using the right approach --- seeking greater acceptance among the general public first.

The acceptance of ID/IC in the scientific community is now so low that trying to gain support for ID/IC in that community is not much more productive than banging one\'s head against a wall.

When public support for ID/IC increases, more scientists may decide to rethink their opinions about evolution, and someday ID/IC and other criticisms of evolution might have enough support in the scientific community that efforts to increase that support by doing research and writing scientific papers might be more worthwhile.

Also, the Discovery Institute is not trying to be too pushy

--- while opposing official bans on teaching ID/IC in public-school science classes, DI is not openly advocating requiring the teaching of ID/IC in public-school science classes.

Andy H. who is really Lawrence "I'm not a Holocaust denier just a revisionist" Fafarman

ah... Larry it's OK we get the joke, you can stop now.

Note: Don't get it?
This joke does not actually have an end, rather, the teller of this joke should continue the pattern for as long as his or her audience will tolerate. This story forms a subversion of the shaggy-dog style by increasing the suspense and anticipation of a shaggy-dog style punchline yet never actually delivering.
As with many shaggy-dog stories, it is vitally important that the one telling the joke have a good understanding of his or her audience's sense of humor and willingness to tolerate tedium in the name of a joke. Embellishments may be added or removed at the teller's whim,
This joke is best told in a large group, and if the audience stops paying attention,

Lest my two basic points be lost in that last message of mine, I will repeat them (to go along with "Shut up, Larry"):

1. Larry, given that everyone knows that you're now posting under "Andy H" (and several other names), and given that this is in violation of the Thumb posting rules, are you aware that you are making yourself look like an idiot?

2. Given that you have no training, education, or experience in the subjects you are discussing, why should we pay any attention to your opinions?

Note that these are very honest questions: I would like to know the answers.

...basic evolution theory, in contrast to advanced theories in physics that use advanced mathematics, is not hard for lay people to understand.

— AndyLarry

Comment #82543 Posted by J. Biggs on February 27, 2006 06:09 PM in your original statement you do not mention IC. Scientists and "activist" judges are not as stupid as you think. Both see through this charade of pretending that ID does not imply some sort of deity or my favorite, a space monkey designer. Not only that but ID is merely an untestable conjecture with religious implications.

Whenever I mention ID, I automatically include IC (irreducible complexity). The correct judicial standard is how IC would be viewed by an objective observer, and not how it would be viewed by a fundy-hating Darwinist fanatic. The fact that some people choose to associate IC with religion does not necessarily have anything to do with what is in IC itself. Also, it is claimed that IC implies supernatural causes, but the same claim can be made about the idea of unguided evolution. Personally, I don't like the name ID because the name alone implies the existence of a supernatural designer, and I think that has caused big problems for ID.

IC is only part of the ID creationism sham meant to confuse the public.

It has often been asked why ID proponents have concentrated their efforts on political action and PR instead of first seeking widespread acceptance in the scientific community. One of the reasons for that is similar to the answer to the question of why robbers rob banks --- "because that is where the money is." It is natural for ID proponents to concentrate their efforts where they have the most support, and the support for ID is far greater in the general public than in the scientific community. I think it is strange that the support for ID should be far greater among the general public, because basic evolution theory, in contrast to advanced theories in physics that use advanced mathematics, is not hard for lay people to understand. Anyway, the Discovery Institute has not openly advocated requirements for teaching ID in public-school science classes, but is nonetheless opposed to official bans on teaching ID in public-school science classes.

Does Andy Larry Farfignugenginsinthin represent the ID movement as a whole, or just its special-ed wing?

Sorry I must have screwed up the blockquote in my last posting.

J. Biggs: "Farflungdung?" Damn, that's even more appropriate than my offerings of "Fubarman" and "Farfringinsinthin!" I bow to your superior name-dropping and vote for you as "Designated Namer of Trolls Who Can't Figure Out What To Call Themselves."

Larry: I think

If only Larry had taken my advice and tried to get a date with that nice lady at the library instead of making an even greater idiot of himself.

As proof that evolutionary theory can have predictive powers - I predicted that Larry would evolve into a number of easily identifiable alter-egos and we would all have lots of fun playing:

Spot the Larry!

Comment #69420 Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 9, 2006 10:56 PM (e) I just got the following personal email from one of the blog managers --- Larry wrote: ****If I am banned, I will just come back under a pseudonym. I am not only a good troll, but I am also a darn good hacker.***** There is comparatively little that can get you banned from PT, but threats like that - and the equivalent acts - do qualify. Please don't do it again. ====================================== Hence, I will not discuss this subject any further. OK ? Thanks. Larry

Other judges are free to come up with their own opinions about the scientific merits of ID or --- as I suggested --- not rule at all on ID's scientific merits but just rule that irreducible complexity is non-religious and that even though IC might be bogus science, there is no separation of bogus science and state.

— Larry Fafarman

The federal government sets some standards--like the controversial No Child Left Behind ones--which the states are free to accept or reject, so long as they are also willing to reject any accompanying federal monies, a carrot-and-stick approach.

Pretty much, however, the states are free to set their own standards. Most states do set minimum curriculum standards, some of which are advisory and some of which are mandatory. Many of them are reasonably decent, though "enforcement" may be spotty when it comes to what actually gets taught in, say, a high school biology classroom. You will recall seeing many discussions about these state standards here, regarding the attempts by the creationists to pervert them (Ohio, Kansas, and failed attempts in Alabama, Florida, the Carolinas, etc.).

Many states leave the detailed curriculum up to the local school districts themselves, either as to curriculum that exceeds the "minimum" state-set standards, or as to the implementation of the actual standards (where the state ones are of the advisory, non-binding type...).

So, it's not that we don't know how to set reasonable standards for science curricula, it's that many times the governmental bodies responsible are susceptible to political chicanery and shenanigans. These tend to be under-the-radar bodies that can be staffed with polititcal appointee hacks or, where elective rather than appointive, the folks who are motivated to run tend to be the fringies who have a religious or social ax to grind.

The usual American cluster-duck approach... Our yokel-ness can be refreshing or horrifying!

Larry isn't an IDer. Larry is just a crank.

Oops!

I neglected to circle back around to the ultimate point: the standards-writing bodies of the federal, state, and local governments tend not to be directly impacted by the strictures of the U.S. Constitution, which doesn't really speak specifically to the issue of quality standards in education.

Thus, it's only when the standards-writing bodies step far enough out of line that they violate some constitutional provision only tangentially relevant to education, like separation of church and state, freedom of expression, due process, etc., that the federal courts are in a position to step in and set the situation aright.

Thus, LF is correct to the limited extent that the national constitution itself does not mandate any particular level of validity of the instructional curriculum, but it does prevent the writing or implementation of standards that would impose a particular religion's view of origins upon public school students. Which can, at times, resemble swatting at flies with a sledgehammer.

It's a great country, where you're free to be as wing-nutty as you like, at least until your particular wing-flap fouls somebody else's entrenched constitutional or statutory right.

J. Biggs: "Farflungdung?" Damn, that's even more appropriate than my offerings of "Fubarman" and "Farfringinsinthin!" I bow to your superior name-dropping and vote for you as "Designated Namer of Trolls Who Can't Figure Out What To Call Themselves."

drtomaso,
Re "Please feed the trolls. Fatten them up for the kill."

Trolls aren't like vampires - they don't turn to dust when slain. ;)

Henry

Comment #82742 Posted by J. Biggs on February 28, 2006 02:57 PM I find it interesting that you use the term "fundy-hating Darwinist fanatic" to describe Judge Jones who by all accounts is a upstanding Christian member of his community

I don't know of many scientists that make the claim that they absolutely know evolution to be unguided.

I can't believe you compare your camp to "robbers".

By the way evolution is every bit as difficult to understand as other theories that require mathematics, as you so amply demonstrate with your anti-knowledge.

And as for the crap that DI is not trying to push this on our kids, I think that the citizens of Dover, El Tejon, Ohio, Kansas and many others would beg to differ.

People are always trying to read more into what I say than what I intended.

Since Larry once more demonstrates that he is an unethical, ignorant crank, I repeat my questions.

I'll keep repeating them, Larry until you answer them. Or until they ban you.

Lest my two basic points be lost in that last message of mine, I will repeat them (to go along with "Shut up, Larry"):

1. Larry, given that everyone knows that you're now posting under "Andy H" (and several other names), and given that this is in violation of the Thumb posting rules, are you aware that you are making yourself look like an idiot?

2. Given that you have no training, education, or experience in the subjects you are discussing, why should we pay any attention to your opinions?

Note that these are very honest questions: I would like to know the answers.

People are always trying to read more into what I say than what I intended.

That, Mr. Farflungdung, is because you're too stupid and self-absorbed to conceal both your dishonesty and your ignorance of every subject of which you've said anything. If your true character comes out every time your hands touch a keyboard, regardless of your "intentions," that's not our fault. Just take your hands away from the keyboard.

I'll bet your nonsense has even DaveScot rolling his eyes with embarrassment by now.

Comment #82796 posted by Steviepinhead on February 28, 2006 07:01 PM Thus, LF is correct to the limited extent that the national constitution itself does not mandate any particular level of validity of the instructional curriculum, but it does prevent the writing or implementation of standards that would impose a particular religion's view of origins upon public school students.

Since Larry once more demonstrates that he is an unethical, ignorant crank, I repeat my questions.

I'll keep repeating them, Larry until you answer them. Or until they ban you.

Lest my two basic points be lost in that last message of mine, I will repeat them (to go along with "Shut up, Larry"):

1. Larry, given that everyone knows that you're now posting under "Andy H" (and several other names), and given that this is in violation of the Thumb posting rules, are you aware that you are making yourself look like an idiot?

2. Given that you have no training, education, or experience in the subjects you are discussing, why should we pay any attention to your opinions?

Note that these are very honest questions: I would like to know the answers.

Shut up, Larry.

What religion's view of origins is represented by irreducible complexity ?

— Andy H

Andy H wrote: What religion's view of origins is represented by irreducible complexity ?

When public support for ID/IC increases, more scientists may decide to rethink their opinions about evolution...

I never called Judge Jones a "fundy-hating Darwinist fanatic" ---- I only suggested that his Dover opinion looks like it was written by one.

I don't know of many scientists that make the claim that they absolutely know evolution to be unguided.

If scientists doubt that evolution was unguided but do not believe that irreducible complexity has scientific merit, then what is the basis for that doubt ?

I used the bank-robber analogy just to make a point that the answer to the question of why ID proponents concentrate on PR and political action is really fairly obvious. It was not intended to be a statement comparing the morality of ID proponents and bank robbers. People are always trying to read more into what I say than what I intended.

By the way evolution is every bit as difficult to understand as other theories that require mathematics, as you so amply demonstrate with your anti-knowledge.

Have you looked at some of the books on advanced theories of physics ?

And why is it that lay people (including politicians, judges, and clergy members ) are considered to be qualified to have their own opinions about Darwinism if they agree with it, and unqualified if they disagree with it ? Like the statement, "I don't know art, but I know what I like," I say, "I don't know all the details about Darwinism, but I know what I don't like about it."

And as for the crap that DI is not trying to push this on our kids, I think that the citizens of Dover, El Tejon, Ohio, Kansas and many others would beg to differ.

Shame on those fundies for trying to brainwash our poor, impressionable kiddies. Better the kiddies should be brainwashed into believing that Darwinism is a proven fact

Larry, understand that I'm not calling you a complete moron. I'm simply suggesting that your posts look as if they were written by one.

When public support for ID/IC increases, more scientists may decide to rethink their opinions about evolution...

— Landarry Farflungdung

Or maybe a social constructivist crank.

Comment #82881 posted by J. Biggs on March 1, 2006 10:42 AM It's convenient to "suggest" that someone who is asked by both sides to rule on an issue and rules against your side, that he then looks like a "fundy-hating Darwinist fanatic".

Judge Jones just understands the law a bit better than you I'm afraid

He also apparently understands what constitutes science better as well

IC only makes negative assertions about evolution. It is not really testable.

IC is scientifically vacuous, and only serves to confuse rather than instill knowledge.

Simply put it is an argument from ignorance

Just because physics requires more math than biology doesn't mean biology is a lesser science. It is insulting to suggest that.

If you think that only science that relies on math is "good science: you might also look at the statistical analysis done to verify the validity of scientific research in the myriad fields of biology.

But you can't have it both ways.

Andy,
You're Dembski aren't you.

Andy, You're Dembski aren't you.

Judge Jones could have simply told both sides to jump in the lake,

— Larry

for the following reasons --- (1) irreducible complexity does not mention anything connected with religion and hence would appear to an objective observer to be non-religious,

(2) there was no reason for him to rule on the scientific merits of IC because there is no separation of bogus science and state,

and (3) they could go to Rent-a-Judge if they wanted a ruling on the scientific merits of IC.

But he doesn't understand justice --- he strained at gnats and swallowed camels.

Also, his knowledge of the law is not perfect --- he apparently did not know the procedural rules and precedents for analysis of expert scientific testimony.

--- because he happens to agree with the Darwinists.

What is wrong with making negative assertions about evolution --- is evolution above question?

Also, the idea of unguided evolution is not really testable, either ---- so what is the difference ?

That is not true. IC and other criticisms of evolution theory can suggest ideas for scientific research.

It is disengenuous of scientists like Kenneth Miller and Eugenie Scott to say that there is no controversy and then write big books about the controversy.

Not true --- it is sometimes reasonable to say, on the basis of known facts, that it is unlikely that something was the result of natural causes.

Even when one knows the advanced math concepts involved --- and most people do not --- books on advanced physics are generally very hard to follow because many of the intermediate math steps are skipped.

And a lot of people have a fear of basic math, let alone the advanced mathematics used in physics.

I didn't say that advanced math is never used in evolution theory --- I only said that an understanding of advanced math is not necessary to understand basic evolution theory.

It is often asked why Darwinism is "singled out" for criticism, and one of the reasons is that Darwinism is easy for most people to understand because it does not need advanced mathematics.

Darwinists are the ones who want to have it both ways --- saying lay people who support Darwinism are unquestionably qualified and lay people who support ID/IC are unquestionably unqualified.

Rilke's gd-
I think you are drastically misoverestimating dembski.
ps, are you any real relation to rilke?

R's gD, don't you realize that Landarry is a social constructivist?  To him, a popular consensus is all it would take to redefine not just law, but reality itself.  Nothing limits him, in principle; today Landarry's "public" only wants evolution to be false, but tomorrow it could be to define the sky as being colored pink with purple polka dots.

I almost pity him, but he does more to discredit creationists than I ever could and he's fun to watch.

Andy/Larry Farflungdung

Rilke's GD, among others, is much more astute at destroying your strawmen than I.

Every argument you make is circular and eventually revolves back around to arguments you previously made that were debunked. Then you create strawmen of the arguments your adversary is using to refute you. If you can not demonstrate enough courtesy to debate me in good faith then I concede out of pure frustration. I have a hypothesis that your cranium has the highest density when compared to any other terrestrial compound. Hopefully you will lighten up and be a lot more honest in presenting your arguments in the future, but I somehow doubt that will happen. And to borrow a phrase from Lenny, "Shut up Larry, nobody cares what you think."

Rilke's gd- I think you are drastically misoverestimating dembski. ps, are you any real relation to rilke?

"R's gD, don't you realize that Landarry is a social constructivist? To him, a popular consensus is all it would take to redefine not just law, but reality itself. Nothing limits him, in principle; today Landarry's "public" only wants evolution to be false, but tomorrow it could be to define the sky as being colored pink with purple polka dots."

Yeah, he can go ahead and get all the consensus he wants, but that STILL won't make evolution false or the sky pink.

Just 'cause you believe something don't make it so.

Even if you believe that reality is a social construct. I took a vote in my office here, and we think that gravity shouldn't apply to annoying trolls on internet forums. Sadly, this does not seem to be having the desired effect.

Goodbye forever Andy H/ Larry Farfar!

10 Larry points to the next 'sighter'!

watch the skies!!!!

Comment #83061 Posted by Rilke's Granddaughter on March 1, 2006 11:30 PM He was asked to rule on this point, and needed to in order to decide the case.

Had you read the transcripts and the decision, which you haven't, or if you knew anything about law, which you don't, you would know that the defendants witnesses and evidence entered for the plaintiffs made clear that ID/IC as presented by the the defendants is creationism

"and (3) they could go to Rent-a-Judge if they wanted a ruling on the scientific merits of IC." Apparently in addition to your other lacks, you don't know how to spell. This was about ID, not IC.

"IC and other criticisms of evolution theory can suggest ideas for scientific research." Like what, Larry?

" It is disengenuous of scientists like Kenneth Miller and Eugenie Scott to say that there is no controversy and then write big books about the controversy. " Yet another factually incorrect statement. If you had read any of those books, which you haven't, or if you knew anything about science, which you don't, you would know that the controversy is about evolutionary mechanisms, not whether evolution occurred.

you haven't read those books. And you don't understand the math, which is why it's hard for you.

We can recommend some nice "Evolution for Dummies" books that will help you.

By the way, you owe me answers to two questions.

Shut up, Larry.

Doofus,
You use the words "think Tank" to describe the discovery institute. It got me thinking... just kidding. :)

Well, Larry, each of your two suggested "critiques" of evolution are vacuous and unscientific, as has now been demonstrated here many times.

If you ever do run across any actual scientific critiques of evolution, though, be sure to let us know.

(They will, however, need to have a little more substance than your usual, "Golly gee, in my admittedly uneducated and ignorant opinion, this (or that or the other) doesn't seem very likely." Neither the limits of your imagination nor the poverty of your studies form positive evidence for anything at all, much less a "scientific" critique of evolutionary theory.)

I won't, of course, be holding my breath. And I sincerely doubt that Judge Jones is losing a single wink of sleep over your lame attempts to deconstruct his opinion...

Comment #83714 Posted by Steviepinhead on March 4, 2006 04:02 PM Well, Larry, each of your two suggested "critiques" of evolution are vacuous and unscientific, as has now been demonstrated here many times.

I sincerely doubt that Judge Jones is losing a single wink of sleep over your lame attempts to deconstruct his opinion...

Still lying about what denigration and disparagement mean, Larry? And of course I see you are still lying about co-evolution and propagation of mutations in sexual species. Hint: they are excellent evidence for evolution, but you are too stupid to understand why.

Comment #83822 Posted by W. Keivn Vicklund on March 5, 2006 02:37 PM Still lying about what denigration and disparagement mean, Larry? And of course I see you are still lying about co-evolution and propagation of mutations in sexual species. Hint: they are excellent evidence for evolution, but you are too stupid to understand why.

The problem is, Larry, that NONE of your statements has any validity. Even your current name!

one could conclude that you intentionally try to get everything wrong, just to provoke a response.

Well, you're doin a great job, if that's the case.

just as a note to others...

the word "troll" wrt to internet usage is a VERB, not a noun, regardless of how it has become conflated with things that live under bridges.

Larry epitomizes the very definition of trolling.

Judge Jones is a phony from the word "go" --- it seems that every time I turn around I find another big screw-up in his rulings in the Dover case.

— Judge Jones

found another big boo-boo in Jones' Dover opinion, to add to my list of eight in Comment #82600. In the conclusion section of the Dover opinion, Jones said that one of the three prohibitions that he intended to include in the official order was a prohibition against "requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the theory of evolution" (this specific prohibition was not actually included in the official order, but that is beside the point). This is a general prohibition that applies not only to ID/IC but also applies to criticisms of evolution theory that were not evaluated by Jones in the Dover case --- e.g., criticisms pertaining to co-evolution and the propagation of beneficial mutations in sexual reproduction. Because any criticism of evolution theory may be considered to be a denigration or disparagement of that theory,

Lawrence "I'm not a Holocaust Denier just a revisionist" Fafarman posting as Andy H. (which he has admitted to elsewhere on PT) continues with his one man jihad on honesty in scholarship and law.

And indulges himself in another of his "cultural engineering" lost causes.
Understandable really, he singlehandedly ^smirk at least in his own mind revoked the smog tax in California.

Think of it this way Larry, you have as much chance of winning as you have of getting that case you brought before the Supreme Court to fly.
You are the weakest link.

But don't let me put you off, what would the world be without *rseh*les like you to make the rest of feel better.
As they say in Sweden "skadeglädjen/fryd är den enda sanna glädjen/fryd" ("schadenfreude is the only true joy.")

But these two critiques of evolution were not demonstrated to be "vacuous" and "unscientific" by Judge Jones, yet he prohibited them in public-school science classes along with all other past, present, and future critiques of Darwinism. That was my point, which your pinheaded brain obviously missed.

In the conclusion section of the Dover opinion, Jones said that one of the three prohibitions that he intended to include in the official order was a prohibition against "requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the theory of evolution" (this specific prohibition was not actually included in the official order, but that is beside the point).

This is a general prohibition that applies not only to ID/IC but also applies to criticisms of evolution theory that were not evaluated by Jones in the Dover case --- e.g., criticisms pertaining to co-evolution and the propagation of beneficial mutations in sexual reproduction.

Because any criticism of evolution theory may be considered to be a denigration or disparagement of that theory, this general prohibition directly contradicts the Supreme Court's following statement in Edwards v. Aguillard: "We do not imply that a legislature could never require that scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories be taught."

Judge Jones is a phony from the word "go" --- it seems that every time I turn around I find another big screw-up in his rulings in the Dover case.

And this is where Andy went wrong ... False premise, false conclusion.

the first being mistaking a prohibition against requiring an action for prohibiting the action

It's hard to overestimate an intellect that thinks turning "steviepinhead" into "pinheaded stevie" is some kind of clever insult.

Comment #83962 posted by Popper's Ghost on March 6, 2006 02:34 AM

In the conclusion section of the Dover opinion, Jones said that one of the three prohibitions that he intended to include in the official order was a prohibition against "requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the theory of evolution" (this specific prohibition was not actually included in the official order, but that is beside the point).

This means that a teacher can denigrate or disparage the theory of evolution, but isn't required to.

Because any criticism of evolution theory may be considered to be a denigration or disparagement of that theory, this general prohibition directly contradicts the Supreme Court's following statement in Edwards v. Aguillard: "We do not imply that a legislature could never require that scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories be taught."

Even if any criticism of the theory of evolution could be considered a denigration or disparagement of the theory, a prohibition against a requirement to criticize does not in any way contradict an absence of an implication that all legislatures are in all circumstances prohibited from requiring criticism --- nothing is contradicted by an absence of an implication. YOU MORON.

Ah well.... seems someone finally got through to Larry
A stupid imbecile ?

Lawrence "I'm not a Holocaust denier just a revisionist" Fafarman who is posting USING THE FALSE NAME of Andy H. and numerous other FALSE NAMES (he has admitted this elsewhere on PT AND HAS NEVER ONCE DENIED IT)

Larry lets just get down to it YOU ARE LYING useless waste of space.

WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM ? Can't you afford a shrink?

YOU STUPID IMBECILE

I think it will be a long time before any Dover Area schoolteacher tries to denigrate or disparage evolution theory in a science class. Anyway, there is a double standard here --- teachers may be required to teach that Darwinism is true but may not be required to teach criticisms of Darwinism.

What the Supreme Court's statement does imply is that there may be some circumstances when a requirement for teaching such criticism is proper. But Judge Jones flatly prohibited such a requirement in all circumstances when he prohibited the Dover Area school board from "requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the theory of evolution." YOU STUPID IMBECILE.

oops er sorry 'bout that PvM. I would be interested to know which part went to far.

Thanks Andy for continuing to show us how vacuous Intelligent Design is.

Well actually STJ the very first thing Lawrence Fafarman said when he came on PT months ago was how upset he was that the NeoCreationism/DI/ID/IC supporters in Dover did not keep their mouths shut about religion (as I recall near enough to his own words).
And that they would have got away with it they had not been openly lying about their religious motives and that when they were caught red handed the Judge should have ignored them including ignoring any evidence that he (and coincidental the DI) did not like.

His whole gambit has been to obscure the facts supporting the ToE (at a level one could only describe as childish) AND obscure the lies that the NeoCreationist/DI/ID/IC crowd have been pedaling in the vain hope that if they are told often enough people will believe them.

That makes his methods identical to NeoCreationists/DI/ID/IC.
He has succeeded almost in practicing what he preaches, not mentioning anything about god Mr X. but all of his arguments are NeoCreationists/DI/ID/IC canards and thus are religiously motivated.

Larry has performed a very useful task of totally shredding even the weakest legal basis for teaching NeoCreationist/DI/ID/IC as science.

The biggest favor Lawrence could do his cause and the DI PR machine is to shut up ....truly all hat and no cattle.

Breathtaking inanity.... didn't Judge Jones say something about that is his decision ?

I'm beginning to think brain death is contagious.

Larry simply picks whatever topic becomes the best bait for trolling in a specific thread, then goes off.

He's the quintessential troll, nothing more.

It can be amusing for a while, but this crap has been going on for months.

Larry is no ID supporter; he's simply trolling for attention, nothing more.

again, you are all wrong.

He has no redeeming value here as an ID supporter, or anything else for that matter.

the continuing acceptance of his flame bait is becoming a sad thing to witness.

We've moved stuff far more "entertaining" to the bathroom wall, and yet Larry's drivel stays.

amazing.

but so what?

What the Supreme Court's statement does imply is that there may be some circumstances when a requirement for teaching such criticism is proper. But Judge Jones flatly prohibited such a requirement in all circumstances when he prohibited the Dover Area school board from "requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the theory of evolution."

YOU STUPID IMBECILE

Unless Andy can establish that denigrating a theory is similar to criticising it, his position is as usual unsupported and indefensable.

BTW, it's worth noting that "critique" is not a synonym of "criticism". A critique is a critical analysis. It is possible to do a critical analysis of something and never find anything wrong with it.

No, he only prohibited it of the Dover Area school board, and he only prohibited (except that he didn't) requiring denigration and disparagement of the theory of evolution

even if absurdly and erroneously equating critiquing with denigration

And, even had he prohibited every single instance of requiring a scientific critique of a prevailing scientific theory throughout the whole of the U.S., that STILL would not contradict the language from Aguillard, which only said what they weren't stating --- not a word about what some court could or could not rule.

BTW, it's worth noting that "critique" is not a synonym of "criticism". A critique is a critical analysis. It is possible to do a critical analysis of something and never find anything wrong with it.

It's interesting that Larandy blew up at me.

Larry le pissoir said: "You blew up at me first, by calling me a “moron."
But he's right - you are a moron. Every post you make demonstrates that more clearly.
He really got to you, didn't he, Larry? Don't fret - he was only being honest, rather than polite.

Laughable Larry, calling you a moron is not "blowing up at you," but merely stating a time-tested attribute that you have worked tirelessly here to earn.

Even more laughably, Larry has fled here fresh from his evisceration at the hands of Kevin Vicklund (on the Dover attorney thread), only to run smack into the tender embrace of Popper's Ghost...

Frying pan > fire: I can sniff the singe of short-circuiting neuron (singleular noun deliberately selected) already.

Ahem. And one of my neurons can spell "single" and the other can spell "singular."

They just work different shifts...

You blew up at me first, by calling me a "moron."

No, that's a compliment.

An idiot can get it wrong, but when they're corrected, they usually don't keep getting it wrong time after time after time. They usually have the sense to shut up after the 11th time.

You guys are the 77708 best, thanks so much for the help.