DI book rebutting Kitzmiller decision

yadda yadda yadda...I rest my case

justasking7, you are of course welcome to contact Larry. If I had his address I'd get it to you.

ID was tested rather fairly on its merits in the Kitzmiller case, which is why the decision came down the way it did.

But for purposes of understanding ID, I think it's fair to summarize it this way. The basic premise of ID is that parts of biological species (the eye, for instance) are too complex to have evolved--instead, they must have been designed wholesale and implemented all at once.

One arguement, Irreducible Complexity, states that many complex systems are so interdependent that their individual parts could not have evolved independently because B depends on A and A depends on B.

Another arguement, Specified Complexity, is basically that the chance that random mutations could have produced life as we know it are so minute as to be insignificant: therefore it must be the agency of some superpowerful being.

Various individuals may take the idea further than others, but those, I understand, are the basics of ID.

There's a very important distinction to keep in mind when discussing ID: Intelligent Design is not just the idea that there's a supreme being (God, Allah, etc.) behind the creation of the universe etc. ID is the specific belief outlined above: that that being has stepped in and made several wholesale changes to parts of different species (giving them fully-formed eyes, for instance). As such, ID partially bypasses evolution, but depending who you talk to, some evolution still occurs.

All creationists allow that some evolution occurs. ID tends to allow more than most, but then they make common cause with YECs as well, so clearly consistency and solid scientific conclusions are not of much concern to them. Real scientists would seek agreement with the evidence, not agreement with fellow religionists.

The fact that IDists can't demonstrate any tangible difference between their putative "designed elements" in life, and evolved characteristics, reveals the importance of their a priori beliefs for "finding design".

Not that I'm disagreeing with Leon, just pointing out that the overlap between "regular creationists" and IDists shows both to be substantially the same.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

DeWolf wrote, "Moreover, as the previous discussion demonstrates, school boards have the authority to permit, and even encourage, teaching about design theory as an alternative to Darwinian evolution-and this includes the use of textbooks such as Of Pandas and People that present evidence for the theory of intelligent design."

I know this is obvious to most here, but just FYI the case in question involved a school board. No DI member was involved other than as a witness in the case.

— improvious

Local school boards and state education officials are frequently pressured to avoid teaching the controversy regarding biological origins. Indeed, many groups, such as the National Academy of Sciences, go so far as to deny the existence of any genuine scientific controversy about the issue.160 Nevertheless, teachers should be reassured that they have the right to expose their students to the problems as well as the appeal of Darwinian theory. Moreover, as the previous discussion demonstrates, school boards have the authority to permit, and even encourage, teaching about design theory as an alternative to Darwinian evolution-and this includes the use of textbooks such as Of Pandas and People that present evidence for the theory of intelligent design. The controlling legal authority, the Supreme Court's decision in Edwards v. Aguillard, explicitly permits the inclusion of alternatives to Darwinian evolution so long as those alternatives are based on scientific evidence and not motivated by strictly religious concerns. Since design theory is based on scientific evidence rather than religious assumptions, it clearly meets this test. Including discussions of design in the science curriculum thus serves an important goal of making education inclusive, rather than exclusionary. In addition, it provides students with an important demonstration of the best way for them as future scientists and citizens to resolve scientific controversies-by a careful and fair-minded examination of the evidence.

California School District Adopts Policy Allowing Scientific Criticisms of Evolution

The new policy states that Darwin's theory should not be taught as "unalterable fact" and states that "Discussions that question the theory may be appropriate as long as they do not stray from current criteria of scientific fact, hypothesis and theory."

More to the point, there's a couple concepts that seem to trip people up:

Using scientific-sounding language is not the same as being scientific.

Removing the explicit religious references doesn't make something scientific; at best it makes it nondenominational.

I fully realize that. But, if the DI had a leg to stand on, do you think they would hesitate in helping the Thomas Moore Legal Centre with an appeal? Again, no merit = no appeal.

You're right. I'm stupid and forgot that the school-board members got booted in the last election, hence no appeal.

Again, the TMLC are just lawyers - not defendants. Only the defendants could appeal the case. The defendants are the school board, and they don't want to appeal. There is nothing whatsoever that the DI or TMLC could possibly do to appeal the ruling.

So they'll just put their fingers in their ears and hum, write another popular book to rake in the $$, offer the same old tired assertions that have been refuted many times, playing to their religious base and hoping that those new to IDC won't understand the difference between rhetoric and real data. Gee, big surprise there.

(1) For perhaps only the second time in American history (the Selman v. Cobb County evolution-disclaimer textbook sticker case was possibly the first), a judge ruled that something --- irreducible complexity in this case --- that makes no mention of anything related to religion and that contains no religious symbols constitutes a government endorsement of religion. Whether or not irreducible complexity is bogus science is irrelevant, because there is no constitutional separation of bogus science and state.

— My Noname is Legion

(2) It was not necessary to rule on the scientific merits of ID at all. Jones had the following other options: (i) dismissing the case as moot because almost all of the pro-ID school board members had been replaced by anti-ID members, (ii) ruling against the defendants solely on the basis of their religious motivations, or (iii) ruling that irreducible complexity is not religious because it does not mention anything related to religion.

(3) Jones arrogantly assumed that his opinions are conclusive and that other judges should not bother to independently judge the same issues. The Dover opinion said, "[W]e will offer our conclusion on whether ID is science not just because it is essential to our holding that an Establishment Clause violation has occurred in this case, but also in the hope that it may prevent the obvious waste of judicial and other resources which would be occasioned by a subsequent trial involving the precise question which is before us."(pages 63-64)

(4) Jones' blanket prohibition of any scientific criticism of Darwinism in Dover public-school science classes 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." 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" (Page 138. This specific prohibition was not actually included in the official order, but that is beside the point).

(5) Jones denied the Pandas book publisher's motion to enter the case as an intervenor and then he thoroughly trashed the book in his written opinion. Jones called the motion untimely, even though the motion was filed only a month after the plaintiffs subpoenaed the publisher and a whopping four months before the start of the trial. The publisher should have been admitted as an intervenor to give it the right to file an independent appeal, if for no other reason. Considering that the book was thoroughly trashed in the written opinion and that the publisher had no opportunity to file an independent appeal, the claim that the publisher's interests were adequately protected is especially hollow.

(6) 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 for the defense --- into the case file. Amicus briefs carry far less weight than oral trial testimony (if amicus briefs carried a lot of weight, briefs replying to amicus briefs would be permitted ), so there was no advantage to using this "back door" approach. Also, what about the deal that had already been made to allow Shallit to testify if Dembski's ideas were admitted to the record?

(7) The Dover opinion gauged public opinion about the school board's ID rule by counting editorials and letters to the editor in local newspapers (pages 58-63). A less meaningful way of gauging public opinion could scarcely be imagined. The Dover opinion presented very little precedent for this public-opinion polling method (page 62).

(8) Showing blatant prejudice, the Dover opinion said that the answer to the question of "whether ID is science ... can likely be predicted" by the opinion's determination 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 " (page 63). Very egregious. May I point out to the great legal minds on this blog that in the terrorism trial of what's-his-name (Moussaoui ?), the judge barred some key witnesses from testifying because of prejudicial actions by a prosecuting attorney.

(9) The Dover opinion quoted a normally-privileged attorney-client message that was sent to the school board and used this message to bash the defendants, and gave no explanation as to how this message lost its privilege (pages 111-112).

(10) Jones created confusion by stating in the conclusion section 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 (pages 138-139). The two omitted prohibitions were not covered by the one prohibition that was included.

(11) Jones appeared to take unfair advantage of the fact that the ousted original school board members and their legal representatives had no chance to have the decision reviewed by a higher court. Jones might have shown more restraint in his written opinion had there been a reasonable chance of appeal.

(12) Jones apparently signed the plaintiffs' original calculated $2 million+ attorney fee award request, even though there was no need for him to do so because the parties had reached an out-of-court settlement of $1 million. One of the plaintiffs' attorneys admitted that the purpose of having the judge sign the request for the larger amount is to help blackmail other school boards.

True but what is stopping them from doing the right thing and pitching in to help pay the legal bills they are partially responsible for causing the Dover School board?

...or (iii) ruling that irreducible complexity is not religious because it does not mention anything related to religion.

Except, of course, for the "designer" who "designed" the irreducibly-complex life-mechanism, who can't be described in any greater detail because, as everyone knew, describing the creator -- oops, I mean designer -- was the province of religion.

Judge Jones saw straight through that shell-game; and we see through yours. Grow up and get help, Larry.

Sorry to come in completely offtopic, but After the Bar Closes is down and you guys simply must feast your eyes on the dreck that got linked on Dembski's blog.

Jeremy: wow, this former judge is completely out of it. Darwin is the "patron saint of school violence?" And one of his footnotes references a completely unrelated fact about the Columbine shooters' devotion to Hitler? Just wow.

Just to correct a few plain factual errors from "noname":

1. The "privileged" communication between Dover's solicitor and the Dover School Board -- Plaintiff's Exhibit 70 I believe -- was not actually privileged, because:

(a) way back in 2004 it was distributed to teachers,
(b) I think it was also given to a reporter, who reported on it in the newspapers
(c) In 2005, the defendants produced it to the plaintiffs in production
(d) the defendants also introduced it into evidence at trial before the plaintiffs

Any one of these actions serves to wave lawyer-client privilege.

2. The Discovery Institute's amicus brief was not rejected -- the judge rejected the first version, but accepted a revised version once Stephen Meyer's expert report (he was originally an expert witness, who dropped out) was cut out. You can't submit expert testimony in an amicus brief and thereby avoid cross-examination.

Nick

(9) The Dover opinion quoted a normally-privileged attorney-client message that was sent to the school board and used this message to bash the defendants, and gave no explanation as to how this message lost its privilege (pages 111-112).

[834]Q. Dr. Nilsen, this is Plaintiffs' Exhibit 70, and do you recognize this as the advice from counsel that you distributed at that late August meeting? [835]A. Yes. [...] [411]BY MR. ROTHSCHILD: [412]Q. What we've marked as P70, Mr. Baksa, that is an e-mail you received from the school district solicitor, Stephen Russell, or that Dr. Nilsen received? [413]A. Right, Dr. Nilsen received it. [414]Q. And at the curriculum committee meeting at the end of August, this document was circulated to a number of people, including teachers and curriculum committee members. Correct? [415]A. Yes.

Jeremy: that's just scary.

It's especially bizarre that he keeps harping on about how the judges are unelected and the officials are elected. I thought one of the points of an unelected judiciary was that they'd be able to stand up for minorities.

Popularity =/= legality. I'd have thought a judge would understand that.

(And that's not even discussing the fact that all the board members in question were kicked out of office once it became clear to the electorate exactly what kind of person they'd elected)

Imaging Proteins in Membranes of Living Cells by High-Resolution Scanning Ion Conductance Microscopy SICM is based on a scanned nanopipette and uses the ion current that flows between an electrode in the pipette and a bath electrode for feedback control of the pipette-sample distance. This distance is maintained at the pipette inner radius during the scan, thereby allowing noncontact imaging of the cell surface in physiological buffer with a resolution determined by the pipette inner radius.[9], [10] Essentially there is a hemisphere, with the same radius as the pipette inner radius, centered at the pipette tip that senses the surface by reduction in the flow of ion current. Unlike the situation in AFM, this means that the sensing is both vertically under the pipette and also laterally, thereby helping to prevent the pipette walls from touching the cell surface. Herein, we describe scanning that utilizes very narrow quartz pipettes with an inner diameter of the tip of about 13 nm. The extremely small diameter of the pipettes, custom-designed software, and enhanced mechanical stability of the system have allowed us to improve the resolution of SICM[8] by an order of magnitude. We demonstrate this by imaging individual proteins crystallized on a flat surface or protruding at the external surface of the plasma membrane of a living cell (spermatozoon), whilst maintaining the noncontact advantage of SICM. These advances have made it possible to directly image protein complexes in the membrane of a living cell.

Regarding the Disco Institute's involvement (or claimed lack thereof) in Kitzmiller, recall that Seth Cooper, then a lawyer at the Disco Institute, contacted at least one member of the Dover Board when he (Cooper) heard that Dover was considering some sort of ID policy. Cooper reportedly sent various materials to that Dover Board Member. This all apparently occurred before the Thomas More Institute got involved. So it's fair to say that the Disco Institute helped precipitate the Dover fiasco and then ran for the hills.

Equally interesting in that respect, Bill Buckingham, one of the two main creationists on the Dover Board, claimed attorney-client privilege when asked about the contact, while in a piece on the DI Media Complaints Division's board, Cooper denied giving legal advice. He also does not say that he sent the DeWolf legal guide. I'd be real interested in whether that happened. He says he sent the "Icons of Evolution" DVD with a study guide, but doesn't mention anything else.

Talkorigins is down at the moment so I can't give references for Buckingham's claim of attorney-client privilege. What do our legal beagles say the situation is when a layman who talked with a lawyer claims attorney-client privilege for the conversation and the attorney denies that it exists?

RBH

How come Larry repeats his rebutted 'arguments' as if nothing has happened.

Raging Bee wrote "Darwin is the "patron saint of school violence?" The CDC surveyed more than 10,000 public and private high school students nationwide and found.
Statistics indicate an overall drop in school violence since prayer was removed from public schools in 1963.
The study also found that those schools having a higher scholastic achievement record, were less inclined to violent activities.More real science=less violence

Because as soon as he stops repeating them, any appearance of a "controversy" to be "taught" will vanish.

That's some fantasy life these people have. Next thing you know, they'll being saying "America is a Christian nation."

The sweet irony is that Ronald Reagan said something that these people are fighting against: "Facts are stubborn things." Indeed, they are. No amount of wishing things to be other than what they are is going to change a thing.

I ran across a new blog:
Sounding the Trumpet
"Cutting-edge conservative commentary from Cornell University"
Entry of March 22, 2006:
Imagine an intelligent design research database. . .

Give it a try, I don't seem able to connect to the site anymore after making one post.

You know, looking at this Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture link and seeing that their logo apparently now includes a crescent and a star, I wonder whether the post-Dover changes they've undergone aren't even more fundamental (so to speak) than we previously thought...

I don't know about you, but I can't wait to read this.

>>(3) Jones arrogantly assumed that his opinions are
>>conclusive and that other judges should not bother
>>to independently judge the same issues.

Or maybe Jones offered his lengthy opinion "...in the hope that it may prevent the obvious waste of judicial and other resources which would be occasioned by a subsequent trial involving the precise question which is before us."(pages 63-64)

(i) dismissing the case as moot because almost all of the pro-ID school board members had been replaced by anti-ID members,

The Santorum amendment was passed by a vote of 91-8

If you go to the Amazon.com page for the book, the first review listed is by Seth Cooper. Cooper praises the book to the skies while somehow never bothering to mention that he was actually employed by the publisher and advised the defendants.

Comment #88574 Posted by Noname on March 23, 2006 08:13 AM (e) Some people on this blog claimed that Judge Jones was obligated to rule on the scientific merits of ID just because both sides asked him to. Those people are now going to have to eat a lot of crow. In Florida, a female schoolteacher was accused of having sex with a 14-year-old boy. The schoolteacher, her lucky "victim," his mother, the defense, and the prosecutors were all opposed to having a trial. The schoolteacher was charged in two counties and a plea bargain was made in one of them. However, the judge in the other county insisted that there be a trial. The prosecutors quickly solved the problem by withdrawing the charges. See http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id... So much for the notion that a judge is obligated to do something just because all of the participants in a case want him to do it.

What seems to be the problem in coming up with a new persona, "noname" Larry FarFromHisName?

Wikipedia run out of the names of Confederate generals?

Did your card at the local library expire?

Did you finally ask the cute girl behind the counter for a date, right before she called the cops to report harassment?

Did your daddy cancel your AOL subscription?

PT CONTEST!!
Find A New Name For No-Name!
Help Larry-Far-From-A-Name Cover His Shameful Namelessness!

C'mon, Pandas, we can't allow Larry to go Confederate general-less for much longer. That would be like allowing Dave to go Heddle-less (send us your poor, your heddled masses?), Carol to go Clouser-less, Blast to go Past-less, or Lenny to go Pizza Boy-less.

I mean, we're rough, tough troll-stompers, but somewhere in our pitiless, black-and-white furred breasts, there must beat at least one cardiac fiber of sympathy, of empathy, of altruism.

Won't some quasi-kindly PT'er with a copy of Lee's Lieutenants supply poor ol' Larry with a sample list of generals of the gray from which Larry can pick a new sobriquet?

I think the Intelligent Design critique

is worth understanding on its merits

If you go to the Amazon.com page for the book, the first review listed is by Seth Cooper. Cooper praises the book to the skies while somehow never bothering to mention that he was actually employed by the publisher and advised the defendants.

I wonder if this book will include a contribution from eminent legal scholar Michael Francisco, a second year law student at Cornell and an ***-hat.

I thought I read it somewhere that following the November Dover School Board election, the plaintiffs offered a settlement to the new school board to drop the case if the new school board would remove the ID policy. However, it was the new school board members who declined this offer. Instead, the newly-elected school board decided that it would be better policy to see first how Judge Jones would rule before changing the policy. Is this correct?

— Tony

The Santorum amendment was passed by a vote of 91-8

C'mon, Pandas, we can't allow Larry to go Confederate general-less for much longer. That would be like allowing Dave to go Heddle-less (send us your poor, your heddled masses?), Carol to go Clouser-less, Blast to go Past-less, or Lenny to go Pizza Boy-less.

— Steviepinhead

I'm very disillusioned with the attitude of the people on this board---and that includes you, Pim. Adieu. and in his final post Good-bye, Panda's Thumb.

— blastfromthepast

"Won't some quasi-kindly PT'er with a copy of Lee's Lieutenants supply poor ol' Larry with a sample list of generals of the gray from which Larry can pick a new sobriquet?"

Hooker. As in Major General "Fightin Joe."

Yeah, he was a Union general, but his ineptitude suggests that he helped the grays more than the blues.

"What do our legal beagles say the situation is when a layman who talked with a lawyer claims attorney-client privilege for the conversation and the attorney denies that it exists?"

Bad news for the lawyer. As a general rule, the communication is privileged if the "client" or potential client thinks it is. The privilege may exist even though an attorney client relationship has not been created. A lawyer can be disciplined for disclosing communications within the privilege. Therefore, I'd be very concerned if I had spoken to someone seeking my advice, if that person later claimed the communication was privileged.

Yes, Kevin, you and Anton and Pim did a great job dealing with Blast's most "technical" and sustained effort yet to critique a peer-reviewed evolutionary science paper.

Thanks for that! I learned a lot and, in fact, I'm sure Blast learned a lot too, though he'll never admit it...

No mention at all that it was stripped out of the bill before it could actually become law. Seems this ID wiki is about as credible as the rest of the ID resources. *total shock*

...but they look to be trying their hardest.

The Prince of Pants-Loading, the Invoker of Induction, has abandoned us. Say it ain't so!

Corkscrew,

They got format and boilerplate but "where's the beef"!!!!????

I would like to advance my claim that it was little old me who suggested that Larry should be de-named in the manner of John McCoy from Talk Origins. I have to trawl back for the citation, and errrrrr I'll get around to it soon, honest!

I am chuffed that NoName Larry has taken my suggestion to heart and un-named himself. Since I appear to have the power of commanding Larry (am I a Larry Whisperer I ask myself) are there any questions the PTers feel I should put to Larry? After all he seems to be unable to resist my mere suggestions, who knows what a command might acheive.

I have a suggestion that Larry (NoName etc) must now comply with: Come up with some new and unrefuted arguments, until then be silent and be gone!

Let's see if it works.

Comment #88660 posted by Corkscrew on March 23, 2006 02:31 PM ``Whether or not irreducible complexity is bogus science is irrelevant, because there is no constitutional separation of bogus science and state.`` You're joking, right? ID, as stated in the Dover case, is precisely the statement ``God exists`` with the word ``God`` replaced by euphemisms

However, having been asked by both sides to rule on the issue of whether ID was science, he chose to do so, thus saving the Pennsylvania govt large amounts of cash by avoiding pointless retrials.

Heck, he could have perfectly legitimately ruled on the issue even if both sides hadn't asked him to. IT'S WRITTEN INTO THE DAMN LAW!

How is ruling on stuff that he is explicitly permitted to rule on arrogant behaviour for a judge?

Judge Jones didn't prohibit scientific criticism of evolutionary theory, he simply stated that ID did not constitute a scientific criticism.....It's not denigration or disparagement if it's an accurate description of the situation.

Why the heck should the publisher have been allowed to get involved? Because the suit did them some indirect damage? In that case, every stockholder in Enron, and every pundit who'd put their credibility on the line praising Enron, would have had standing to get involved in Enron's trial.

[DI's amicus] brief had the entire text of Dembski's testimony attached to it.

Even if Shallit had been allowed to testify as a result, this would have meant that the defendants had two opportunities to make their claim (Dembski's deposition and Shallit's cross-examination) whereas the prosecution would only have had one opportunity (Shallit's deposition). This would have been genuinely unfair.

The intent was to show that the school board's behaviour could be reasonably interpreted as appearing to endorse religion (the "effect" prong of the Lemon test). The editorials and letters demonstrated that this was in fact the case.

Showing blatant prejudice, the Dover opinion said that the answer to the question of "whether ID is science ... can likely be predicted" by the opinion's determination 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 implicit assumption is that religion and good science tend to be more or less non-overlapping, especially where creationism is involved (and that's what I'd interpret this as being a reference to). Fortunately, the Judge doesn't rely on this assumption but instead goes through a subsequent 26 pages of discussion of this point

The Dover opinion quoted a normally-privileged attorney-client message that was sent to the school board and used this message to bash the defendants, and gave no explanation as to how this message lost its privilege (pages 111-112).

It lost its privilege when one half of the attorney-client relationship deliberately made it public.

Jones created confusion by stating in the conclusion section 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 (pages 138-139).

Fraid I have no idea about this. Still, even if Judge Jones made a typo, I find it hard to see why that would be considered a good reason to ignore this well-written and thorough judgement.

Jones appeared to take unfair advantage of the fact that the ousted original school board members and their legal representatives had no chance to have the decision reviewed by a higher court. Jones might have shown more restraint in his written opinion had there been a reasonable chance of appeal.

Can you actually provide any evidence for this assertion, or is it all in your head? My understanding is that, what with the apparent perjury and all, the Judge could have written that the sky was green and the defendants would still have had no chance in an appeal even if they wanted to do so.

Jones apparently signed the plaintiffs' original calculated $2 million+ attorney fee award request, even though there was no need for him to do so because the parties had reached an out-of-court settlement of $1 million. One of the plaintiffs' attorneys admitted that the purpose of having the judge sign the request for the larger amount is to help blackmail other school boards..

I don't understand how the former can be considered a rebuttal of Judge Jones' verdict. A clerical error maybe (if accurate), but not a rebuttal. Sadly you didn't actually provide the source for your second statement, but I'm guessing that this is a misquote based upon statements that hopefully the financial losses incurred will discourage other schools from pulling the same stunt.

And you only have to pay $14.95 to learn the truth.

Yeah, sure, Larry, you've knowingly and explicitly praised the blatantly dishonest tactics of the "cdesign proponentsists," but now you expect us to believe you're both honest and competent to speak on ANY topic? Having flatly (and repeatedly) admitted that ID and IC are indeed phony science, there's really nothing else to argue about, and your incessant axe-grinding over procedural minutae in the Dover case is really a waste of time. The defendants -- the creationist faction -- made their best case, and it was full of lies. Grow up and get over it.

Your refusal to pick a handle and stick to it only reinforces my impression that you are hiding from your real-world self and problems. Get help.

They got format and boilerplate but "where's the beef"!!!!????

Larry, aka noname: you are an ignorant, dishonest, immoral moron. No one cares what you think.

In the days after U.S. Judge John E. Jones III issued his decision in Dover's intelligent design case, outraged people sent threatening e-mails to his office. Jones won't discuss details of the e-mails, or where they might have come from, but he said they concerned the U.S. Marshals Service. So, in the week before Christmas, marshals kept watch over Jones and his family. While no single e-mail may have reached the level of a direct threat, Jones said, the overall tone was so strident, marshals "simply determined the tenor was of sufficient concern that I ought to have protection." http://www.ydr.com/doverbiology/ci_3634734

I don't know about you, but I can't wait to read this. It will be fun to see how many times the previous law review articles by DeWolf et al. (summary: "Intelligent design is constitutional because it is revolutionary new science, not creationism!") are contradicted by the new DI book by DeWolf et al. (which, if it follows the website, will say, "Judge Jones was irresponsible and activist for ruling on the science question!").

If the DI were at all honest, they'd donate the proceeds from this book towards paying the legal expenses that the people in Dover are now saddled with after the ID-ers skipped town and left them holding the bag.

— Lenny

> So much for the notion that a judge is obligated to do something just because all of the participants in a case want him to do it.

Nobody ever said here that a judge is obligated to do this. You're an obvious idiot.

I was talking about irreducible complexity, not ID. Judge Jones never ruled that irreducible complexity is religious --- he only ruled that it is bad science (pages 72-79 of the Dover opinion, http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/all_legal/2005-12-20... ). There is no constitutional separation of bad science and state.

— Noname

Dr. Haught testified that this argument for the existence of God was advanced early in the 19th century by Reverend Paley and defense expert witnesses Behe and Minnich admitted that their argument for ID based on the "purposeful arrangement of parts" is the same one that Paley made for design. (9:7-8 (Haught); Trial Tr. vol. 23, Behe Test., 55-57, Oct. 19, 2005; Trial Tr. vol. 38, Minnich Test., 44, Nov. 4, 2005). The only apparent difference between the argument made by Paley and the argument for ID, as expressed by defense expert witnesses Behe and Minnich, is that ID's "official position" does not acknowledge that the designer is God. However, as Dr. Haught testified, anyone familiar with Western religious thought would immediately make the association that the tactically unnamed designer is God, as the description of the designer in Of Pandas and People (hereinafter "Pandas") is a "master intellect," strongly suggesting a supernatural deity as opposed to any intelligent actor known to exist in the natural world. (P-11 at 85). Moreover, it is notable that both Professors Behe and Minnich admitted their personal view is that the designer is God and Professor Minnich testified that he understands many leading advocates of ID to believe the designer to be God. (21:90 (Behe); 38:36-38 (Minnich)).

You gotta go check out the "law" section in that wiki you linked to, if you haven't already. The only entry so far is about the "Santorum Ammendment"...

I was talking about irreducible complexity, not ID. Judge Jones never ruled that irreducible complexity is religious --- he only ruled that it is bad science (pages 72-79 of the Dover opinion, http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/all_legal/2005-12-20... ). There is no constitutional separation of bad science and state.

Maybe someone should join their wiki and do up a nice page on the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial.

Note the ratings of the reviews on the Amazon.com page are skewed towards the creationist side. The positive reviews have a large majority ratings as helpful, negative reviews have large majority ratings as unhelpful. Looks like somebody is paying close attention...

Some people on this blog claimed that Judge Jones was obligated to rule on the scientific merits of ID just because both sides asked him to. Those people are now going to have to eat a lot of crow. In Florida, a female schoolteacher was accused of having sex with a 14-year-old boy. The schoolteacher, her lucky "victim," his mother, the defense, and the prosecutors were all opposed to having a trial. The schoolteacher was charged in two counties and a plea bargain was made in one of them. However, the judge in the other county insisted that there be a trial. The prosecutors quickly solved the problem by withdrawing the charges. See http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id... So much for the notion that a judge is obligated to do something just because all of the participants in a case want him to do it.

— Noname/Larry

In this case, plaintiffs have made two main types of claims. First, they have made fact-based claims that the specific policy adopted by the Dover Area School Board ("DASB") violates the first and second prongs of the Lemon test. Second, they claim that the theory of intelligent design is an "inherently religious concept" such that teaching students about it would necessarily violate Lemon's first and second prongs under any circumstances. Amicus vigorously disputes this second, more general claim, but takes no position on the first. Amicus takes no position on the first set of claims because Amicus lacks access to the factual record regarding the motives and actions of the DASB. Amicus disputes the second, more general claim, because it ignores the many secular purposes under which the theory of intelligent design could be taught, as well as the likely primary effect of teaching about intelligent design---to advance science education. Secular purposes for teaching about the theory of intelligent design include informing students about competing scientific theories of biological origins, helping students to better understand the contrasting theory of neo-Darwinism (the standard textbook theory of evolution), and enhancing critical thinking skills.

— DI amicus

"[t]he process whereby the ACCUSED and the PROSECUTOR in a criminal case work out a mutually satisfactory DISPOSITION of the case subject to court approval. It usually involves the defendant's pleading guilty to a lesser offense or to only one or some of the counts of a multi-count INDICTMENT in return for a lighter sentence than that possible for the graver charge."

— Encyclopedia of everyday law

One important point is a prosecuting attorney has no authority to force a court to accept a plea agreement entered into by the parties. Prosecutors may only "recommend" to the court the acceptance of a plea arrangement. The court will usually take proofs to ensure that the above three components are satisfied and will then generally accept the recommendation of the prosecution.

After a careful review of the record and viewing the facts and all inferences to be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, as we must at this juncture, we hold that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding whether the challenged Policy has a secular purpose and whether the Policy's principal or primary effect advances or inhibits religion, despite Defendants' arguments to the contrary. Accordingly, summary judgment is not warranted and Defendants' Motion shall be denied.

Traipsing Into Evolution is a timely criticism of judicial overreaching arising out of the Kitzmiller v. Dover intelligent design trial. It gives a thoughtful, yet succinct, analysis of the errors of the Kitzmiller court. This book is a must read for both proponents and critics of intelligent design. Unless critics of intelligent design grapple with the arguments in this book, their criticisms will be as intellectually anemic as that of the court. The authors of Traipsing Into Evolution present an insightful view of both the history and merits of intelligent design as well as the profound shortcomings of the Kitzmiller court. As an attorney that has worked extensively on this issue, the book has the ring of accuracy.

Good-bye, Panda's Thumb.

— Blast

The Prince of Pants-Loading, the Invoker of Induction, has abandoned us. Say it ain't so!

— Kevin

[...]and lets not forget Boraas and their pathetic attempt to pass an obvious case of chemical induction as evolution

In Florida, a female schoolteacher was accused of having sex with a 14-year-old boy. The schoolteacher, her lucky "victim," his mother, the defense, and the prosecutors were all opposed to having a trial. The schoolteacher was charged in two counties and a plea bargain was made in one of them. However, the judge in the other county insisted that there be a trial. The prosecutors quickly solved the problem by withdrawing the charges. See http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id... So much for the notion that a judge is obligated to do something just because all of the participants in a case want him to do it.

Jones denied the Pandas book publisher's motion to enter the case as an intervenor and then he thoroughly trashed the book in his written opinion. Jones called the motion untimely, even though the motion was filed only a month after the plaintiffs subpoenaed the publisher and a whopping four months before the start of the trial. The publisher should have been admitted as an intervenor to give it the right to file an independent appeal, if for no other reason. Considering that the book was thoroughly trashed in the written opinion and that the publisher had no opportunity to file an independent appeal, the claim that the publisher's interests were adequately protected is especially hollow.

Would any of these whinging losers understand the concepts of ethics, transparency, conflict of interest, or full disclosure if they tripped over them?

Then Judge Jones could point out that the revised version is essentially the same as the previous versions except the words creationism/creation science in the old versions is replaced with intelligent design in the new version.

Blast wrote: Good-bye, Panda's Thumb.

I was talking about irreducible complexity, not ID. Judge Jones never ruled that irreducible complexity is religious --- he only ruled that it is bad science ... There is no constitutional separation of bad science and state.

Noname should become Pickett as in Pickett's charge, one of the most spectular defeats of the Civil War.

Of Course the ID crowd insist on doing it again and again and claiming victory in spite of all the bodies on the ground

And you don't count the dead when god's on your side

Would any of these whinging losers understand the concepts of ethics, transparency, conflict of interest, or full disclosure if they tripped over them?

I only said that he did not have to rule on the question of whether ID and/or irreducible complexity are scientific.

What I am disputing is the claim that Jones was obligated to rule on the scientific merits of ID just because both sides asked him to do so, and no one has presented any evidence in support of this claim

(BTW, I wonder if that Florida pedophile got off scot-free --- i.e., if the charges were dropped in the other county as well. The prosecutors would have looked foolish sustaining charges in one county while dropping similar charges in the other.).

Sorry the La Fave link was supposed to go here. http://gcruse.typepad.com/the_owners_manual/2005/01/debra_lafave_up.html

"He had three opportunities to duck this issue: he could have (1) ruled that the case was moot because of the changeover in the school board, (2) ruled solely on the basis of the religious motivations of the board members, or (3) ruled that irreducible complexity is non-religious because it makes no mention of anything related to religion. IMO the courts have no business judging the scientific merits of ideas when doing so is not essential for deciding a case --- there is no constitutional or legal provision giving the courts the authority to do this."

Sure the Judge could have made some ruling that didn't give the plaintiffs the requested relief, such as #1 and #3 above. But he didn't. He ruled in favor of the plaintffs. Now...can you find an alternate analysis that supports a judicial ruling in favor of the plaintiffs? You can't make an argument that the judge decided issues not before him if he needed to decide those issues to rule in favor of one of the parties. Judge Jones needed to do that here.

Also the commentor confuses the judicial attitudes of trial courts with apellate courts. Apellate courts do often rely on the narrowest ground to sustain a trial court's ruling (the bolded words are the key). Trial courts, on the other hand, knowing that appeals will often be taken, will rule in favor of one party on multiple grounds. It is not true that trial courts are required to choose the narrowest posisble basis for ruling in a party's favor. As a matter of fact, they usually don't.

The test is simply whether the parties fairly litigated the matter. There is no question that the defense called Michael Behe as a scientific expert to testify that ID is science. He actually did so testify, relying on irreducible complexity. The judge could not avoid addressing this argument and Behe's evidence without risking an appellate court's reversal.

Deciding on broader than necessary grounds happens all the time in court. A plaintiff might sue for breach of contract and fraud. The court will often rule in plaintiff's favor on both grounds when the evidence supports such a ruling, even though plaintiff is not permitted a double judgment. The court of appeals can sustain the judgment on either ground.

Dude, you're arguing with a crank.

Don't waste your time.

Jesus Larry. Quite whining about Dover. You guys lost. Get over it already. Fsakes man, everybody here knows you are heartbroken because ID lost in Dover. Stop being such a damn bad looser. ID had a FAIR chance to give it all they got. They did give it all they had in Dover, but the Judge decided they are farting at the wind. You wanna help ID? Start doing experiments or something, but quite moaning about Dover. Dying people complain less than you.

Hey Larry
Have the guys at the DI given you a call yet?
You keep reminding them they are ******* losers.
And to prove the point you're repeating the same points over and over they must be getting sick of being reminded don't you think?.

How about the "Theory of ID"...oh that's right YOU don't have one.
How about the sheer brilliance of the TMLC defense....the one Santorum is running a mile from.(snigger)
How about the stunning support the DI gave the TMLC.(hahahahahaha)

Hey what about teaching the controversy ? You know the one.... no one can agree on and everyones fighting over...jeez Larry by the time that's over..they will be a second coming ...or two.(smirk)

Oh yeah Ikruducile Composity or Pomosity ...whatever.... how does that go again?(double smirk)

Whatever happened to the idea that you just get it over with and prove the existence of your designer, should be no trouble at all, millions of people agree with you so it MUST be REAL?

Over to you Larry ?

I did not say that Judge Jones had to "accept the claim that ID is scientific" --- I only said that he did not have to rule on the question of whether ID and/or irreducible complexity are scientific. He had three opportunities to duck this issue: he could have (1) ruled that the case was moot because of the changeover in the school board, (2) ruled solely on the basis of the religious motivations of the board members, or (3) ruled that irreducible complexity is non-religious because it makes no mention of anything related to religion.

— Larry

IMO the courts have no business judging the scientific merits of ideas when doing so is not essential for deciding a case --- there is no constitutional or legal provision giving the courts the authority to do this.

Also, an amicus brief that the Discovery Institute submitted on behalf of 85 scientists urged Jones to refrain from ruling on the scientific merits of ID --- see http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/all_legal/amicus/200...

This is called a "lack of jurisdiction" ruling. Judges also give other reasons --- e.g., mootness and lack of standing --- for not ruling on an issue. Judges do this kind of stuff all the time. For example, the Supreme Court threw out the "under god" (pledge of allegiance) case on the nitpicking basis that the plaintiff did not have legal custody of his biological daughter, his mascot in the case.

— Larry

The judge does not have to rule in favor of either party, nor does the judge have to rule on all the issues raised by one or both parties. For example, a judge might dismiss a case as moot because a judgment on the merits would have no practical effect on the parties involved. The Dover case could have been dismissed as moot because the pro-ID school board members had been replaced by anti-ID board members, with the result that the plaintiffs would have gotten the basic relief they wanted ---cancellation of the ID policy --- in any event. The plaintiffs wanted a broader decision --- i.e., they wanted rulings that ID is not science and that teaching it in public schools violates the establishment clause --- but Jones was not obligated to give the plaintiffs everything they wanted. Also, another consideration is that a broad ruling was unfair because the original defendants had no chance to appeal (because they were voted off the school board).

I never said that trial courts are required to rule on narrow grounds --- but as I said above, I think that ruling on narrow grounds would have been especially appropriate here because the original defendants had no chance to appeal.

Larry

It's clear you (and the DI .... why else would they not want the Judge to NOT rule) agree with the Judge that ID is not science and that it is just a particular religious sects apologetics(creationism)
....so just explain why again he did not have to rule on that.
and again.
and again.
and again.
Just so the DI and all the other creationists REALLY get the message.
Your doing a better job than Judge Jones at getting the message out there sunshine.

I disagree. Jones could have ruled that irreducible complexity is non-religious (for the reason above) and that therefore it was not necessary for him to decide whether he thinks that teaching it has a valid secular purpose.

— Nobody

What "DI amicus" is this ? There were two DI amicus briefs --- (1) DI's own brief, which Judge Jones excluded from the record, and (2) a brief that DI submitted on behalf of 85 scientists.

The Court has received numerous letters, amicus briefs, and other forms of correspondence pertaining to this case. The only documents submitted by third parties the Court has considered, however, are those that have become an official part of the record. Consistent with the foregoing, the Court has taken under consideration the following: (1) Brief of Amici Curiae Biologists and Other Scientists in Support of Defendants (doc. 245); (2) Revised Brief of Amicus Curiae, the Discovery Institute (doc. 301); (3) Brief of Amicus Curiae the Foundation for Thought and Ethics (doc. 309); and (4) Brief for Amicus Curiae Scipolicy Journal of Science and Health Policy (doc. 312).

— Jones

Anyway, I do not see two types of claims above --- the alleged "second" claim just gives a reason or explanation for the first.

Encyclopedia of everyday law wrote: One important point is a prosecuting attorney has no authority to force a court to accept a plea agreement entered into by the parties. I never disputed this. What I am disputing is the claim that Jones was obligated to rule on the scientific merits of ID just because both sides asked him to do so, and no one has presented any evidence in support of this claim (BTW, I wonder if that Florida pedophile got off scot-free --- i.e., if the charges were dropped in the other county as well. The prosecutors would have looked foolish sustaining charges in one county while dropping similar charges in the other.).

Intelligent Design is a philosophical view predicated on the belief that what the natural sciences have not yet been able to explain materially, must exist because it was the product of a superior being. In contrast to the natural sciences, the notion of Intelligent Design demonstrates neither procedure, measurement technique, nor testable hypotheses. The notion is, it seems, that everything must have an explanation and, therefore, where none is apparent, the creation must be the will of a non-material or superhuman force. Some scholars would maintain that this view simply endorses the supernatural and whether that supernatural is good or evil is simply an exercise in faith.

Irrefutably, the concept of Intelligent Design embraces the notion of the supernatural; it gives no other possible explanation and reposes on the individual's intellectual and psychological needs and the depth of his faith.

Stripped of its intellectual facade the announcement is nothing but a transparent effort to engraft religious dogma onto the classroom examination of scientific theory.

Once again, I must point out that Larry is not an IDer. Larry is just a crank, who has delusions of lawyerhood.

Well Larry (I see you don't deny you are nobody)
You're living proof after all.
The two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity.

careful Larry you're loosing the plot.

"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."
--- Beyond Good and Evil

Denial and projection

To whit.
You Larry can keep saying I am he is totally wrong until you are he is blue in the face, but it won't do you do him any good.

You can jump up and down for as long as you like but guess what? Your an evolved animal. And so was your mother, was it her that told you that fairy stories are 'real'?

Basic Psychological Mechanisms: Neurosis and Projection.

So Larry when are you coming out?

Larry, why don't you write a bunch of crank letters to Judge Jones, the Supreme Court, the New York Times, anyone else you can think of, explaining all of your, uh, legal insights.

Let us know how it goes.

Hey Larry, I hear they have an opening in the Catholic Church for the Patron Saint of Circular Reasoning.

To Leon re(Posted by Leon on March 23, 2006 01:35 PM):

You wrote (in part):

"justasking7, you are of course welcome to contact Larry. If I had his address I'd get it to you.

"ID was tested rather fairly on its merits in the Kitzmiller case, which is why the decision came down the way it did.

"But for purposes of understanding ID, I think it's fair to summarize it this way. The basic premise of ID is that parts of biological species (the eye, for instance) are too complex to have evolved---instead, they must have been designed wholesale and implemented all at once."
[end excerpt]

=======

Thank you for explaining the rudiments of ID. You were polite and to the point.

From your description, ID sounds like it presents a challenge on the merits to the theory that all biological entities came about by pure random chance combined with the incidence of death or sterility of entities with mutational failures.

All the best.

Mind you, justasking7, the biological theory you described is a strawman version of modern evolutionary theory. That said, you are correct. ID in reality addresses only a strawman version of the real evolutionary theory.

BTW, Larry started his own blog a week ago, if you are still interested in him. He's not all that knowledgeable about ID, though - there are others who would be a better source of information.

As Larry is no longer welcome to post here, I will not engage in further discussion regarding him, as it would be unfair to him to not be able to respond to any of my statements.

I described evolutionary theory as:

"the theory that all biological entities came about by pure random chance combined with the incidence of death or sterility of entities with mutational failures."

Mr. Vicklund responded kindly:

"Mind you, the biological theory you described is a strawman version of modern evolutionary theory."

I confess to having described the theory in coarse terms. I am intrigued by your response, however.

(1) Does modern evolutionary theory reject the notion that random mutation is the physical change agent that changes the characteristics of species or leads to new species?

(2) Does modern evolutionary theory reject the notion of natural selection, which in operation means that less favorably adapted members of a species will either die or fail to reproduce in as many numbers as will the more favorably adpated members?

This is a serious question. I am holding a book entitled "Evolution," written by Professor Frank H.T. Rhodes (Univ of Mich.),published by Golden Press in 1974, which describes random mutation and natural selection in essentially these terms. Is this book incorrect? What is the current view of the causes leading to changes in species?

I look forward to reading your post.

published by Golden Press in 1974

The book in question:

I described evolutionary theory as: "the theory that all biological entities came about by pure random chance combined with the incidence of death or sterility of entities with mutational failures." [snipped] This is a serious question. I am holding a book entitled "Evolution," written by Professor Frank H.T. Rhodes (Univ of Mich.),published by Golden Press in 1974, which describes random mutation and natural selection in essentially these terms. Is this book incorrect? What is the current view of the causes leading to changes in species?

— Justasking7

Lenny Flank wrote:

"So you're quoting from a children's encyclopedia from 32 years ago .... ?"

"(sigh) No WONDER nobody takes creationuts seriously."

===

Let's consider this post, Mr. Flank.

(1) I cited a book by a professor at UM, who was an expert in evolution. You apparently don't like what he wrote, so you criticize me as a "nut" for citing the words of the expert in evolution.

(2) I cited a book that was designed to teach students in schools about evolution. Now, if you don't like that book or its message, then you are impliedly conceding that students who read that book were being misinformed by a leading proponent of evolutionary theory.

(Whether the misinformation was intentional or not would be an interesting question for you to think about.)

(3) That you invested your time to post your reply suggests that this was your best argument -- to attack me for citing the publication of a proponent of evolution. Regrettably your post contained not a microgram of substantive merit.

Anton Mates replied to my post; thank you kindly, Mr. Mates.

Mr. Mates, you addressed my coarse rendition of evolutionary theory, but I had already tightened up my questions in the subsequent post. You omitted those questions in your response post.

You indicate that random mutation and natural selection are major factors in evolution.

You also reference "genetic drift" -- but then you note that such drift occurs by random events. These would be external events in the environment acting upon the species' members (as opposed to internal changes in DNA), so such drift would be part of the natural selection process.

You reference sexual selection -- but then you note that is also an external factor, so it is part of the natural selection process.

You note that speciation instances may be culture-driven. As "culture" must be a function of DNA programming, then any given "culture" is the result of mutation to DNA and natural selection events of the past.

Your discussion of my use of the term "mutational failures" goes to my coarse restatement of the theory. In my subsequent tightened restatements in the form of two questions, I adopted the more accurate phrasing of the theory as Professor Rhodes had written it, and which your comments also include.

As you say, natural selection is the operation of the environment upon the members of the species, such that the better adapted members survive and reproduce more successfully than the less well adapted members. The environment includes physical forces, the changes in physical features of the external world, and the "culture" elements to which you referred.

Thus, at the end of the day, evolution theory remains grounded upon random mutation (for changes to DNA) and natural selection (that favors or disfavors members of the species that exhibit variations in features and traits traceable to variations in DNA).

(I use the term DNA broadly here to include the DNA driven structures e.g. chromosomes and genetic elements, etc.)

Have I missed an element of evolutionary theory here?

Mr. Mates, you addressed my coarse rendition of evolutionary theory, but I had already tightened up my questions in the subsequent post. You omitted those questions in your response post.

— justasking7

You indicate that random mutation and natural selection are major factors in evolution. You also reference "genetic drift" --- but then you note that such drift occurs by random events. These would be external events in the environment acting upon the species' members (as opposed to internal changes in DNA), so such drift would be part of the natural selection process.

You reference sexual selection --- but then you note that is also an external factor, so it is part of the natural selection process.

You note that speciation instances may be culture-driven. As "culture" must be a function of DNA programming, then any given "culture" is the result of mutation to DNA and natural selection events of the past.

Your discussion of my use of the term "mutational failures" goes to my coarse restatement of the theory. In my subsequent tightened restatements in the form of two questions, I adopted the more accurate phrasing of the theory as Professor Rhodes had written it, and which your comments also include.

Thus, at the end of the day, evolution theory remains grounded upon random mutation (for changes to DNA)

Like I said, no WONDER nobody takes creationuts seriously.

(shrug)

Thank you, Mr. Mates. Your post is quite helpful, and clarifies some terminology for me. I do appreciate your time and effort.

I see your point about "cultural" behaviors not being genetically driven. I think your point is strong for mammals and perhaps some of the other higher intelligence animals.

The behaviors of fireflies, however, could be considered "cultural", am I right, because various species of fireflies employ and distinguish between different signaling mechanisms. Some fireflies even mimic the signals of other fireflies to entice the other species in ... to become a meal.

I am unaware of any researcher who says that fireflies teach these behaviors to their young. Such instruction would be nearly impossible, as the parents of the fireflies have no interaction with their larvae nor with their post-metamorphosis offspring. As the adult fireflies are not exposed to the previous generation of fireflies, they have no opportunity even to imitate the behaviors of older fireflies.

When you used the general term "cultural" I was envisioning a larger set of animals than just mammals and perhaps some other species. That is one reason why I suggested that the "cultural" behaviors are products of DNA programming.

You suggested that the groups of orcas had developed different "traditions" of diet, foraging and signals, and for those reasons they selected mates from their own group and not from other groups. Quite fascinating stuff!

I would imagine, however, that some common ancestor orcas would have not been differentiated by "traditions," and that those orcas' behaviors would have been DNA determined. The potential to change "traditions" would also be a function of DNA, given that not all animals have the evident power to construct and modify "traditions." For that reason, I would think that both the "traditions" and the potential to change "traditions" are products of DNA programming in the first instance. The evolution of a species lacking "traditions" to a species having (and being able to change) "traditions" would have required mutation (or other random shuffling of genetic materials). That's the other reason why I suggested that "cultural" behaviors are the product of DNA programming, and that such programming was the result of prior mutation and natural selection events of the past.

Thank you again for your kindness in fielding my queries.

Thank you, Mr. Mates. Your post is quite helpful, and clarifies some terminology for me. I do appreciate your time and effort.

— justasking7

I see your point about "cultural" behaviors not being genetically driven. I think your point is strong for mammals and perhaps some of the other higher intelligence animals.

The behaviors of fireflies, however, could be considered "cultural", am I right, because various species of fireflies employ and distinguish between different signaling mechanisms. Some fireflies even mimic the signals of other fireflies to entice the other species in ... to become a meal. I am unaware of any researcher who says that fireflies teach these behaviors to their young. Such instruction would be nearly impossible, as the parents of the fireflies have no interaction with their larvae nor with their post-metamorphosis offspring. As the adult fireflies are not exposed to the previous generation of fireflies, they have no opportunity even to imitate the behaviors of older fireflies.

You suggested that the groups of orcas had developed different "traditions" of diet, foraging and signals, and for those reasons they selected mates from their own group and not from other groups. Quite fascinating stuff! I would imagine, however, that some common ancestor orcas would have not been differentiated by "traditions," and that those orcas' behaviors would have been DNA determined.

The potential to change "traditions" would also be a function of DNA, given that not all animals have the evident power to construct and modify "traditions."

For that reason, I would think that both the "traditions" and the potential to change "traditions" are products of DNA programming in the first instance. The evolution of a species lacking "traditions" to a species having (and being able to change) "traditions" would have required mutation (or other random shuffling of genetic materials).

Sorry, the TalkOrigins link above is busted. Try this.

Mr. Mates, I thank you again for your careful explanation and clarification.

One thing you said particularly intrigued me:

"Rather than a new single animal being born who, unlike all its ancestors, has The Ability To Learn Behaviors From Its Fellows, you'd see a lineage gradually develop better memories and more interest in imitating their elders, so that more and more complicated behaviors become feasible to pass down, until they finally amount to something we bother calling a "culture" or "tradition". Each tiny step being provided, as you say, by mutation or genetic recombination."

For the animal lineage in question, how many generations of the animal would be needed to achieve the evolutionary transformation, in small steps as you say, from the short-memory, no-imitation, no interest in imitation version to the fully operational long memory and exact imitation version of orca that we have today?

To get to a completely a-cultural ancestor of the orca, you'd probably have to go back to our not-quite-reptilian ancestors.

— Anton Mates

Being an expert in neither neurology nor developmental biology nor genetics, I'm probably not the person to ask! That said, I would suspect that we cannot, and never will, be able to somehow calculate how long it would take to go from virtually no capacity for social learning of behavior to, say, Orca-level. You'd have to have near-divine understanding of all the above disciplines just to write down all the possible sequences of mutations and recombinations that any given lineage might have experienced along the way, and then add to that the intricate knowledge of ancient ecologies and population sizes you'd need to know to establish the likelihood of each sequence...just isn't feasible without a planet-sized computer and a time machine.

Just as a very simple example of one difficulty here...the probability of a mutation appearing in a population in a given time is roughly proportional to the population size. So if we take a guess at the population size of, say, the species ancestral to Orcas 60 million years ago, and get it wrong by a factor of 10 (which we probably would since we don't even know which species that is), our likelihood and average-time estimates would be wildly off.

We're probably better off using cladistic and paleontological data, but here we're hampered by the fact that most behavior doesn't fossilize--there's not much we can say about the learning capacities of critters dead for millions of years.

So all that's the disclaimer. What can we say for sure? Well, some birds (such as corvids) are very proficient social learners, if probably not orca-class. Ratites and tinamous, on the other hand, are (AFAIK) not known to imitate one another or learn behaviors (although some Galliformes apparently do, and they're apparently closely-related). So the total time needed for a shift from non-social-learner to crow-class social learner is probably less than twice the time of divergence between ratites and crows, say. A quick and very lazy literature search suggests that that divergence occurred more than 90 mya, so...*drumroll* corvids and their ancestors probably developed proficiency in social learning within 200 million years!

Which is not exactly earth-shattering news. :) But as for how fast a lineage could develop that proficiency...I guess we'll never know until we run a multi-million-year-long program where we try to breed super-brilliant, socially adept ostriches or something.

Mr. Mates, thank you again. You are kind to share your thoughts in such a clear and helpful manner. You wrote:

"I would suspect that we cannot, and never will, be able to somehow calculate how long it would take to go from virtually no capacity for social learning of behavior to, say, Orca-level. You'd have to have near-divine understanding of all the above disciplines just to write down all the possible sequences of mutations and recombinations that any given lineage might have experienced along the way, and then add to that the intricate knowledge of ancient ecologies and population sizes you'd need to know to establish the likelihood of each sequence...just isn't feasible without a planet-sized computer and a time machine.

"Just as a very simple example of one difficulty here...the probability of a mutation appearing in a population in a given time is roughly proportional to the population size. So if we take a guess at the population size of, say, the species ancestral to Orcas 60 million years ago, and get it wrong by a factor of 10 (which we probably would since we don't even know which species that is), our likelihood and average-time estimates would be wildly off."

===

I find this disappointing. I would have thought that accurate scientifically verifiable estimates of the time required for evolutionary development would be a problem that evolutionary biologists would have long ago solved. It would seem rather important to establish that the evolutionary changes could actually have occurred in the time frames given, and to bolster that with a mathematically plausible model.

Inasmuch as neo-Darwinian evolution is stated to be a proved fact of science, it would be unsettling if modern biology were not be able to supply such time estimates.

But I understand and grant you intellectual immunity under your disclaimer :-)

Thank you again.

juststupid asks

I would have thought that accurate scientifically verifiable estimates of the time required for evolutionary development would be a problem that evolutionary biologists would have long ago solved. It would seem rather important to establish that the evolutionary changes could actually have occurred in the time frames given

Geebus, the inanity is breathtaking.

Is this what passes for "civil discourse" amongst the creationati?

What is the minimum time to make a canyon like the Grand Canyon on a planet like earth?

Answer: it depends on a whole frigging lot of variables and it's extremely difficult to provide an "accurate" answer to such a question.

Does that mean that the Grand Canyon wasn't formed by erosion and other natural processes?

Of course not.

You have been given a clue. I hope you "get it." Try really hard.

Mr. Mates, I thank you again for your careful explanation and clarification.

What civility!

Can we all give justasking a great big hand? Let's give it up for "civility."

C'mon folks: I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!

let's hear it for civility...

:p

For the animal lineage in question, how many generations of the animal would be needed to achieve the evolutionary transformation, in small steps as you say, from the short-memory, no-imitation, no interest in imitation version to the fully operational long memory and exact imitation version of orca that we have today? ..... Inasmuch as neo-Darwinian evolution is stated to be a proved fact of science, it would be unsettling if modern biology were not be able to supply such time estimates.

So guys, how does it feel to argue with a sock puppet?

Whose?

Isn't it obvious? The nameful one.

I find this disappointing. I would have thought that accurate scientifically verifiable estimates of the time required for evolutionary development would be a problem that evolutionary biologists would have long ago solved.

— justasking7

So guys, how does it feel to argue with a sock puppet?

— W. Kevin Vicklund

It would seem rather important to establish that the evolutionary changes could actually have occurred in the time frames given, and to bolster that with a mathematically plausible model.

Your analogy may backfire, Flint; after all, a reasonable fraction of humanity seems to believe that "scientists" somehow showed the bumblebee's flight is physically impossible, thus proving that it's propelled by angels or energy fields or friendly thoughts or something.

Gee Whiz. I first waited to comment until I had read the dumb book-pamphlet, and now I should read this whole thread?

There must be an easier way. How about we skip every one who has not read both the Dover Transcripts and "traipsing into dogshit" err "scraping off dog shit" or maybe it was "rolling in dog shit" or what ever that stupid DI wank fest was called.

Show of hands here- who has any basis for an informed opinion?

I've managed to save up roughly $21088 in my bank account, but I'm not sure if I should buy a house or not. Do you think the market is stable or do you think that home prices will decrease by a lot?

I was out of town for a good while and missed the opportunity to respond to all of the comments (above).

One fellow called me "juststupid." A clever rejoinder. The same fellow, and others, thought it somehow worth their time to criticize my posts for being civil. I can see, by the several caustic posts, that civility is not a virtue treasured here. Okay.

Somebody injected a religious criticism, when religion and the Bible were no part of what I wrote or asked about. I guess relevance is not a treasured virtue either. Okay.

Other posts ridiculed my disappointment that:

evolutionary theory cannot estimate, for "the animal lineage in question, the number of generations of the animal that would be needed to achieve the evolutionary transformation, in small steps as you say, from the short-memory, no-imitation, no interest in imitation version to the fully operational long memory and exact imitation version of orca that we have today."

Some posts said my question presented such a complicated multivariate problem that it is impossible to solve. Others offered objections to my even asking the question, saying in effect that nobody in their right mind would think it was answerable.

Problem is: people say evolution is a proved fact, so much so that even questioning it should be banned from schools and public discourse. Evolution theorists also state as "fact" that the Earth is about 3 billion years old, and that evolution proceeds by small increments without direction.

It is therefore entirely relevant to inquire whether there is sufficient *time* for the given evolutionary event to take place in a species or series of species. If using evolutionary models it would take more than three billion years to accomplish the evolutionary event, then the event likely didn't happen by known evolutionary processes.

If you cannot answer the challenge, then just say you can't answer it. That's fair. Mr. Mates was intellectually honest enough to do that.

To flame me for daring to ask the question and for being unsatisfied with the given answers, however, just doesn't sound like the scientific approach that welcomes inquiry, challenges accepted orthodoxy, and works to find truth.

Thank you all for your feedback.