Judge explains 'intelligent design' ruling

So, what do you guys think, is this a case of "shoot the messenger", or is it something else?

So, what do you guys think, is this a case of “shoot the messenger”

or is it something else?

Shock jocks like Coulter and O'Reilly can be expected to say that nonsense, but curiously I haven't heard any words of disappointment from Bush, who appointed Jones. Even though the ruling came only 4 months after Bush made his brief comment that ID should be taught.

Does anyone know if Rick Santorum, who recommended Jones, weighed in? I know that he quit the TMLC but still wrote approvingly of the DI (defending their right to say what they say, if not necessarily agreeing with it, as he suggested at least once). Unlike Bush, who must still be as clueless of what the ID strategy is as Jones admitted he was before the trial, Santorum has had ample opportunity to learn about the scam.

As I said at my own blog, for Coulter to call anyone else a "hack" creates such massive irony that it threatens to collapse into a singularity that could suck the entire universe into a black hole of stupidity.

In his remarks, Jones said, "I have had the most remarkable odyssey since deciding the intelligent design case in 2005. Without the principle of judicial independence in our federal court system, I could not have rendered such a decision. Judicial independence means that judges must strive for fair and impartial ruling, hearing cases free of favor or political influence by those who put the judge in office. This certainly was true in the case of Kistmiller v. the School Distrcit of Dover." Jones added, "unfortunately, very few Americans really understand and appreciate the concept of judicial independence. I was a Republican when I was named to the federal bench in 2002. The Kistmiller case came to me in December 2004, and was really an example of the 'third rail' kind of hot button issue, the intersection of religion, the Constitution and politics. I decided the case not on the basis of political considerations, but on the basis of the law."

I hope that the next administration gives serious consideration to Judge Jones for elevation to Circuit Court, with an eye toward an eventual seat on the Supreme Court.

Our courts need clear-headed thinkers who put their legal duty above political (or other) ideology. Jones is one of them.

The Fundies don't expect the judges they appoint to actually rule based on the law, they expect them to be good soldiers and nod their heads. Only religious extremism can produce this nonsense.

Someone should put up that UD quote about Jones being a good ole boy, Bush appointee, that was going to rule in their favor.

Judge John E. Jones on the other hand is a good old boy brought up through the conservative ranks ... political buddy of Governor Tom Ridge (who in turn is deep in George W. Bush's circle of power), and finally was appointed by GW hisself. Senator Rick Santorum is a Pennsylvanian in the same circles (author of the "Santorum Language" that encourages schools to teach the controversy) and last but far from least, George W. Bush hisself drove a stake in the ground saying teach the controversy. Unless Judge Jones wants to cut his career off at the knees he isn't going to rule against the wishes of his political allies. Of course the ACLU will appeal. This won't be over until it gets to the Supreme Court. But now we own that too. www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/life-after-dover/

What should be obvious is that to the true creationist, doctrine is paramount. A proper creationist judge, faced with choosing between doctrine and the law, chooses doctrine. A proper creationist scientist faced with choosing between doctrine and evidence, chooses doctrine. A proper creationist doctor should let a patient die if the alternative violates doctrine.

And I think this represents a genuine litmus test, in those cases where it can be strictly applied. Where doctrine clearly overrides intelligence, professional responsibility, obligation, personal integrity, there you have a good creationist.

It never occurred to DaveScot that Jones would let the law get in the way of his (perceived) doctrinal duties. Certainly DaveScot would never let that happen.

Have more faith, Bill! This is all about Judge Jones. If it were about the merits of the case we know we’d win. It’s about politics. Look at the Cobb county case. A sticker that did no more than mention a plain fact, that evolution is theory not a fact, was ruled a violation of the establishment clause. Incredible! A local school board saying evolution is a theory is, in some twisted logic that just makes me shudder, a law regarding an establishment of religion. Har har hardy har har. Right. In a pig’s ass (pardon my french). Clinton appointed Judge Clarence Cooper made a ridiculous ruling that was faithful to the left wing overlords that he serves. Judge John E. Jones on the other hand is a good old boy brought up through the conservative ranks. He was state attorney for D.A.R.E, an Assistant Scout Master with extensively involved with local and national Boy Scouts of America, political buddy of Governor Tom Ridge (who in turn is deep in George W. Bush’s circle of power), and finally was appointed by GW hisself. Senator Rick Santorum is a Pennsylvanian in the same circles (author of the “Santorum Language” that encourages schools to teach the controversy) and last but far from least, George W. Bush hisself drove a stake in the ground saying teach the controversy. Unless Judge Jones wants to cut his career off at the knees he isn’t going to rule against the wishes of his political allies. Of course the ACLU will appeal. This won’t be over until it gets to the Supreme Court. But now we own that too. Politically biased decisions from ostensibly apolitical courts are a double edged sword that cuts both ways. The liberals had their turn at bat. This is our time now. We won back congress in 1996. We won back the White House in 2000. We won back the courts in 2005. Now we can start undoing all the damage that was done by the flower children. The courts have been the last bastion of liberal power for 5 years. It was just a matter of time. The adults are firmly back in charge. The few wilted flower children that refused to grow up will have to satisfy themselves by following the likes of Cindy Sheehan around ineffectually whining about this, that, and the other thing. They’ve been marginalized.

David robin: BTW, does anyone have the link to Jones' remarks to which the IDiots keep referring that "prove" Jones is an ACLU puppet?

I like how the DI and other members of the tards of darkness like to claim Jones' ruling is not relevant to the rest of the country. If they really believed that there would be more attempts to teach ID in the classroom.

Demski likes to portray his cowardice in being a no-show at Dover was a result of him knowing the case would lose. Funny thing is if IDC is science like he says it is he should have been able to easily prove that to the court. Whether IDC is science has no relationship to the Dover board's actions so they could have lost the case but IDEC *could* have been proven to be science. Dembski the coward, what a puss.

A proper creationist scientist faced with choosing between doctrine and evidence, chooses doctrine.

— Flint

Ah, but which of the mutually contradictory doctrines?

A proper creationist judge, faced with choosing between doctrine and the law, chooses doctrine.... It never occurred to DaveScot that Jones would let the law get in the way of his (perceived) doctrinal duties

Probably doesn’t much matter.

— Flint

John and David:

What a one two punch.

Thanks.

DaveScot may have made a mistake in his calculus. Business Republicans have no use for intentional ignorance, beyond some basics about economics. They need some educated folks to help keep the economy going. The real problem is that the religious Republicans believe their own propaganda and are shocked when the business Republicans let them hang themselves out to dry when they do stupid, unconstitutional things like try to sell ID as science.

Links to Dr. Forrest’s You Tube Videos entitled,

“Barbara Forrest: The Woman Texas Creationists Really Don’t Want You to Hear”

1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cwvE0owTmk 2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_OLlAfmrQs 3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2m-AT4unW4Q 4. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSXxB7JEOOI 5. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E97GFmYNaFI

Has anyone seen the Susan Epperson interview?

It is very doubtful that Jones will ever be nominated for a seat on a higher court. If he is nominated, his misdeeds will come under much greater scrutiny than they have been so far. Consider the following examples of his misdeeds: (1) The ID-as-science section of the Kitzmiller v. Dover opinion was virtually entirely ghostwritten by the ACLU.

— ABC sock puppetry

(2) He said in a Dickinson College commencement speech that his Dover decision was based on his notion that the Founders based the establishment clause on a belief that organized religions are not “true” religions.

.... Business Republicans know – or should know – that they need fundy-type Republicans to win elections.

ABC=Larry

(1) The ID-as-science section of the Kitzmiller v. Dover opinion was virtually entirely ghostwritten by the ACLU. (2) He said in a Dickinson College commencement speech that his Dover decision was based on his notion that the Founders based the establishment clause on a belief that organized religions are not “true” religions.

— ABC

The Founders believed that "true religion was not something handed down by a church or contained in a Bible, but was to be found through free, rational inquiry."* At bottom then, this core set of beliefs led the Founders, who constantly engaged and questioned things," to secure their idea of religious freedom by barring any alliance between church and state."*

— Judge Jones

Just to clarify what is being claimed by the word "ghostwritten". For the sake of interested readers. It might be thought that this means that there was some secret communication between the lawyers for the plaintiffs and the judge. The claim is not that, but rather that the arguments presented by the lawyers on this particular topic were largely accepted by the judge in writing this part of the decision, to the extent that much of the same language was used by the judge.

I'd be curious to see how the DI would spin the occasion of a judge extensively quoting their material, but not curious enough to want the DI to actually win a case so I could find out. I'm willing to bet the spin would be no less dishonest than the usual DI standard of outstanding absense of integrity.

Flint, how about this scenario: The judge rules for the pro-science side, but uses quite different language and arguments. Would the pro-ID people interpret that as a partial rebuff to the pro-science side? Perhaps that it would provide a loophole for future cases?

Flint: I'd be curious to see how the DI would spin the occasion of a judge extensively quoting their material, but not curious enough to want the DI to actually win a case so I could find out. I'm willing to bet the spin would be no less dishonest than the usual DI standard of outstanding absense of integrity.

Flint,

Let's sweeten the deal by having said judge also rule that ID is science.

Recall that in KvD both sides asked the judge to rule on whether ID was science, then the DI got hysterical when the judge made the ruling. Funny, I don't recall the DI being so hysterical when their side asked the judge to rule on that point.

By using the term "ghostwritten", aren't they lying?

A judge can (and should) quote extensively from submitted material. But the actual composition was his, correct? If so, 'ghostwritten' is just another creationist lie, right?

The judge asked both sides to provide him with proposed "findings of facts and conclusions of law", and the judge used them wisely.

Number 1 is irrelevant as the judge, as is typical, had invited both sides to present their arguments to be used in the final ruling. The ACLU just happened to have the better arguments.

Judge Jones Wrote: The Founders believed that “true religion was not something handed down by a church or contained in a Bible, but was to be found through free, rational inquiry.”* At bottom then, this core set of beliefs led the Founders, who constantly engaged and questioned things,” to secure their idea of religious freedom by barring any alliance between church and state.”* *Quotations from The Founding Fathers and the Place of Religion in America by Frank Lambert (Princeton University Press, 2003).

ABC said:

"The Dover opinion’s ID-as-science section shows no evidence that Jones even read any post-trial brief other than the one that he copied from."

ABC should note that lack of evidence is not evidence of lack....

ABC also said, in reference to Judge Jones' Dickinson College speech:

".....does not change the fact that they showed extreme prejudice against the defendants."

Sorry Lar..(erh,I mean "ABC"), it just shows prejudice in support of the Constitution...

Also, I do not know how you want me to respond or expect me to respond to this “Larry” stuff. Do you want me or expect me to affirm that I am Larry, deny that I am Larry, neither affirm nor deny that I am Larry, or just stay silent (that option is no longer open)? Which is it?

— ABC

ABC/Larry said: There are a number of ways he could have dodged the question, e.g., by ruling that (1) It is non-justiciable; (2) it was moot because the school board members were a bunch of fundies; and (3) under the “political insider/outsider” principle of the endorsement test, an evolution disclaimer statement serves the purpose of reducing Darwinism’s offense to the fundies.

Do you want me or expect me to affirm that I am Larry, deny that I am Larry, neither affirm nor deny that I am Larry, or just stay silent (that option is no longer open)? Which is it?

The Dover opinion’s ID-as-science section shows no evidence that Jones even read any post-trial brief other than the one that he copied from.

There are a number of ways he could have dodged the question,

What [Wolf et al] object to is that Judge Jones went on to explain certain matters (and, of course, persuasively) for future courts considering this issue. That’s not activism, it’s dicta—mighty powerful dicta, and it’s just what courts ought to do.

Why should Jones have dodged an issue both sides in the case asked him to address (including the Discovery Institute in its Amicus brief)...

— John Pieret

Why should Jones have dodged an issue both sides in the case asked him to address (including the Discovery Institute in its Amicus brief) and which was relevant to the outcome?

Trial judges routinely include all viable grounds to support their ruling in their decisions if they are appealed.

it just shows prejudice in support of the Constitution…

When commenting on a blog, it is a good rule and a nicety towards other commenters to read up on earlier posts.

The short of it is that Jones didn’t blanket copy the text (easily established by some comparative statistics)

that it is good practice to follow the proposed findings of facts,

I trust your concerns have been fully answered

I wasn’t sure if the DI iteslf asked Judge Jones to rule. So essentially they said: “We demand that you be, in our opinion, an activist judge, so if we don’t like your decision, we can just whine about you being an activist judge.” I especially like how Judge Jones predicted the “activist judge” whine.

And no, I don’t think you should be banned either way. This is not Uncommon Descent.

And how does the question of whether or not Judge Jones engaged in malfeasance change the facts that Intelligent Design is not science and that all ID proponents have demonstrated absolutely no motivation to use Intelligent Design as a science in the first place, ABC?

I mean, why do supporters of ID continue to make a big stink about having ID taught in science curricula if it has already been demonstrated that it isn't science?

ABC said: PvM said that “Larry” is banned here, so Panda’s Thumb is as bad as Uncommon Descent.

PvM said that “Larry” is banned here, so Panda’s Thumb is as bad as Uncommon Descent. A lot of you folks are more interested in the identity of the messenger than in the message. And that shows a lot about where you are coming from.

— Larry (ABC)

He’s the judge – he did not have to rule on the ID-as-science issue just because both sides asked him to. Should a judge rule on, say, the scientific merits of string theory just because both sides ask him to? And the DI’s amicus brief basically told him, “we urge you not to rule on the scientific merits of ID, but if you do, we urge you to rule that it is good science.”

— Larry

A few thoughts:

1. "There's too much to read." I can't understand why, what with people being so wonderfully succinct and all.

2. "PvM said that 'Larry' is banned here, so Panda’s Thumb is as bad as Uncommon Descent." "Larry" broke the rule about not posting under different names, which is spelled out in the rules, and he was warned first. People who apologize and mend their ways after being warned (about violating such rules, not about content) are not banned here. How many warnings has UD ever given before banning someone? How many people have been banned there vs. here?

ABC/Larry said: He's the judge – he did not have to rule on the ID-as-science issue just because both sides asked him to. Should a judge rule on, say, the scientific merits of string theory just because both sides ask him to? And the DI's amicus brief basically told him, "we urge you not to rule on the scientific merits of ID, but if you do, we urge you to rule that it is good science."

A lot of judges make their rulings as narrow as possible.

And the DI's amicus brief basically told him, "we urge you not to rule on the scientific merits of ID, but if you do, we urge you to rule that it is good science." And if the ID-as-science question is non-justiciable, as I contend, then a judge should never rule on that question, period.

Secular purposes for teaching about the theory of intelligent design include informing students about competing scientific theories of biological origins . . . As to the second prong of the Lemon test , plaintiffs falsely assert that the theory of intelligent design necessarily has the primary effect of advancing religion. Instead, there is every good reason to regard the theory of intelligent design as a scientific theory, and thus, the primary effect of informing students about it is to improve science education and thus, the primary effect of informing students about it is to improve science education; further, the inclusion of such "alternative scientific theories" was clearly authorized by Edwards v. Aguillard. (Emphasis added) (pp. 6-7) www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=646

The ID-as-science section of the Dover opinion shows no evidence that he read any post-trial brief other than the one that he copied from.

A lot of you folks are more interested in the identity of the messenger than in the message.

Wrong – there is too much to read.

Arguing with Larry/FL/ABC etc is like trying to argue with a tape recorder stuck on a permanent loop.

I mean, why do supporters of ID continue to make a big stink about having ID taught in science curricula if it has already been demonstrated that it isn’t science?

When an issue is so central to the ruling and when both sides insist that the judge should rule on the issue of ID having valid secular purposes then the judge would fail in his duties if he were to ignore this.

The DI urged them to rule on the issue by claiming that ID has valid secular purposes.

Your logic and reading abilities are both suffering from inaccuracies here. First of all I asked if Larry was not banned from PT.

Yes, we occasionally ban people for disrupting threads and discussions, just like we ban porn, spam and other junk however unlike UcD we do not ban people for their beliefs.

“Larry” broke the rule about not posting under different names

PvM said that “Larry” is banned here, so Panda’s Thumb is as bad as Uncommon Descent. A lot of you folks are more interested in the identity of the messenger than in the message. And that shows a lot about where you are coming from.

liar.

there was a reason you were banned from here, and you are showing it as you write, mr. sockpuppet.

ABC/Larry said: [The DI's claim that ID has valid secular purposes] was the DI’s fallback position – the DI also suggested that he rule that the ID-as-science question is non-justiciable.

Amicus takes no position on the first set of claims [about the the specific policy adopted by the Board] 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 ... [Emphasis added] (p. 6) www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=646

While Amicus believes that there are good reasons to regard intelligent design as scientific, Amicus recognizes that the question itself may be non-justiciable. Questions are non-justiciable when there is “a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards.” Even expert philosophers of science have been unable to settle the question, “What is science?” Still less is this question subject to “judicially discoverable and manageable standards.” Insofar as plaintiffs base their argument on the claim that design is inherently unscientific, and thus inherently religious, finding the scientific status of intelligent design non-justiciable would undermine plaintiffs’case. [Emphasis added]

What a sore looser!

A brat on a temper tantrum.

Please go to nearest wall and bang your head on it.

Leave the adults to pursue mature conversations in peace.

Judge Jones himself has used the argument that both sides asked him to rule on the ID-as-science issue, but the judge is the great big honcho – he didn’t have to comply with their requests. Jones himself said that judges should not be concerned about pleasing anyone. IMO he should have ruled that the issue is non-justiciable,

ABC: Stanton said,

I mean, why do supporters of ID continue to make a big stink about having ID taught in science curricula if it has already been demonstrated that it isn’t science?

ID (and criticism of Darwinism in general) was not actually "taught" in the Dover Area school district. The Darwinists are usually the only ones who want their side to be taught dogmatically.

ABC,

If you are indeed new to PT, you should have no problem answering my usual questions:

Do you think that, whether or not "evolution" is the driver, that humans are biologically related to (share common ancestors with) dogs? Dogwoods? Both (like some IDers)? Neither? (please clearly pick 1 of the 4 choices - a best guess will do)

Also, do you agree (as many creationists do) that life on earth has a ~4 billion year history? If not, how long a history do you think it has? Be specific, again, a best guess will do.

ABC said: How do I know that Larry was not banned because of his beliefs?

burdons of proof

— Science Avenger

Are you a lawyer? I am. A great deal of my work involves reading decisions just of this sort. Of course judges sometimes rule narrowly (I did say “routinely,” for the benefit of the reading comprehension challenged), especially when it has already been held that the courts should decide certain types of cases on narrow issues of fact. The Establishment clause isn’t one of those, however. Comprehensive discussions of all potential issues are the norm with First Amendment cases.

The ID-as-science section of the Dover opinion shows no evidence that he read any post-trial brief other than the one that he copied from.

Do you have any basis, other than you’re own say-so, for that assertion?

And, of course, he wouldn’t use the defense’s proposed findings if he was ruling against them (correctly, I may add) on every point.

Gee, I think knowing the source is important when someone is making factual claims and is particularly important when, as you do here, that someone asks that we take his word on issues of law not within the knowledge of most lay people, such as what is and is not “justiciable.”

But hey, if you’re not banned, there’s no need to worry about it and, if you are, why do you think the dishonesty of trying to sneak past the ban leaves you with any credibility anyway?

there isn’t too much to read, since I could find those links immediately by googling PT and “Dover”.

The DI sure has a funny way of showing which is its main argument and which is its “fallback position.” In the section of its Amicus brief entitled “INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT,” it says: - - - - -- -- - -- - - While the only swipe at a claim about the issue being “non-justiciable” is in a footnote on p. 20:

ABC behavior seems to exemplify why Larry was banned.

Anti-ID legal scholar Jay Wexler also believes that Judge Jones should not have ruled on the scientific merits of ID

So the truth is out – Larry was banned because of his views.

How unfortunate that Judge Jones publicly recognizes the foul-smelling pustulent yellow discharge from the reeking sphincters of Coulter and O'Reilly, equating it with intelligible speech.

Kerry Maxwell: How unfortunate that Judge Jones publicly recognizes the foul-smelling pustulent yellow discharge from the reeking sphincters of Coulter and O'Reilly, equating it with intelligible speech.

ABC/Larry bleats some more: Anti-ID legal scholar Jay Wexler also believes that Judge Jones should not have ruled on the scientific merits of ID, so maybe you should argue about it with him.

[T]he basis for that assertion [that Judge Jones didn't read the defendant's brief] is that a side-by-side comparison of the Dover opinion's ID-as-science section and the ACLU's opening post-trial brief shows that the former was nearly entirely copied verbatim from the latter.

Also, Judge Jones showed extreme prejudice against the defendants by saying in a Dickinson College commencement speech that his Dover decision was based on his notion that the Founders based the establishment clause on a belief that organized religions are not "true" religions, and that makes it very believable that he did not bother to read the defendants' post-trial briefs.

He would [use the defendants Proposed Findings of Fact] if he was trying to show that he read the defense's post-trial briefs.

He had no answer to the charge that the opinion's ID-as-science section was ghostwritten by the ACLU.

Footnotes can contain important information and should not be ignored.

Also, the DI's David DeWolf, a co-author of the DI amicus brief, was also a co-author of an amicus brief from 85 scientists, and the main point of the latter brief was that the judge should not rule on the scientific merits of ID.

My credibility depends on what I say and not on who I am.

If you want a real laugh, read "ABC/Larry's" Blog. Those of you in California have probably heard about it. It won't surprise anyone to know that he is a Holocaust denier.

ABC/Larry said: PvM said ABC behavior seems to exemplify why Larry was banned. So the truth is out – Larry was banned because of his views.

ABC: He would if he was trying to show that he read the defense's post-trial briefs. He had no answer to the charge that the opinion's ID-as-science section was ghostwritten by the ACLU.

Yes – the basis for that assertion is that a side-by-side comparison of the Dover opinion’s ID-as-science section and the ACLU’s opening post-trial brief shows that the former was nearly entirely copied verbatim from the latter. Also, Judge Jones showed extreme prejudice against the defendants by saying in a Dickinson College commencement speech that his Dover decision was based on his notion that the Founders based the establishment clause on a belief that organized religions are not “true” religions, and that makes it very believable that he did not bother to read the defendants’ post-trial briefs.

So let me get this straight: the judge should have quoted from the defendant's brief when explaining why he ruled for the plaintiff?

I was too dumb to go to law school, but even I know that wouldn't make sense.

I understand (IANAL) there have been instances where the judge specifically directing one side to submit a proposed finding of facts and accepting it verbatim, 100%. That Judge Jones edited and accepted only 90% of the brief shows he analyzed it and trimmed whatever he thought were unjustified claims. The "ACLU bogeyman" and "the 90% match" might sway uneducated gullible creationists and make them send large donation checks. But it will have little traction among the educated population. The higher echelons of both the parties are teeming with lawyers and they will see through this fig leaf of an argument.

More devastating than Judge Jones' findings, for the creationists, is the huge loss for the Republican party in the Dover school board elections. In the heart of Penna Bible belt, the extremely conservative reddest of the red area, Democrats went 8 for 0 against the Republicans. You think Polk County school board back pedaled because of a few emails from pastafarians? It is the higher ups in the Republican party telling them to cool it. You will see the presidential candidates back pedaling too soon.

Did the defendants in the Dover trial submit a rival proposed finding of facts brief? Did it ask for ID to be ruled as science?

Did the defendants in the Dover trial submit a rival proposed finding of facts brief? Did it ask for ID to be ruled as science?

The rest of your comment is pure childishness

What a sore looser! A brat on a temper tantrum.

Well there you are, even the judge disagrees with you.

Anti-ID legal scholar Jay Wexler also believes that Judge Jones should not have ruled on the scientific merits of ID

Imagine my amazement when I could not find Wexler’s argument anywhere except at creationist websites,

This is a difficult question, since there seems to be a fairly tight link between holding irrational views, and engaging in abusive behavior. If one’s views require one to repeat the same lies in multiple threads, ignore all corrections, fail to defend unsupported assertions except through repetition, and other behaviors corrosive to any discussion forum

But you also say that “legal arguments are understandable to everyone,” so why should I have to go to Wexler?

What does his using the winning side’s Proposed Findings of Fact have to do with whether or not he read the defendant’s brief? Once again, did he fail to address any arguments made by the defendants?

Also, Judge Jones showed extreme prejudice against the defendants by saying in a Dickinson College commencement speech that his Dover decision was based on his notion that the Founders based the establishment clause on a belief that organized religions are not “true” religions, and that makes it very believable that he did not bother to read the defendants’ post-trial briefs.

That claim has already been addressed above and there is no need to further bludgeon that moribund Equidae. But again, how does that logically go to the issue of whether the judge read the defendant’s brief?

If he used the defendant’s Proposed Findings of Fact, he would be ruling in the defendant’s favor.

He had no answer to the charge that the opinion’s ID-as-science section was ghostwritten by the ACLU.

Yes he does

But the DI wouldn’t be allowed two briefs. If you are claiming that the brief supposedly on behalf of the scientists was really by the DI, then you are accusing DeWolf of misleading the court

The biologists brief . . . . .did not argue that ID’s status as science was not justiciable, it merely argued that it would be better if the court left it to scientists to decide.

.since when is “behavior” a synonym for “views”?

I’m curious; aside from agreeing with them, what action could Judge Jones have taken to convince you that he read the DI’s brief?

So let me get this straight: the judge should have quoted from the defendant’s brief when explaining why he ruled for the plaintiff?

I was too dumb to go to law school

One Third Circuit ruling in 2005, In re: Community Bank of Northern Virginia, held that it is “highly disapproved of” for judges to adopt the briefs of parties in a “verbatim or near verbatim” fashion. In 2004, the Third Circuit also had harsh words for a judge which unilaterally adopted the recommendations of one party:

Judicial opinions are the core work-product of judges. They are much more than findings of fact and conclusions of law; they constitute the logical and analytical explanations of why a judge arrived at a specific decision. They are tangible proof to the litigants that the judge actively wrestled with their claims and arguments and made a scholarly decision based on his or her own reason and logic. When a court adopts a party's proposed opinion as its own, the court vitiates the vital purposes served by judicial opinions. We, therefore, cannot condone the practice used by the District Court in this case.

A 1964 U.S. Supreme Court case called a judge who adopted a party’s findings of facts verbatim ‘not the product of the workings of the district judge's mind’ and noted the findings of fact had been ‘mechanically adopted’ by the district court.” The late federal appellate Judge James Skelly Wright, famous for desegregating New Orleans public schools, was favorably quoted by the U.S. Supreme Court for instructing judges to avoid the blanket adoption of lawyers’ arguments:

I suggest to you strongly that you avoid as far as you possibly can simply signing what some lawyer puts under your nose. These lawyers, and properly so, in their zeal and advocacy and their enthusiasm are going to state the case for their side in these findings as strongly as they possibly can. When these findings get to the courts of appeals they won't be worth the paper they are written on as far as assisting the court of appeals in determining why the judge decided the case.

ndt: So let me get this straight: the judge should have quoted from the defendant's brief when explaining why he ruled for the plaintiff? I was too dumb to go to law school, but even I know that wouldn't make sense.

ABC/Larry stunk up the place with: So you agree that one need not be a legal professional to intelligently discuss legal issues.

Here are some reasons as to why a judges should not rule on a scientific question: the judges are generally not qualified to rule on scientific questions.

Scientific questions may be unanswerable, imponderable, contentious, a matter of opinion, answers may be unprovable.

Science is subject to change. Why should judges try to answer questions that scientists and others have wrestled with for centuries or decades?

Ruling on scientific questions can adversely affect scientific careers and research funding.

Judges should not rule on a contentious scientific question just to decide an establishment clause issue that only involves people's non-existent right to not be offended.

Without his addressing the defendants' arguments, we don't know why he dismissed those arguments.

Obviously, a judge who is extremely prejudiced against the defendants is not likely to read their briefs.

... we don't know why he dismissed the defendants' arguments.

... he has made no attempt to defend himself against the charge that the ID-as-science section was ghostwritten by the ACLU.

One brief concentrated on one argument and the other brief concentrated on a fallback argument, and the two arguments are not inconsistent. Together, the two briefs essentially told Jones, "we urge you to not rule on the scientific merits of ID, but if you do, we urge you to rule that ID is good science."

The amicus brief of 85 scientists ... came close to arguing that the scientific merits of ID are non-justiciable.

since when is "behavior" a synonym for "views"? Presenting views is a kind of behavior, bozo.

Or, is all of this just manufactured sour grapes on behalf of the Discovery Institute?

Well there you are, even the judge disagrees with you.

So you agree that one need not be a legal professional to intelligently discuss legal issues. Here are some reasons as to why a judges should not rule on a scientific question:

the judges are generally not qualified to rule on scientific questions.

Scientific questions may be unanswerable, imponderable, contentious, a matter of opinion, answers may be unprovable.

Science is subject to change. Why should judges try to answer questions that scientists and others have wrestled with for centuries or decades?

Ruling on scientific questions can adversely affect scientific careers and research funding.

Judges should not rule on a contentious scientific question just to decide an establishment clause issue that only involves people’s non-existent right to not be offended.

I come here to present my views...

— ABC

the judges are generally not qualified to rule on scientific questions.

the judges are generally not qualified to rule on scientific questions.

ABC said many things in comment 138749 in addition to:

Richard said:

What a sore looser! A brat on a temper tantrum.

Yet another moron who hasn’t heard the story of the emperor’s new clothes. ————–

Oh yeah? Well, wet birds don't fly at night. How about that?

You need to check into the Drake Hotel on your way to Dr Phil's show to see if he can help you can deal with your issues.

PS - You are still a sore looser. No dessert for you.

ABC wrote:

"Here are some reasons as to why a judges should not rule on a scientific question: the judges are generally not qualified to rule on scientific questions."

Then who should resolve legal disputes involving scientific questions? Somebody has to.

Then who should resolve legal disputes involving scientific questions? Somebody has to.

I understand (IANAL) there have been instances where the judge specifically directing one side to submit a proposed finding of facts and accepting it verbatim, 100%. That Judge Jones edited and accepted only 90% of the brief shows he analyzed it and trimmed whatever he thought were unjustified claims.

More devastating than Judge Jones’ findings, for the creationists, is the huge loss for the Republican party in the Dover school board elections.

In the heart of Penna Bible belt, the extremely conservative reddest of the red area, Democrats went 8 for 0 against the Republicans.

You think Polk County school board back pedaled because of a few emails from pastafarians? It is the higher ups in the Republican party telling them to cool it.

Did the defendants in the Dover trial submit a rival proposed finding of facts brief?

Look facts are facts. Creationists will always choose doctrine though they are always misinformed and ill intentioned at all times. This judge, O Reilly, and Ms. Coulter are just that Mr. Bush's "yes" people . Look the only way that this is going to be overturned for real is if we get a change in Washington and in our school systems period and that is the truly honest truth.

ABC:

Did the defendants in the Dover trial submit a rival proposed finding of facts brief?

Both the plaintiffs and the defendants submitted opening and answering post-trial briefs.

In the Dover school district, school board members who were sympathetic to Creationism and Intelligent Design opted to change the science curriculum in order to use the second edition of "Of Pandas and People," as well as feature "teaching the weaknesses of Evolution," nevermind that other school districts that have adopted similar Creationism/Intelligent Design-friendly science curricula had become world-wide laughingstocks that produced scientifically illiterate students. These school board members were opposed by parents of students who did not approve of their children being taught nonscience in the science classroom.

In the trial, the Discovery Institute was given numerous opportunities to demonstrate that Intelligent Design was a science, but, because they were physically incapable of doing this. Because there was no, and still is no evidence that Intelligent Design is science, nor even evidence of "criticisms of evolution" being science, either, Judge Jones ruled in favor of the parents, on the idea that science, and not religiously motivated nonscience such as Intelligent Design, be taught in a science classroom.

And those political pundits who continue to lambast Judge Jones for ruling against Intelligent Design being taught in science classrooms do not care about the educational wellbeing of American school children at all. Especially not Bill O'Reilly, not Ann Coulter, not you, ABC, and especially not the Discovery Institute.

I do not follow ABC's logic. If Intelligent Design is not science, then why call Judge Jones an idiot because he ruled that it can not be taught in a science classroom?

ABC said: Yes – the basis for that assertion is that a side-by-side comparison of the Dover opinion’s ID-as-science section and the ACLU’s opening post-trial brief shows that the former was nearly entirely copied verbatim from the latter. Also, Judge Jones showed extreme prejudice against the defendants by saying in a Dickinson College commencement speech that his Dover decision was based on his notion that the Founders based the establishment clause on a belief that organized religions are not “true” religions, and that makes it very believable that he did not bother to read the defendants’ post-trial briefs.

Popper's Ghost observed: That’s the stupidest thing I’ve read this week.

ABC: There was no loss for the Republican party -- the Dover school board elections are non-partisan.

You are misinterpreting that 90% figure. What the Discovery Institute did was use a text-comparison program to compare the opinion’s ID-as-science section and the corresponding section of the ACLU’s opening post-trial brief and the finding was a 90% correlation of the words in the two texts.

ABC/Larry

So, in fact the Dover school board elections were partisan.

Was your statement a mistake or an actual boldface lie? Perhaps someone told you the elections were non-partisan and you took them at their word? Did not check the facts?

Not good, not good.

Go to your room, pick up your toys and don't come back until you are ready to apologize.

Nite, nite.

ABC wrote: Sheeesh – he doesn’t have to agree with them to address their arguments. I can’t believe the stupidity of many of the responses I am getting here.

the judges are generally not qualified to rule on scientific questions.

That’s certainly a shame, considering that they frequently must rule on scientific questions.

Then who should resolve legal disputes involving scientific questions? Somebody has to.

That’s why both sides have the right to present expert testimony and spent six weeks or so doing so in this case.

A question that is “unanswerable” by scientific means is not a scientific question.

And in this case, the applicable standard of legal proof on the issue of whether ID is science instead of a religious proposition

As to when something is a matter of opinion, that’s what expert opinion is for.

Ruling on scientific questions can adversely affect scientific careers and research funding.

How much science was being done in Dover high schools? Scientific careers and research funding are controlled by the scientific community

Judges should not rule on a contentious scientific question just to decide an establishment clause issue that only involves people’s non-existent right to not be offended.

Again you display your utter ignorance of the law. The rights that were being protected were, among others, the right of the plaintiffs and the rest of the community not to have someone else’s religion taught to their children as if it was objectively true;

The only way your complaint makes any sense is if there were arguments by the defendants that he did not address at all.

That’s a pretty sure way to fail to address some point of theirs and wind up having the appellate courts overturn the ruling.

… he has made no attempt to defend himself against the charge that the ID-as-science section was ghostwritten by the ACLU.

Federal judges have no need to explain themselves to those so insane and/or stupid as to fail to get that much.

And he has not been very talkative about the details of the Dover case.

you are claiming that DeWolf mislead the court by pretending that the scientists’ brief wasn’t from the DI (which wouldn’t have been permitted to submit a second brief).

the scientists brief did not make its arguments on the basis of the issue being non-justiciable as you claimed before.

As to dredging up yet another change in subject with that Casey Luskin bit of propaganda about Judge Jones’ use of the Proposed findings, Wes Elsberry has already dealt with that more than adequately.

Casey’s reasoning before was based on citing a ruling that was about a case where the entire decision was provided by the lawyers for one of the parties and signed by the judge, while the DI “study” only took into account one section. It was precisely because the DI study did *not* consider the whole decision that I found Luskin’s citation of Anderson v. Bessemer City to be inappropriate.

So punching someone in the nose is just “presenting views” in your opinion and no negative consequences should be attached?

ABC Wrote: I come here to present my views… Oh really? I am still waiting for your views on the questions in Comment 138,712.

the judges are generally not qualified to rule on scientific questions.

Let us not forget that this case came up because the school board decided on their own to rule on scientific questions.

ABC: There was no loss for the Republican party – the Dover school board elections are non-partisan. Do you ever look at the world as it is, instead of what you would like it to be? Take a look at the results at:

Sorry, Larry, Wes Ellsberry was the one who used a computer program to analyze the two texts, and he found about 60% similarity. The DI used Microsoft Word’s word-count function and their eyeballs:

So your basis for claiming that “The Dover opinion’s ID-as-science section shows no evidence that Jones even read any post-trial brief other than the one that he copied from” is that you feel he left some of the defense’s arguments unaddressed? Could you cite some specific examples of which arguments those were?

Do you have any idea how much material comes up

ABC wrote: See my reply to John Pieret.

The ID-as-science section was virtually entirely copied from the ACLU’s opening post-trial brief while ignoring the other post-trial briefs. What more proof is needed that Judge Jones did not address the defendants’ arguments?

That’s a right not to be offended. It was not like, say, a product-liability lawsuit where there was actual physical harm.

Larry said:"How dumb can you get?"

In your case, Larry, the answer will always be "None. None more dumb."

I come here to present my views and not just to be “educated” and “corrected,” bozo.

since when is “behavior” a synonym for “views”? Presenting views is a kind of behavior, bozo.

Do you have any idea how much material comes up Where you born a moron, or did you learn how to be one in church? I told you I did such a search, so presumably I “have any idea” about it.

You keep saying that it’s “obvious” Judge Jones didn’t read the answering post-trial brief

allegedly because he failed to address some or all of the arguments therein. Can you cite some specific examples or not?

Fine. Go to any Christian church and tell them you are going to make them pay to teach their children and all the other children in the community that Islam has been scientifically shown to be true. They can take their kids out of school, but they’ll still be taxed to support the schools that are teaching all the other kids that Islam is scientifically superior to Christianity.

But that’s all the time I’m going to waste on someone who isn’t listening anyway

But that’s all the time I’m going to waste on someone who isn’t listening anyway

That’s fine with me – I won’t have to waste any more time on you either.

Thanks. I guess that means you have banned yourself this time.

Better luck in your next incarnation. Hey, new year, maybe a new brain!

Why not begin by trying for more truthfulness?

Those questions are obviously off-topic.

— ABC

Jon Fleming:

You are misinterpreting that 90% figure. What the Discovery Institute did was use a text-comparison program to compare the opinion’s ID-as-science section and the corresponding section of the ACLU’s opening post-trial brief and the finding was a 90% correlation of the words in the two texts.

Sorry, Larry, Wes Ellsberry was the one who used a computer program to analyze the two texts, and he found about 60% similarity. The DI used Microsoft Word's word-count function and their eyeballs: "Gosharootie, Johnny West, looks about 90% identical from here" "Nope, Casey, definitely looks 93.5% to me. We'll go with that."

ABC: I made a mistake, but you don't have to crow about it, jerko.

It was a rhetorical question, you stupid idiot.

ABC: I made a mistake, but you don't have to crow about it, jerko.

Jones knew that because of the changeover in the membership of the school board, the case was not likely to be appealed.

That’s probably why he wrote the opinion the way he did.

Also, arguing that the defendants’ arguments were so bad that they were not worthy of consideration does not hold any water. If the defendants’ arguments were that bad, Jones should have addressed them anyway just to show how easy it was to refute them.

… he has made no attempt to defend himself against the charge that the ID-as-science section was ghostwritten by the ACLU. ...So why not explain why he copied the ID-as-science section from the ACLU’s opening post-trial brief?

What makes the Discovery Institute’s argument even more bogus is that Jones just didn’t take large chunks and stuff them in here and there. He used the material along with his own opinion in a way that made it clear that he understood the material and the arguments.

There was plenty of reason for the new school board to appeal, even if they had no desire for teaching ID. Specifically, they had about a million dollars in legal fees that would have gone away with an appellate win.

Um, and how, exactly, would his opinion have been different if he had thought it was likely to be appealed?

If the defendants’ arguments were that bad, Jones should have addressed them anyway just to show how easy it was to refute them.

Um, he did.

He didn’t have to explain himself because he did what he was supposed to do when one side completely trounces the other.

for casual readers, it bears repeating that it’s common in American civil cases for the judge to turn to each party before the case starts and say, in effect, “If you win here, what do you want the decision to say?”

One Third Circuit ruling in 2005, In re: Community Bank of Northern Virginia, held that it is “highly disapproved of” for judges to adopt the briefs of parties in a “verbatim or near verbatim” fashion. In 2004, the Third Circuit also had harsh words for a judge which unilaterally adopted the recommendations of one party:

Judicial opinions are the core work-product of judges. They are much more than findings of fact and conclusions of law; they constitute the logical and analytical explanations of why a judge arrived at a specific decision. They are tangible proof to the litigants that the judge actively wrestled with their claims and arguments and made a scholarly decision based on his or her own reason and logic. When a court adopts a party’s proposed opinion as its own, the court vitiates the vital purposes served by judicial opinions. We, therefore, cannot condone the practice used by the District Court in this case.

A 1964 U.S. Supreme Court case called a judge who adopted a party’s findings of facts verbatim ‘not the product of the workings of the district judge’s mind’ and noted the findings of fact had been ‘mechanically adopted’ by the district court.” The late federal appellate Judge James Skelly Wright, famous for desegregating New Orleans public schools, was favorably quoted by the U.S. Supreme Court for instructing judges to avoid the blanket adoption of lawyers’ arguments:

I suggest to you strongly that you avoid as far as you possibly can simply signing what some lawyer puts under your nose. These lawyers, and properly so, in their zeal and advocacy and their enthusiasm are going to state the case for their side in these findings as strongly as they possibly can. When these findings get to the courts of appeals they won’t be worth the paper they are written on as far as assisting the court of appeals in determining why the judge decided the case.

-- from an article by Casey Luskin in Evolution News & Views titled, “Backgrounder on the Significance of Judicial Copying”:

There is no skullduggery at all in the fact that the defendant got what he asked for after he proved his case.

ABC, can you explain why you insisted that Judge Jones is an idiot for ruling that religiously motivated nonscience can not be taught in a science classroom?

Anyway, he explained why he decided to rule on the ID-as-science question (both sides asked him to), so why shouldn’t he explain why he copied the ID-as-science section from the ACLU’s opening post-trial brief?

I come here to present my views and not just to be “educated” and “corrected,” bozo.

— ABC

ABC wrote: Nope, never said that. The only thing that is obvious is that there is no evidence that Jones read either answering post-trial brief (or the defendants’ opening post-trial brief).

But you are still bludgeoning it. Obviously, a judge who is extremely prejudiced against the defendants is not likely to read their briefs.

He may have indirectly addressed some of the defendants’ arguments – I don’t know and I don’t care. What matters to me is that he showed no evidence that he read any of the post-trial briefs other than the one that he copied from, the ACLU’s opening post-trial brief.

*Sigh*

Once again, Larry regales us with the first lesson for from ID 101, since you can't argue the facts, and you can't argue the law, just argue.

Let's recap the facts and some of the law here, Larry

1) All these docs are public (again www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/all_legal). This is inconvenient for the DI, because they like to use bullshit arguments like "He didn't have to decide the science issue", a claim that holds a lot less water when you see that they specifically asked for a decision.

2) "Is ID science?" was a significant issue in the case, the key to the second Lemon prong, and Judge Jones was well within his authority to examine, and opine on the question. It's not, and the DI was justifiably unable to paper over that glaring problem. They rolled the dice, they lost fair and square.

3) Judge Jones can write his decision any way he wants, so long as he sticks to the facts. He need not give a rat's ass whether the Third Circuit "disapproves" or not. That's just plain not germane. Besides, what the 3rd Circuit "disapproves of" is specifically enumerated as verbatim copying, which, manifestly, was not the case.

4) The judgment, so far as I can tell, specifically and thoroughly addresses every single issue in the defendants brief. Clearly the Judge read the brief, at least well enough to get every single point the DI made, then decided they were all crap. Then specifically commented on all of them. Get over it.

Now, though I know much better than to actually ask this, lets get back to the basic question that the DI never actually wants to address. I know I'm not actually going to get an answer, but I'm going to ask it anyway, so you can ignore it like you always do and go off on some tangent bitching about things like the meaning of the word "is".

DO YOU HAVE A POINT?

Clearly, such a vast intellect such as yours with the keen ability to parse all the research data must, by now, have actually found some piece of hard physical evidence in support of ID, you've been looking for two decades.

WHERE IS IT?

ABC sounds an awful lot like "Jesse Hoots."

Mike O'Risal: ABC sounds an awful lot like "Jesse Hoots."

I too would be very surprised if Jesse and ABC were one and the same - though not at all surprised if Logos (a former Talk.Origins regular) turned out to be William Dembski or Ann Coulter. Nevertheless, both ABC and Jesse do have something unusual in common. While most anti-evolutionists and/or trolls simply ignore my usual questions regarding what the designer did and when, which could mean that they just missed the questions, ABC and Jesse admitted reading the questions and just refused to answer. I wonder what they have to hide that Gish, Ross and Behe didn't

I was referring specifically to both of their uses of the "I don't know and I don't care" line of argument. They may or may not be the same person, but they have a similar defensive reaction when closely questioned.

I could read like a "stump-yokel" if I wanted to, you know. I'm sure you could as well.

So Microsoft Word is not a computer program?

ABC, can you explain why you insisted that Judge Jones is an idiot for ruling that religiously motivated nonscience can not be taught in a science classroom?

Anyway, he explained why he decided to rule on the ID-as-science question (both sides asked him to), so why shouldn’t he explain why he copied the ID-as-science section from the ACLU’s opening post-trial brief?

Why should he explain a common practice?

. . .a new term ‘justiciability’, perhaps he can show us that he understands the concept and explain how it applies to this case.

political question: n. the determination by a court (particularly the Supreme Court) that an issue raised about the conduct of public business is a "political" issue to be determined by the legislature (including Congress) or the executive branch and not by the courts. Since 1960 the U.S. Supreme Court has been willing to look at some questions previously considered "political," such as "one-man-one-vote," as constitutional issues.

This case has become notable because of a widespread perception that the truth or falsehood of theories of global warming will be decided by the courts, not unlike the Scopes Monkey Trial on evolution [actually, the Scopes trial did not actually decide the truth or falsehood of evolution]. While this could eventually occur in later proceedings, the questions before the U.S. Supreme Court here were much more narrow, and legal in nature. One of several reasons that the EPA Administrator declined to regulate carbon dioxide is uncertainty about whether man-made carbon dioxide emissions causes global warming. This has attracted great attention to the case (See "Update" link below.) However, the Supreme Court only decided whether the Administrator's reason is a valid reason within the CAA [Clean Air Act]. The Supreme Court did not explicitly decide if it is true or untrue that man-made carbon dioxide emission causes global warming, although high-profile comments by Justices during oral argument are likely to affect the public debate. The Petitioners argued that scientific uncertainty is not a valid basis for the EPA Administrator to decline to regulate. The question before the High Court was not whether the causation is true or untrue, but whether it is a valid reason for the Administrator to not regulate a pollutant.

do you just want to taunt me by calling me stupid and ignorant?

yes, poking a stick at the monkey flinging feces is humorous.

for a while, anyway.

Why do you Darwinists keep asking me questions?

Are you really interested in my answers

Until now, the courts have largely managed to duck the scientific issues in monkey trials (Judge Jones could have easily ducked the scientific issues but chose not to) but the day may come when the courts may have to squarely face the scientific issues if the case is to be decided on the merits.

ABC wrote: Why do you Darwinists keep asking me questions? Are you really interested in my answers or do you just want to taunt me by calling me stupid and ignorant?

ABC - How about this? The school board does not have the "Right" to use taxpayer's money to print and position all of those stickers in the biology text books!

So Microsoft Word is not a computer program? It’s not a text-comparison program; it doesn’t have that capability.

Quickly compare two versions of a document. Office Word 2007 makes it easy to find out what changes were made to a document — a new tri-pane review panel helps you see both versions of a document with deleted, inserted, and moved text clearly marked.

The bottom line is that the DI just guessed at the similarity, without any justification.

You don’t actually provide any answers, ABC, at least not to direct questions.

This is inconvenient for the DI, because they like to use bullshit arguments like “He didn’t have to decide the science issue”, a claim that holds a lot less water when you see that they specifically asked for a decision.

“Is ID science?” was a significant issue in the case, the key to the second Lemon prong

Judge Jones can write his decision any way he wants, so long as he sticks to the facts. He need not give a rat’s ass whether the Third Circuit “disapproves” or not.

Besides, what the 3rd Circuit “disapproves of” is specifically enumerated as verbatim copying, which, manifestly, was not the case.

The judgment, so far as I can tell, specifically and thoroughly addresses every single issue in the defendants brief.

Clearly the Judge read the brief, at least well enough to get every single point the DI made, then decided they were all crap.

DO YOU HAVE A POINT? Clearly, such a vast intellect such as yours with the keen ability to parse all the research data must, by now, have actually found some piece of hard physical evidence in support of ID, you’ve been looking for two decades.

ABC wrote: As a matter of fact, I do have a point, and it concerns a non-ID criticism of evolution.

I think I found Larry/ABC :
http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2008/01/establishment-clause-lawsuit-against.html

Stacy - That is Larry, the Holocaust denier, that I mentioned in an earlier post.

MS Office Word 2007 does have text comparison capabilities. The MS Office Word product overview says the program has the capability to –

Quickly compare two versions of a document. Office Word 2007 makes it easy to find out what changes were made to a document — a new tri-pane review panel helps you see both versions of a document with deleted, inserted, and moved text clearly marked.

Ugh! I thought so - What an idiot!

Just to clarify - I was talking about Larry. Larry's the idiot - not you GS.

No offense taken (although my wife thought this was hilarious).

Happy New Year Everyone! Thanks for all of your help these past couple of weeks!

ABC wrote: As a matter of fact, I do have a point, and it concerns a non-ID criticism of evolution. Consider mutually beneficial co-evolution – i.e., the mutual evolution of two co-dependent organisms, e.g., bees and flowering plants. In mutually beneficial co-evolution, unlike in evolutionary adaptation to widespread fixed physical features of the environment, e.g., land, water, air, and climate, there may be nothing to adapt to because the corresponding co-dependent trait in the other organism may be initially absent.

Are you really interested in my answers or do you just want to taunt me by calling me stupid and ignorant?

In fact, if you actually read about evolution, you would have known that when Charles Darwin studied the Star of Bethlehem orchid, Angraecum sesquipedale, from Madagascar, he predicted that, because large moths are attracted to pale, fragrant, night-blooming flowers such as A. sesquipedale, there would be a moth with an 18 inch long tongue found in Madagascar that would pollinate the Star, in order to reach the flower’s nectary, which is at the base of an 18 inch long tube. 41 years later, 21 years after Darwin’s death, the Madagascan sphinx moth, Xanthopan morganii praedicta, was discovered with an 18 inch long tongue.

To be clear: that instances of symbiosis aren't arguments for the ToE doesn't mean that they are counterexamples. Given a distribution of flower lengths and tongue lengths, and a parasite or non-pollinating feeder that prefers shorter flowers, slightly longer flowers that are still in range of many tongues are slightly more fit. In return, moths with longer tongues are more fit. A shift in the moth population toward longer tongues enables a shift to longer flower length, producing a positive feedback loop -- up to the point where longer lengths don't exclude any more parasites or non-pollinating feeders. Of course, this is a "just so" story, but that's all that is needed to refute the claim that this is a counterexample to ToE.

I was under the impression that you wanted to discuss your claims, this being a discussion board and all. Admittedly, the fact that you said “He may have indirectly addressed some of the defendants’ arguments – I don’t know and I don’t care” would seem to indicate otherwise.

He may have indirectly addressed some of the defendants’ arguments – I don’t know and I don’t care. What matters to me is that he showed no evidence that he read any of the post-trial briefs other than the one that he copied from, the ACLU’s opening post-trial brief.

ABC - How about this? The school board does not have the “Right” to use taxpayer’s money to print and position all of those stickers in the biology text books!

MS Office Word 2007 does have text comparison capabilities. The MS Office Word product overview says the program has the capability to –

Quickly compare two versions of a document. Office Word 2007 makes it easy to find out what changes were made to a document — a new tri-pane review panel helps you see both versions of a document with deleted, inserted, and moved text clearly marked.

The issue here is that Word 2007 allows you to compare two versions of a document by dredging up a previous copy out of the same file (which, oddly, is why modern word processors save larger files than their predecessors).

How is co-evolution a criticism of evolution? If you actually learned about co-evolution, if the host species has no appropriate trait for the dependent species to adapt to, then the dependent species does not adapt to the host species in the first place.

41 years later, 21 years after Darwin’s death, the Madagascan sphinx moth, Xanthopan morganii praedicta, was discovered with an 18 inch long tongue.

I stand by my point that “critics” of evolution have extremely poor knowledge of evolutionary biology, if any knowledge at all.

Let’s be honest here. This is not a prediction from the theory of evolution, nor an argument for evolution. The prediction is that of a naturalist who knows that the point of nectar is to draw pollinators. A non-evolutionist could say that God always matches up pollinators and flowers, so there must be such an insect.

To be clear: that instances of symbiosis aren’t arguments for the ToE doesn’t mean that they are counterexamples. Given a distribution of flower lengths and tongue lengths, and a parasite or non-pollinating feeder that prefers shorter flowers, slightly longer flowers that are still in range of many tongues are slightly more fit. In return, moths with longer tongues are more fit. A shift in the moth population toward longer tongues enables a shift to longer flower length, producing a positive feedback loop – up to the point where longer lengths don’t exclude any more parasites or non-pollinating feeders. Of course, this is a “just so” story, but that’s all that is needed to refute the claim that this is a counterexample to ToE.

Allow me to take a moment to taunt Larry for being oh so stupid, ignorant, and dishonest as all getout.

But it is extremely unlikely that they will simultaneously adapt to each other because the mutual mutations that would cause the mutual adaptations are random and hence are very unlikely to occur at the exact same time and the exact same place in both species.

As a matter of fact, I do have a point, and it concerns a non-ID criticism of evolution. Consider mutually beneficial co-evolution...

Allow me to take a moment to taunt Larry for being oh so stupid, ignorant, and dishonest as all getout.

And I stand by my point that students should be allowed to discuss the weaknesses of Darwinism – just like we are doing here.

Why do you Darwinists keep asking me questions? Are you really interested in my answers or do you just want to taunt me by calling me stupid and ignorant?

— ABC

if evolution is somehow falsified

That screams “cover-up” louder than Watergate. Consider this an opportunity to correct that.

Organisms don’t simultaneously adapt to each other, moron. As I just noted implicitly in my comment that you dismissed as “off-topic” but which pertains to this subject that you initiated and continue to comment on, evolution occurs in populations.

A shift in the moth population toward longer tongues enables a shift to longer flower length, producing a positive feedback loop – up to the point where longer lengths don’t exclude any more parasites or non-pollinating feeders. Of course, this is a “just so” story, but that’s all that is needed to refute the claim that this is a counterexample to ToE.

Students are of course allowed to discuss co-evolution, moron. And they can ask if that’s a “weakness” in the ToE, and the instructor can explain why it’s not.

the only major IDer (Michael Behe) to elaborate on those basic questions - regarding the age of life and common ancestry has conceded it all to mainstream science.

ABC - How about this? The school board does not have the “Right” to use taxpayer’s money to print and position all of those stickers in the biology text books!

The Court's taxpayer standing cases involving Establishment Clause challenges to government expenditures are notoriously inconsistent because they have inconsistently described the relevant "injury in fact" that Article III requires. Some cases have focused on the financial effect on the taxpayer's wallet, whereas Flast and the cases that follow its teaching have emphasized the mental displeasure the taxpayer suffers when his funds are extracted and spent in aid of religion. There are only two logical routes available with respect to taxpayer standing. If the mental displeasure created by Establishment Clause violations is concrete and particularized enough to constitute an Article III "injury in fact," then Flast should be applied to (at a minimum) all challenges to government expenditures allegedly violating constitutional provisions that specifically limit the taxing and spending power; if not, Flast should be overturned. (pages 4-5 of syllabus)

Wrong. The issue here is that Word 2007 can compare any two text files – it doesn’t matter where the files came from.

Behe has not “conceded it all” to “mainstream science”

— ABC

"evolution occurs in populations." Co-dependent organisms must simultaneously adapt to each other, bozo, because they are mutually dependent on each other for survival.

"this is a “just so” story, but that’s all that is needed" It is noteworthy that you described your explanation of even this very, very simple – practically trivial – example of co-evolution as a “‘just-so’ story.”

Frank J. - Can you tell me where to find this please? ----

"Worse, the only major IDer (Michael Behe) to elaborate on those basic questions - regarding the age of life and common ancestry has conceded it all to mainstream science. And not one of his colleagues who seems to think otherwise has challenged him directly. That screams “cover-up” louder than Watergate." ----

Word 2007 can compare multiple text files as easily as any other word processor, but not in the way you are intimating. If you re-read what you quoted, you will see that it talks of two versions of the same document.

P.S. Not that it matters, but even if Word can only compare two versions of the same file, it can still be used to compare any two files. It's a bit sad if that's not obvious.

The Word 2007 non-issue has just as much chance as any of penetrating ABC/Larry/Fill-in-the-blank's sphere of denial.

Not to belabor the point, but (in the spirit of what this thread has devolved into) I must point out that the feature in question is akin to the "history" tab on Wiki pages. It only allows one to see the differences between the current and previous versions of a file because all of this is contained within the file.

I must point out that the feature in question is akin to the “history” tab on Wiki pages. It only allows one to see the differences between the current and previous versions of a file because all of this is contained within the file.

Numbers here.

Stacy S.:

Michael Behe admits the ~4 billion year history of life and common descent in both "Darwin's Black Box" (1996) and "Edge of Evolution" (2007). I have yet to read EOE myself, but from reviews, his language is stronger than ever. The first admission I am aware of is from a 1995 debate with Ken Miller, whom I think was surprised to learn that Behe accepted CD.

I have never read of any DI fellow or major DI follower being anything but 100% supportive of Behe, even if they were either unsure of CD or leaned against it. Even Paul Nelson, who apparently also rejects the old Earth (or at least old life) part, is fully behind Behe. If anyone has examples to the contrary, I will correct myself.

In any case, real scientists have no problem publicly "beating each other up" over differences with far less significance than whether 2 species shared common ancestors or arose from separate abiogenesis events. The DI, in stark contrast, makes liberal use of the "pseudoscience code of silence."

And yes I know that Behe also once said that some who deny CD "know the relevant science better" than he does. Based on an earlier comment by Dembski, I suspect the Behe had Carl Woese in mind, not any DI fellows, when offering that disclaimer. AIUI, Woese denies only the common ancestry of archaea and eubacteria, not the common ancestry of all mammals, for example. But the DI is confident that most audiences will wrongly infer that Woese is some kind of Genesis literalist.

But the textbooks or the teachers can’t raise the issue that co-evolution is a dilemma for evolution, because that would be unconstitutional criticism of Darwinism, bozo.

I HAVE AS MUCH INTEREST AND REGARD WHAT O'REILLY AND COULTER THINK CONCERNING
JUDGE JONES RULING IN DOVER, AS I HAVE IN THE OPINIONS OF THE TOOTH FAIRY.
THESE TWO SPOKEPERSONS FOR INSANITY ARE NOT WORTH OUR SENSIBLE REPLY OR
DISCUSSION, UNLESS THEY BECOME DANGEROUS, AND THEN THEY SHOULD BE EUTHANIZED
WITH ALL THAT REASON CAN BE BROUGHT AGAINST THEM. INSANITY MAY BE RUNNING
RAMPANT, BUT IT SHOULD NOT COMPLETELY OVERWHELM THE REST OF THE SANE POPULACE.

JUDGE JONES MAY BE AN APPOINTEE BY BUSH, BUT HE HAS NOT COMPROMISED THIS FACT
BY SUBJUGATING LOGICAL THOUGHT AND SANE REASONING BY HIS JUDICIAL DECISION.
HE IS A HERO TO ALL RATIONAL PEOPLE, AND MAY HE CONTINUE IN THIS STEADY VEIN
ON ALL FUTURE CASES OF ABJECT ILLOGIC IN THE FACE OF SOUND REASONING.

Frank F: -
Thank you :)

It has been brought to my attention that ABC aka Larry aka many other names has continued to violate Pandasthumb rules. Since his contributions tend to derail any discussion including this one, I will from now on move his comments to the bathroom wall.

Since he refuses to admit his own identity, he must be dishonest or extremely ignorant (can’t read the nametag pinned to his forehead…)

Question: can ABC post as Larry?

Also, ABC was not to blame for derailing the discussion. Others kept goading ABC to change the subject. ABC stopped commenting on the off-topic subject as soon as he made his point.

Since he refuses to admit his own identity, he must be dishonest or extremely ignorant (can’t read the nametag pinned to his forehead…)

Remember that PT does not require people to reveal their own identity, however, Larry has been banned for violating the rules of this forum by posting under multiple assumed identities.

Exactly as silently predicted, up pops "XYZ".

Perhaps Moderator can monitor IP address or somesuch in order to prevent this senseless repetition?

If ABC has a point, perhaps he should comb his hair so no one will see it.

No doubt XYZ has been lurking here for the entire thread just waiting for an opportunity to support ABC and Larry...

ABC wrote You quote-mined me. Here is what I really said,

It would take days, maybe weeks to go through the court records to see how much Judge Jones indirectly addressed the defendants’ arguments, and why should I bother when I don’t even care what the answer is? Since you want to know, why don’t you find out?

You're welcome, Stacy. As you might have guessed, that was me. "Frank F" was a typo. I was trying to write "Larry". ;-)

PvM,

Where is the Bathroom Wall? I haven't been able to find it since the old format. The Archive only has it to 2005. I'm not that interested, of course, because for all his whining about my questions being "off-topic," ABC has not taken me up on my invitation to discuss it on Talk Origins.

Before anyone beats me to it, "Frank F" must have been a Fafarmanian slip. ;-)

"Farfarmanian slip"! - That's a good one:) Thanks again! -
I did some of my own research , it reads pretty good!... Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Trial transcript: Day 12 (October 19), AM Session, Part 1

Makes me ever so slightly worried about the number of people who don't 'get' democracy in the USA...

... although for a lot of the population it seems to exist in theory rather than in practice anyway.

Perhaps you need some missionaries from the UK, France (or ancient Greece?) to explain what it is exactly???

Dean Morrison:

Makes me ever so slightly worried about the number of people who don't 'get' democracy in the USA...

... although for a lot of the population it seems to exist in theory rather than in practice anyway.

Perhaps you need some missionaries from the UK, France (or ancient Greece?) to explain what it is exactly???

WHAT?????? - YEAH! I agree! How ridiculous is it that a group of people would try to overturn the CONSTITUTION and the ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE (and MANY Supreme Court Rulings) in order to introduce religion into public schools? A lot of people think that our democracy means they can stand at a pulpit - scream at the top of their lungs like a two year old having a tantrum - and then be exempted from having to follow the Constitution and the Establishment Clause.

Larry sez... The defendants lost on the first Lemon prong, so he didn’t have to rule on the second prong.

I don’t know exactly what the 3rd circuit “specifically enumerated”

ABC said: The issue here is that Word 2007 can compare any two text files – it doesn’t matter where the files came from.

Is this something you know for a fact or something you read/heard/or were told?

Would you care to let me know how to do it? I'd like to give it a try.

But the textbooks or the teachers can’t raise the issue that co-evolution is a dilemma for evolution, because that would be unconstitutional criticism of Darwinism, bozo.

Would you care to let me know how to do it?

Is this something you know for a fact or something you read/heard/or were told?

ABC / Larry / XYZ / whatever:-

If you are prepared to engage in a rational discourse, I don't think anyone really cares which name you use, as long as you pick one and stick with it. However, the evidence to date is that your comments can only represent what you believe if you deny a large component of reality. Reality as represented by the physical evidence.

This means that either you are unable to discern reality from fantasy or that you are lying and hence deliberately winding people up.

If you genuinely believe what you post, why the need for all the sock-puppetry antics? And, BTW, if you genuinely believe what you post, I would recommend going back on the meds at the earliest oppoertunity.

Nigel D,:) You've made me laugh out loud twice this morning - Thank you!
(The first time was when you cakked Jesse - on the other thread - a "quitter")

Shrike: If 100% of the arguments in the defense brief were “indirectly” (whatever that means) addressed in the ruling, don’t you think that would be evidence that the judge had, in fact, read the document in question?

Larry: You are trying to entrap me with a hypothetical situation that you know is impossible. Again, the opinion’s ID-as-science section was virtually entirely copied from the ACLU’s opening post-trial brief. Hence, there is no evidence that he read the ID-as-science sections of the other post-trial briefs. I can’t make it any simpler than that.

It would take days, maybe weeks to go through the court records to see how much Judge Jones indirectly addressed the defendants’ arguments, and why should I bother when I don’t even care what the answer is?

I am attorney who practices in federal courts. I am required to submit a proposed order with virtually every motion I file. That would be kind of pointless if the judges weren't supposed to make use of the proposed orders, wouldn't it?

There seem to be two questions here:

1) Just how much of Jones' finding of fact was extracted from the ACLU material?
2) Did Jones follow correct judicial procedure in using the facts he used?

Seems to me that if what Jones did was proper, routine, accepted, and entirely reasonable procedure, then the first question becomes rather irrelevant.

However, I agree with Larry that there's no good way to correlate similarity of text with similarity of ideas; it's entirely possible, even trivial, to "game" any comparison method so that we'll get 99% similarity of utterly unrelated ideas, or 1% similarity of essentially identical ideas. And indeed, Larry is honest enough to point out that the DI was both diligent and creative in finding some way, ANY way, to force-fit the material into their desired propaganda. In this case, figure out all the words used in common between Jones' decision and the ACLU finding of facts, and define them as "keywords". Then, working backwards, "discover" that by golly, there's an amazing overlap!

But of course, nobody disputes that after both sides presented all their material in court, and both sides had the opportunity to cross-examine the other side, the winning side won because their facts were determined to be correct. The only reason I can figure out for why Larry is so upset that Jones decided the case on the basis of the evidence presented, is that Larry doesn't like facts and evidence that conflict with his preferences.

I'd ask Larry if he could honestly say he'd reject Jones' decision on these same "plagiarism" grounds if Jones had decided for the defendents, and presented the defendents' findings of fact verbatim -- except Larry isn't honest, so why bother? We all know he'd be so happy he couldn't control his bowels.

Wesley R. Elsberry said: Numbers here.

I agree with Larry that there’s no good way to correlate similarity of text with similarity of ideas; it’s entirely possible, even trivial, to “game” any comparison method so that we’ll get 99% similarity of utterly unrelated ideas, or 1% similarity of essentially identical ideas.

No computer program can determine the extent to which two different documents contain the same ideas ... Here is the method used by MS Word to arrive at the Discovery Institute’s 90.9% figure

Yes, I should have made that point clearer. IF Jones copied verbatim as Larry claims, Ellsbury's comparison technique should produce very high numbers. Since it does not, yet the IDEAS are the same according to the analysis Larry prefers, Jones must have digested the material. Larry has produced a "heads I win, tails you lose" argument.

Which answers how Larry would justify verbatim copying of HIS preferred side.

It is not my fault that Judge Jones, by virtually copying the entire ID-as-science section from the ACLU’s opening post-trial brief, left himself open to the charge that he did not even read the ID-as-science sections of the other post-trial briefs.

If ABC has a point, perhaps he should comb his hair so no one will see it.

Where is the Bathroom Wall?

These numbers are worthless. No computer program can determine the extent to which two different documents contain the same ideas.... Here is the method used by MS Word to arrive at the Discovery Institute’s 90.9% figure: ... So the “similarity” is the percentage ratio of (1) the number of common words to (2) the sum of the number of common words and the numbers of unique words of both documents.

My suspicion that Jones did not read any post-trial brief other than the one that he copied from is heightened by the extreme prejudice he showed against the defendants by saying in a Dickinson College commencement speech that his Dover decision was based on his notion that the Founders based the establishment clause upon a belief that organized religions -- or any religious beliefs that are not based on "free, rational inquiry" -- are not "true" religions. He said,

. . . .this much is very clear. The Founders believed that true religion was not something handed down by a church or contained in a Bible, but was to be found through free, rational inquiry. At bottom then, this core set of beliefs led the Founders, who constantly engaged and questioned things, to secure their idea of religious freedom by barring any alliance between church and state. -- from http://www.dickinson.edu/commencement/2006/address.html

I never claimed that Jones copied verbatim...I never said that Jones did not digest the material that he copied

Here is the method used by MS Word to arrive at the Discovery Institute’s 90.9% figure: Text 1: 6.23Kb, 1033 words(s), 3 unique word(s) Text 2: 6.20Kb, 1041 words(s), 6 unique word(s) Common words number: 429 Similarity (by keywords): 97.9%

Yes – the basis for that assertion is that a side-by-side comparison of the Dover opinion’s ID-as-science section and the ACLU’s opening post-trial brief shows that the former was nearly entirely copied verbatim from the latter.

I never claimed that Jones copied verbatim.

It wasn't a prejudice towards the law -- it was his own personal prejudice.

ABC/Larry:

If you believe I am making a straw-man argument, that is not my intention. I am not even arguing. I am trying to understand how you came to your conclusions of Judge Jones prejudice, which you still haven't elaborated on.

ABC/Larry: The above statement showed extreme hostility towards organized religion and religion in general.

In comparison to these 70% and 66% correlation figures from a computer, the side-by-side visual comparison shows the correlation of ideas to be virtually 100%. Here is the method used by MS Word to arrive at the Discovery Institute’s 90.9% figure:

Text 1: 6.23Kb, 1033 words(s), 3 unique word(s) Text 2: 6.20Kb, 1041 words(s), 6 unique word(s) Common words number: 429 Similarity (by keywords): 97.9% – from (link by Larry)

— Larry Fafarman

429/(429+3+6) X 100 = 97.9% So the “similarity” is the percentage ratio of (1) the number of common words to (2) the sum of the number of common words and the numbers of unique words of both documents.

ABC/Larry said: Robin said, Whether the ID-as-acience section was entirely copied from the ACLU’s opening brief does not indicate anything about whether the judge actually read the post-trial briefs, particularly the defendent’s.

Larry: I never claimed that Jones copied verbatim.

left himself open to the charge that he did not even read the ID-as-science sections of the other post-trial briefs.

And even if he read the other post-trial briefs, he should have given reasons for rejecting the defendants’ arguments. He did not even have to give his own original reasons for rejecting the defendants’ arguments; he could have copied the reasons given in the ACLU’s answering post-trial brief.

It would have been nice if Jones had also given reasons for rejecting the defendants’ rebuttals of the ACLU’s arguments, but doing that would have required independent thinking, something I doubt that Judge Jones is capable of. Judge Jones must have figured that he could get away with his one-sided copying because the case was unlikely to be appealed.

It would take days, maybe weeks to go through the court records to see how much Judge Jones indirectly addressed the defendants’ arguments, and why should I bother when I don’t even care what the answer is?

And he tried to “cover his tracks” (as he accused the Dover defendants of doing) by making minor changes in the wording of the ACLU’s opening post-trial brief.

My suspicion that Jones did not read any post-trial brief other than the one that he copied from is heightened by the extreme prejudice he showed against the defendants by saying in a Dickinson College commencement speech that his Dover decision was based on his notion that the Founders based the establishment clause upon a belief that organized religions – or any religious beliefs that are not based on “free, rational inquiry” – are not “true” religions. He said, ….this much is very clear. The Founders believed that true religion was not something handed down by a church or contained in a Bible, but was to be found through free, rational inquiry. At bottom then, this core set of beliefs led the Founders, who constantly engaged and questioned things, to secure their idea of religious freedom by barring any alliance between church and state. – from http://www.dickinson.edu/commencement/2006/address…

ABC Larry said: It looks like I am just getting a lot of straw-man arguments here. I might as well give up and stop wasting my time in this thread.

ABC Larry said:

Thats just it, ABC/Larry. I DON'T see hostility towards religion in his commencement speech and I have read it more than once. What part of "religious freedom" is hostile towards religion? You can keep on re-posting the quote but its not going to change its meaning. Separation of church and state is NOT an attack on religion. Its PROTECTION for religion. I just don't understand why certain people cannot understand this. Maybe its you who are being obtuse.

Jeezus effing chrystalballs, Larry/ABC/Whatever, get over it! You LOST! As in, DID NOT WIN! As in stop your whining. ID is crap. Creationism is crap. YOU LOSE!

Now, wipe your tears, blow your nose, and go help the rest of the creotards come up with their next bit of pseudoscientific fluffery that they'll try to pass off as "theory" in an attempt to push their religious nonsense into public science classrooms.

I swear, I still can't get an answer from these fuckwits why their tax-exempt churches and lame-brained, religiously based home school crap textbooks aren't acceptable venues to them to peddle their ignorant myths to trusting young minds...

Larry Fafarman wrote: You are trying to entrap me with a hypothetical situation that you know is impossible. Again, the opinion’s ID-as-science section was virtually entirely copied from the ACLU’s opening post-trial brief. Hence, there is no evidence that he read the ID-as-science sections of the other post-trial briefs. I can’t make it any simpler than that.

Nigel D,:) You’ve made me laugh out loud twice this morning - Thank you! (The first time was when you cakked Jesse - on the other thread - a “quitter”)

— Stacy S.

Again, the opinion’s ID-as-science section was virtually entirely copied from the ACLU’s opening post-trial brief. Hence, there is no evidence that he read the ID-as-science sections of the other post-trial briefs.

My suspicion that Jones did not read any post-trial brief other than the one that he copied from is heightened by the extreme prejudice he showed against the defendants by saying in a Dickinson College commencement speech that his Dover decision was based on his notion that the Founders based the establishment clause upon a belief that organized religions – or any religious beliefs that are not based on “free, rational inquiry” – are not “true” religions.

ABC / Larry / whatever -

You seem to be getting rather het up about some of the details here.

You arguments are clearly illogical. To wit:

You have claimed that Judge Jones did not read the defendents' brief. Your only attempt to back this up has been a claim that he copied the plaintiffs' brief in a section of his decision.

However, even if he did copy it verbatim, it does not constitute evidence that he did not read the opposing brief.

So, your entire argument is a non-sequitur, irrespective of how actually similar the plaintiffs's brief and Judge Jones' decision actually are.

Do you have any actual evidence for accusing a judge of not doing his job, or does committing libel sit well with you?

Nigel:

But of course, it's worse than that. He claims Jones copied verbatim. THEN he claims he never said that. He claims Jones, through the verbatim copying he now claims Jones never did, therefore didn't understand and digest the ACLU's material. THEN he says Jones DID digest that material. THEN he claims Jones never looked at the defendents' material. But Jones discusses in great detail why the defendents' material isn't science and IS religion. Why isn't this discussion evidence that Jones DID look at the material he discusses? Probably because Jones rejects it, so of course Larry thinks he couldn't have understood it.

Larry never seems to learn that lies only work when used on an audience eager to hear them. When Larry comes here and lies, people point it out immediately. And all he knows how to do is lie about his lies. It's the only "avenue to Truth" the religious mind has ever encountered. Hey, it works in church.

Looks like the Larry the wing nut has been removed from the thread. How pathetic he thought his opinions, lies, and name calling might actually change someone's mind on PT. Can he not figure out there are a fair number of us on PT who have actually talked with Judge Jones, and know he is very intelligent, rational, ethical,knows the law, and actually listened to the evidence presented in Dover. He called a recess every hour and twenty minutes during the trial, and drank two Expressos(sp), so he could be alert and concentrate on the testimony. Oh well, Larry gave us a few good laughs.

ABC/Larry would never, ever (sarcasm) try and put his own "Spin" on things, would he?
Here you go ------ "While legal scholars will continue to debate the appropriate application of that clause to particular facts in individual cases, this much is very clear. The Founders believed that "true religion was not something handed down by a church or contained in a Bible, but was to be found through free, rational inquiry."* At bottom then, this core set of beliefs led the Founders, who constantly engaged and questioned things," to secure their idea of religious freedom by barring any alliance between church and state."*

http://www.dickinson.edu/commencement/2006/address.html

Legion Fafarman wrote: I am still here, JJ, but I cannot be confident that any defenses I post here will not be censored, and that is a darn shame. PvM is an unscrupulous BVD-clad blogger and his shenanigans will catch up with him someday.

He even said in a commencement speech that organized religions are not “true” religions.

Popper's Ghost:

Again, the opinion’s ID-as-science section was virtually entirely copied from the ACLU’s opening post-trial brief. Hence, there is no evidence that he read the ID-as-science sections of the other post-trial briefs.

ck1, please don't put my name on Liarry's garbage.

CK1 asks: Why do people keep referring to the “ACLU” brief or the “ACLU” finding of facts? I was under the impression that only one of the 12 attorneys representing the plaintiffs was from the ACLU and that the 2 lead attorneys were from Pepper Hamilton. And this firm was responsible for preparing the documents in question, not the ACLU.

Larry leaped to conclusions thusly: Again, the opinion’s ID-as-science section was virtually entirely copied from the ACLU’s opening post-trial brief. Hence, there is no evidence that he read the ID-as-science sections of the other post-trial briefs.

Popper's Ghost: ck1, please don't put my name on Liarry's garbage.

It's like I told Casey... I've provided the results of my comparison, so if he wants to dispute those results, he can go through that and point out problems that result in a significant change in the results.

I notice that Casey has not done that in the months that have passed.

I doubt that Casey is interested in further pursuing this

Could somebody tell me why we should expect the judge's write-up to not contain the ideas that were presented in the trial? Hmmm?

Henry

All your computer program does is spit out a number, and it is impossible to directly dispute a number.

Not so much “asserted” as “demonstrated”. Casey is welcome to produce a counter-demonstration to show that the results at this page are substantially inaccurate. Go ahead, Casey; the source files I used are all linked from this page.

There is a basic problem here: the premise is false. The DI “study” is a sloppy, subjective hack job whose accuracy is nowhere near good enough to deliver three significant digits. My algorithm is much, much better and has no subjective component, and I only claim it as good to two significant digits. The section on whether ID is science is not “90.9%” due to the plaintiff’s proposed findings of fact. The actual figure as I calculated it is 66%, using the same parameters of analysis that I used before in examining versions of an article by Stephen C. Meyer and in examining drafts of Of Pandas and People. (If Casey wants to assert a generic false conservatism to my approach, that would imply that the actual proportion of copying was *higher* in those other cases than I reported as well.) Even when I used more liberal parameters of 5 words in a run and up to 2 skipped words, the match level only rose to 70%. Casey, again, is welcome to demonstrate any significant departure of my results from actual results; I have provided the complete set of matches found and the source files used to derive those matches.

you are continuing to censor my comments, even though I am complying with PT rules by consistently posting under the same name.

Question - What is this? "serial rule 6 violator" ??

Rule 6 = No posting under multiple id's.

I can't find any link to the board rules on the new format. Are they still available?

If there is a discussion on the site design:

As I was spelunking the site for the rules, I also noted that the "Select a Category" list expands outside instead of inside the window at all times, which means it looses the scroll bar when the browser is maximized. Not a serious error, just annoying.

And no, there is no "Rules" category either.

Although there is no direct link on the Main page, it can still be found on the Archive page, by scrolling down to the bottom and going up a couple of days worth of posts. I've copied the post with a link below. Note that Rules 1, 4, and 6 carry consequences for repeat violation - Larry violated those three rules repeatedly.

Panda's Thumb Comment Integrity Policy

As a place to meet and share opinions, the Panda’s Thumb encourages a wide range of comments. In order to be clear about what patrons may expect concerning comment text they leave here, we state the following policies:

As far as possible, the integrity of comments will be respected, with the following exceptions.

1. Illegal, offensive, and spam comments may be removed in their entirety. The management has the sole privilege of determining whether a comment requires removal and whether a repeat offender should be banned.

2. Superfluous comments may be removed without notice, as in talk between contributors concerning board layout, duplicate comments, or other meta-site issues.

3. Broken links or other formating problems may be revised by the management to improve the utility of a comment, at the management’s sole discretion.

4. Entry post authors and the management may move comments that are deemed inappropriate to the topic of the entry post, excessively inflammatory, or otherwise disruptive of substantive commentary to the Bathroom Wall. Repeat offenders may have their comments restricted to the Bathroom Wall or disemvoweled.

5. The management is not responsible for factors beyond their control that may interfere with comment integrity, such as software glitches, hardware failure, and problems with Internet connectivity.

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.

Simply put, don’t make a jerk out of yourself.

This policy may be revised as future conditions warrant.

ben: Rule 6 = No posting under multiple id's. I can't find any link to the board rules on the new format. Are they still available?

Heh. The rules weren't under the About tab when I checked this morning. My garbled post contained a link to the original post detailing the comment policy. I think I forget to remove a closing tag.

Well, I can't find them under the tab. (And I believe I have disabled all script-blocking for PT.)

Panda’s Thumb Comment Integrity Policy As a place to meet and share opinions, the Panda’s Thumb encourages a wide range of comments. In order to be clear about what patrons may expect concerning comment text they leave here, we state the following policies: As far as possible, the integrity of comments will be respected, with the following exceptions. 1. Illegal, offensive, and spam comments may be removed in their entirety. The management has the sole privilege of determining whether a comment requires removal and whether a repeat offender should be banned. 2. Superfluous comments may be removed without notice, as in talk between contributors concerning board layout, duplicate comments, or other meta-site issues. 3. Broken links or other formating problems may be revised by the management to improve the utility of a comment, at the management’s sole discretion. 4. Entry post authors and the management may move comments that are deemed inappropriate to the topic of the entry post, excessively inflammatory, or otherwise disruptive of substantive commentary to the Bathroom Wall. Repeat offenders may have their comments restricted to the Bathroom Wall or disemvoweled. 5. The management is not responsible for factors beyond their control that may interfere with comment integrity, such as software glitches, hardware failure, and problems with Internet connectivity. 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. Simply put, don’t make a jerk out of yourself. This policy may be revised as future conditions warrant.

Are you hitting the "Refresh" button?

What would be the reason for banning me? I don't see a rule against pointing out your deceptive actions. As usual your argument lacks substance, other than your own desire for it to be true.

How's the quest for the real explanation behind meteor showers going, Larry?

There ought to be a rule that asking for the banning of another commenter is a banning offense.

Flint, Stacy, thanks. Now I see the rules too.

I didn't think to check for a saved version of the side as I have a fresh laptop, but perhaps that was the problem on the server side.

You Darwinists, by insisting that Darwinism be taught dogmatically,

ABC/Larry: Torbjörn Larsson, OM said,

Provide evidence that evolutionary biology is taught as dogmatics.

Please stop bullshitting me.

--- SNIP --->8

IDC OTOH has a long history (over 20 years) of reusing the same old dogmatic negative arguments against verified science, where for example Dembski’s and Behe’s new books are simple rehashes of their old.

Wrong -- they are always introducing new ideas, new arguments. Also, ID is not the only scientific (or pseudoscientific, if you prefer) criticism of Darwinism.

True. We have, to name but one, also CFSM. A deadly competitor, what with the pirates and all, eh.

Excuse me, I'm kind of new here to this discussion, but already it seems to me that the ideas, arguments ID selects for introduction are mostly old, tired and recycled. And I have not seen one single piece of actual evidence to support them. Have you? After all, you seem to have hung around a lot, under various plumes de guerre.

If anything, it is strikingly obvious how wary the apologists of ID appear to be to answer the two pretty simple test questions about common ancestry and the approximate total age of life which have been consistently put to them. Not to mention how you yourself serenely dodge the quoted, relevant, question above with a no more than a deft profanity.

Oh. Please explain why anyone must take any notice what so ever of the rantings of someone who is, by their own admission, in violation of the "house rules" of this discussion forum, specifically by posting under false and multiple "id"s and having been banned for it, as I understand. Why believe the proven liar?

Oh again. Sorry. I take that last paragraph back, delete and repent. It risks sending the whole thread into a paradox; that must surely never happen.

Please stop bullshitting me.

ID is not the only scientific (or pseudoscientific, if you prefer) criticism of Darwinism.