P.Z. Myers vs Intelligent Design

The spokesperson for the modern intelligent design movement wrote a review on a NY Times article concerning some genes in fish which might give evolutionists ideas on how fins turned to feet. This prompted P.Z. Myers who uses evolution often to try and discredit the existence of God and creationism in general to respond to the review. Myers writes

“Stop, Casey, and think. Here’s this fascinating observation, that we keep finding conserved genes and conserved regulatory regions between mice and fish, which ought to tell you something, and your argument against a specific example is that it isn’t rare? It really tells you something when your critics’ rebuttal to a piece of evidence is that you’ve got so much evidence for your position that they’re tuning out whenever you talk about the detais.”

Here is what Casey Luskin who is the spokesperson for the modern intelligent design movement wrote in his review

“The real story isn’t quite that interesting. According to the Nature paper, a particular region of DNA associated with a Hox gene cluster in the coelocanth genome showed sequence homology with a stretch of Hox gene-related DNA in tetrapods. Hox genes are known to be widely conserved among vertebrates, so the fact that homology was found between Hox-gene-associated DNA across these organisms isn’t very surprising.”

“The authors aren’t sure exactly what this particular segment of DNA does, though it’s probably a promoter region. In mice the corresponding homologous region is associated with Hox genes that are important for forming the placenta. Ergo, we’ve solved the mystery of how the placenta evolved. Right?”

“Not really. Again, all that was found was a little homologous promoter region in Hox-gene related DNA in these two types of organisms. Given that we don’t even understand exactly what these genes do or how they work, obviously the study offered no discussion of what mutations might have provided an evolutionary advantage.”

No evolutionary pathway was proposed, or even discussed. So there’s not much meat to this story, other than a nice little region of homology between two shared, functional pieces of Hox-gene-related DNA. But of course, such shared functional DNA could be the result of common design and need not indicate common descent or Darwinian evolution.”

Casey Luskin is correct in this regard, there isn’t much to the discovery. No knowledge on how these genes work or why they work. All this paper claims is “homology” which isn’t hard evidence for evolution. Why? For one, similarities between organisms that evolutionists don’t believe are closely related!

Next Myers attacks intelligent design referring to it as “creationism”

“The Intelligent Design creationist explanation requires that every extant species was specifically and intentionally stocked with a set of genes hand-chosen by a designer. God magically inserted IgM into each vertebrate species, except that he missed the coelacanths, and he magically inserted IgW into each and every shark, ray, coelacanth, and lungfish, but he intentionally left them out of every tetrapod and teleost.” 

Of course the modern intelligent design movement denies any reference to God, because to them that wouldn’t be scientific. But they don’t define what an intelligent agent or agents is, thus anyone guessing what they mean by that would be considered an ad hominem argument. But when you use intelligent agent or agents within your framework in which you call science, it is reasonable to challenge or question who or what that is! Of course Myers assumes its God and labels it creationism because the courts outlawed it being taught in the public schools. Myers then also assumes how a mind (in this case, God) would create nature which is interesting.

Myers uses uniqueness as proof for a creator, because evolution uses “homology” for its framework or another words God wouldn’t have created that way so it was evolution. However, he is wrong! For example, a car company often times uses the same parts in different cars. Does that mean cars are not intelligently designed rather they naturally evolved? No! You can tell that Ford models are similar. The Ford company doesn’t make each model drastically different from other models that it produces in that same year. Conversely, most of the genetic code for all living things is universal, because for one, it indicates a lone designer not many different designers. Also, it has a purpose, this makes the code optimal for protecting against errors!

Here is a challenge for Myers! What scientific research has produced hard evidence that an intelligent designer would only produce each species using totally different parts? Didn’t you believe that creationism couldn’t be tested therefore not a science then how could you come up with such a conclusion on how God would create? Didn’t you believe only evolution could be tested therefore a science? Myers uses evolution exactly like a spiritual cult does in order to try and disprove in what he doesn’t want to believe in, and that is God! This is why his argument is a bluff of complexity rather than logical. Science has not disproved God neither has P.Z Myers version of evolution disproved God!        

Advertisements

27 thoughts on “P.Z. Myers vs Intelligent Design

  1. … Casey Luskin who is the spokesperson for the modern intelligent design movement wrote in his review

    Yeah. Scary, isn’t it? A lawyer with no background whatever in biology who pretends to pontificate about evolution.

    Film at 11.

  2. Here it is. Another epic of ignorance of logic and misunderstanding of basic biology.
    A couple of these may qualify for the stupidest things Michael has said in a long time.

    All this paper claims is “homology” which isn’t hard evidence for evolution. Why? For one, similarities between organisms that evolutionists don’t believe are closely related!

    WRONG. Homology occurs only in organisms are evolutionarily related. This is the definition of homology. Similarities among organisms that are not so related are “convergent.” Homology does not require “close” relations—only that the two are in the same clade, that they have a common ancestor.

    Next Myers attacks intelligent design referring to it as “creationism”
    …….
    Of course the modern intelligent design movement denies any reference to God, because to them that wouldn’t be scientific. But they don’t define what an intelligent agent or agents is, …

    Intelligent design is a form of creationism. This was the whole point of the Kitzmiller trial in Dover. The evidence overwhelmingly showed that ID is a disguised form of creationism, and therefore religious, and therefore must be excluded from public schools.. ID refuses to define its intelligent agent, because that agent would have all the attributes of God, and the disguise would be lost.

    … thus anyone guessing what they mean by that would be considered an ad hominem argument.

    WRONG.. Michael should look up “ad hominm” sometime. He treats it as a general term for something he is opposed to, such as “liberal” or “atheist” or “spinach pudding.” “Ad hominem” arguments attack the speaker, rather than the content of what he says. Michael, please let us know what stretch of your twisted imagination would make this term appropriate here.

    Of course Myers assumes its God and labels it creationism because the courts outlawed it being taught in the public schools.

    WRONG. Michael has this one exactly backwards. The court outlawed ID in public schools because it is creationism, not vice versa.

    Conversely, most of the genetic code for all living things is universal, because for one, it indicates a lone designer not many different designers.

    WRONG. The genetic code is universal because it was contained in the last common ancestor of all life now present on earth. Actually, the code is not quite universal. There are organisms that employ only a part of it, and there are a few organisms that employ additional code that is not found in other organisms. How would Michael explain that? God had a senior moment and got it wrong a few times?

    Also, it has a purpose, this makes the code optimal for protecting against errors!

    WRONG. Optimal codes have nothing to do with error protection. The Huffman code is theoretically optimal, yet it has no error protection or correction at all. None. Michael has not the slightest understanding of information theory.

    Here is a challenge for Myers! What scientific research has produced hard evidence that an intelligent designer would only produce each species using totally different parts?

    LOGIC ERROR. Michael is trying to show that if design would use common parts, then evolution would not use common parts. The name of this logic error is “fallacy of the inverse.” The inverse of a true proposition is not necessarily true; it must be supported independently.

    Myers uses evolution exactly like a spiritual cult does in order to try and disprove in what he doesn’t want to believe in, and that is God! This is why his argument is a bluff of complexity rather than logical.

    MEANINGLESS. This does not make sense even grammatically, much less logically. By the way, what is a “bluff of complexity”? I’d like to try one sometime. Preferably with raspberry topping.

  3. Erratum.

    In the previous comment, I misread Michael to say that code optimality entails error protection. What he actually said was that having a “purpose” protects a code aainst errors.
    LOGIC ERROR. This is a complete and utter non sequitur. What on earth does “purpose” have to do with error protection? Does that mean, for example, that if my purpose in transmitting a message is to inform the recipient of the distance to Buffalo, then that purpose protects me against getting the distance wrong? If my purpose is to select stocks so as to make money in the market, then having a purpose protects me against errors in choosing which stocks to buy?

    Come on, Michael. This is so ridiculous that even a creationist should be ashamed to say it.

  4. A spokesperson need not be directly qualified as they are only spouting the organization’s view on the advice of its PhD holders.

    Homology occurs only in organisms are evolutionarily related.

    Assuming the antecedent

    Intelligent design is a form of creationism.

    And a form of evolution, so what?

    ID refuses to define its intelligent agent, because that agent would have all the attributes of God, and the disguise would be lost.

    Which concept of God would this be referring to?

    “Ad hominem” arguments attack the speaker, rather than the content of what he says.

    You are correct, the example would be more like poisoning the well, misdirection or bulverism.

  5. The court outlawed ID in public schools because it is creationism, not vice versa.

    Did the judge who outlawed ID in schools have a PhD in biology and a PhD in theology to make said expert opinion?

    How would Michael explain that? God had a senior moment and got it wrong a few times?

    Again showing you know squat about what you passionately despise.

    Michael has not the slightest understanding of information theory.

    Like you do? You’re a natural comedian, seriously!

    Michael is trying to show that if design would use common parts, then evolution would not use common parts. The name of this logic error is “fallacy of the inverse.”…..

    Sigh, he is saying that unless you have evidence for something (X) then don’t assume that X will only behave as you desire.

    This does not make sense even grammatically, much less logically. By the way, what is a “bluff of complexity”?

    If someone has to explain this term, then you are in need of remedial comprehension skills.

    This is a complete and utter non sequitur.

    No, once again you misunderstand him and from your response I think you are being deliberate.

  6. Did the judge who outlawed ID in schools have a PhD in biology and a PhD in theology to make said expert opinion?

    Trials requiring subjects requiring expertise in technical areas employ expert witnesses, who must present and defend their credentials and whose testimony can be cross-examined and rebutted by other qualified experts.

    It is surprising that C hazing was not aware of this.

    In the Kitzmiller v Dover trial, each side was allowed six expert witnesses, and unlimited trial time to examine and cross-examine them. As it turned out, the trial covered 40 days — unprecedented for this type of proceeding. The judge’s opinion ran to 139 pages — unprecedented in this type of trial.

    Expert witnesses included theologians and research scientists in the life sciences.[1] It is interesting that half of the ID experts withdrew before the trial to avoid testifying. In particular, William Dembski had boasted in Uncommon Descent before the trial that ID finally had the opportunity to cross-examine evolutionary experts under oath, and that they had obtained a judge who would be friendly toward ID.[2] However, when he saw Michael Behe and the other defense witnesses being shredded at their pre-trial depositions, he withdrew — and did not even refund any of the expert-witness fee that he had already been paid.

    The prosecution witnesses explained evolution so well that the judge later stated that he had received the biology course that every high-school student wishes he could have taken.

    Now we must add ignorance of legal matters to the list of subjects in which Chazing has no known qualifications to speak.

    =======================================================

    [1] Here are the names, subjects, and qualifications of expert witnesses for both sides —

    > Expert witnesses for Plaintiffs

    Barbara Forrest, PhD
    Professor of Philosophy, Southeastern Louisiana University
    Expert on the ID movement’s goals and history
    Expert Report: 2005-04-01

    John F. Haught, PhD
    Theology Professor, Georgetown University
    Theology/religion expert
    Expert Report: 2005-04-01

    Kenneth R. Miller, PhD
    Professor of Biology, Brown University
    Biology expert
    Expert Report: 2005-03-30

    Brian Alters, PhD
    Associate Professor of Education, McGill University
    Education/pedagogy expert
    Expert Report: 2005-03-30

    Kevin Padian, PhD
    Professor of Integrative Biology, University of California, Berkeley
    Curator, Museum of Paleontology, University of California, Berkeley
    Paleontology/evolution expert
    Expert Report: 2005-03-30

    Robert Pennock, PhD
    Associate Professor of Science and Technology Studies and Associate Professor of Philosophy, Michigan State University
    Philosophy of science expert
    Expert Report: 2005-03-31

    Rebuttal expert for Plaintiffs
    Jeffrey Shallit, PhD (deposed, but did not testify at trial due to Dembski’s withdrawal)
    Professor of Computer Science, University of Waterloo, Ontario
    Expert Report: 2005-05-16

    > Expert witnesses for Defendants
    Michael Behe, PhD
    Professor of Biochemistry, Lehigh University
    DI fellow, biochemistry/intelligent design expert
    Expert Report: 2005-03-24

    John Angus Campbell
    WITHDREW — did not testify
    Professor, Department of Communication, University of Memphis
    DI fellow, education/rhetoric of science
    Expert Report: 2005-03-29

    Dick M. Carpenter II, PhD
    WITHDREW — did not testify
    Assistant Professor of Educational Leadership, University of Colorado
    Defense education expert, Focus on the Family guest
    Expert Report: 2005-3-24

    William Dembski
    WITHDREW — did not testify; was not deposed
    Associate Research Professor, Baylor University (at time of report)
    DI fellow, biochemistry/intelligent design expert
    NO EXPERT REPORT FILED

    Scott Minnich, PhD
    Associate Professor of Microbiology, University of Idaho
    DI fellow, microbiology/intelligent design expert
    Expert Report: 2005-03-31

    Warren A. Nord, PhD
    WITHDREW — did not testify
    Director, Program in the Humanities and Human Values, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
    Lecturer in Philosophy, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
    religion/education expert
    Expert Report: 2005-03-29

    Rebuttal experts for Defendants
    (Rebuttal experts are named after the initial set of expert reports are filed)
    Steve Fuller, PhD
    Professor of Sociology, University of Warwick

    [2] Judge Jones admitted afterward that he did have a bias toward ID before the trial started.

  7. Expert testimony does not expert decision make dear Olorin. To every expert with a PhD there is an equal and opposite expert with a PhD. You cannot divide theology and science using law especially since judge Jones legal brain could not possibly understand things as complex and intricate as science and theology. You for instance are a stark example of that.

    And even if Jones did understand the science, why did he obtain 91% of his ruling from ACLU briefs? Would not his intelligent (though not intelligently designed) legal mind allow him to make a ruling on his own? You know? What independent minds are called to do?

    91% copying gets once kicked out of university where I am from. I guess the standards for US law are much much much lower. His claims about a slight bias towards ID cannot be sustained in light of the quantity of non-original thought in his ruling.

  8. You cannot divide theology and science using law especially since judge Jones legal brain could not possibly understand things as complex and intricate as science and theology

    You’re not listening again. This is what expert witnesses are for. I guess you would require that a criminal trial involving DNA evidence have a judge who has a PhD in genetics. That a trial involving the safety of a ladder have a judge with a PhD in mechanical engineering. That a trial involving creationism have a judge with a PhD in sewage management.

    Would you care to return to planet earth before you drift out of sight into the void of ignorance?

  9. And even if Jones did understand the science, why did he obtain 91% of his ruling from ACLU briefs?

    Aaaaand Chazing descends to yet another level of judicial ignorance.

    Try this on for size: The defendants (ID) also submitted a list of proposed findings of fact. Had the judge agreed that the defendants had established all of these fact by a preponderance of evidence, then he would have pretty much copied their proposed findings into his opinion.[1] And the Discovery Institute would not have complained at all. No siree.

    Both sides submit proposed findings in most trials. The judge then incorporates those findings from the plaintiff that he finds supported by the evidence, and incorporates those findings of that defendant that he thinks the defendant established.[2] Then the judge employs these findings to apply the law to the specific case at trial.[3]

    Casey Luskin is a lawyer. Thus, when he makes an issue of Judge Jones’s use of the plaintiffs findings, he does not do so from ignorance, but from deliberate deception. He has been called down for this by other lawyers several times.

    Chazing here exhibits yet another level of ignorance of the judicial system. And, yes, I am a lawyer, admitted to several state bars, to the federal courts, and by specific application to the Circuit Court for the Federal Circuit (DC), and to the U.S. Supreme Court.

    Chazing should acquaint himself with the US legal system at least a little before firing off such stupid shotgun blasts.

    ===================

    [1] Many, probably most, of these findings did not deal with the issue of creationism/science, but rather with who said what at the School Board meetings, where the money for the library books came from, and so forth. On those issues, a number of the defense witnesses out-and-out lied through their teeth. Many were surprised that no perjury charges were leveled after the trial. I think the judge felt they would receive their retribution elsewhere. And they did.

    [2] The reason Judge Jones used only the plaintiffs’ findings is that he felt he plaintiffs had proved all of them by a preponderance of evidence.[The fact that he incorporated none of the defendants’ findings should tell you that he felt they had proven nothing, that they had not carried a single point.

    [3] For example, “premeditation” must be proven in e trial for first-degree murder; it is one of the legal elements in the definition of that crime. The judge finds premeditation from certain facts during the trial that are relevant to this issue. If he feels that the prosecution has established sufficient facts to show premeditation, he will employ those proposed findings from the prosecution. If not, he will incorporate the defendant’s proposed findings.

  10. You can peruse Jones copying here:

    Thank you, I already have perused it. Several times.

    An irony here is that Casey Luskin and two of his buddies attempted to publish an article in the Montana Law Review on this subject. Just as an unsuspecting law-review editor[1] was about to approve it, another professor discovered that the proposed article was itself 95% copied from a book, in direct violation of the review’s stated rules. Truly laughable: An article denouncing a purported plagiarism was itself a plagiarism! That’s why we call it the Dishonesty Institute.

    One other interesting factoid: The DI accused Judge Jones of copying 90.7% of a section of his opinion. What they failed to note was that the section containing the alleged copying was only 16% of the total length of the opinion, not the whole thing. So the alleged “plagiarism” amounted at most to only 14% of the opinion..

    One of the more misleading parts of Luskin’s DI paper is Table C. There, he lists differences between what the ID witnesses said and the corresponding item in plaintiffs’ proposed statement of facts. Luskin claims this shows the judge’s ineptitude. What it actually shows is that the judge found that the ID witnesses’ statements were not credible, that cross-examination of these witnesses and the testimony of other witnesses belied those statements. For example, the judge found that “…ID is not supported by any peer-reviewed research, data or publications..” whereas Luskin asserts that “Expert witness Scott Minnich testified at trial that there were between “seven and ten” peer-reviewed papers supporting ID.” What this shows is that Judge Jones found that Minnich’s statement was not supported by other evidence. (The other evidence in this example was that the cited papers do not in fact support ID.)

    You may have noticed that the DI has wound down this “plagiarism” issue in the last couple of years. No one believes it anymore.

    Chazing, you should scrutinize creationist sources more closely. You know they’ll lie to you..

    ====================

    [1] Most law-review editors are unsuspecting of ulterior motives. I know; I was a law-review editor myself once.

  11. I guess you would require that a criminal trial involving DNA evidence have a judge who has a PhD in genetics

    That depends on if the DNA evidence (or methodology) was being questioned

    That a trial involving the safety of a ladder have a judge with a PhD in mechanical engineering.

    That would depend on if the structure of the ladder in question was pertinent to the case

    That a trial involving creationism have a judge with a PhD in sewage management.

    Well, if you as a creationist Lutheran believe it to be so, I’ll take your word for it.

    Chazing should acquaint himself with the US legal system at least a little before firing off such stupid shotgun blasts.

    That’s hardly something a West Indian would want to waste time on.

    The reason Judge Jones used only the plaintiffs’ findings is that he felt he plaintiffs had proved all of them by a preponderance of evidence.[The fact that he incorporated none of the defendants’ findings should tell you that he felt they had proven nothing, that they had not carried a single point.

    If that is the sad simplistic method operating in US law, it is not difficult to understand how your society is so screwed. However, even if Jones found that the DI did not legally ‘prove’ any of their points, then he would need to mention their points and then state HOW they did not prove it. This would then necessitate that Jones’ ruling have at least 1/3 DI material. So if he copied from the ACLU and did not from the DI even to mention their views, something is still clearly wrong.

  12. An irony here is that Casey Luskin and two of his buddies attempted to publish an article in the Montana Law Review on this subject. Just as an unsuspecting law-review editor[1] was about to approve it, another professor discovered that the proposed article was itself 95% copied from a book, in direct violation of the review’s stated rules. Truly laughable: An article denouncing a purported plagiarism was itself a plagiarism! That’s why we call it the Dishonesty Institute.

    Not really surprising me since the DI is pretty schizo in their views.

    The DI accused Judge Jones of copying 90.7% of a section of his opinion. What they failed to note was that the section containing the alleged copying was only 16% of the total length of the opinion, not the whole thing. So the alleged “plagiarism” amounted at most to only 14% of the opinion.

    They don’t need to state that it was 14% of the whole IF they stated that it was 91% of a section, which they did. However, if 91% of a section was from the ACLU, that means that Jones was clearly biased either way since a section on ID would demand substantial quotation from IDers. Are you telling me as someone who is a lawyer that copying 14% is OK in the US legal system? Is that the rigour allowed in law?

    Chazing, you should scrutinize creationist sources more closely. You know they’ll lie to you.

    Olorin, the DI is not a creationist organization since many believe in guided evolutionary processes. The IDers are your intellectual bedfellows, not mine. If they lie, that would not be surprising. They did not lie however, as even you admit above. They simply did not mention the proportion for the whole document, which they were under no legal obligation to do since they were being specific to their section.

    My issue is with your legal system. Is copying allowed to such a large extent in any section of a legal document? If it is, there is need to raise the standard since even the lowly social sciences do not allow such actions. Then again, given the US track record of stupidity, that might be asking too much .

  13. Chazing should acquaint himself with the US legal system at least a little before firing off such stupid shotgun blasts.

    That’s hardly something a West Indian would want to waste time on.

    In other words, Chazing feels that it is a waste of time acquainting himself with a subject before he makes pompous pronouncements about that subject.

    We had always suspected that, but it is nice to have him explicitly admit that he is a poseur, a fourflusher,and a quacksalver.

  14. News flash from earth to Chazing:
    > There are thousands of cases in hundreds of different courts every year involving DNA evidence. In most of them, some aspect of the validity of the evidence is disputed.
    > There are thousands of cases in hundreds of courts involving product liability. In every one of them, some aspect of the design is allege to be defective. Products ranging from aircraft to zebra costumes.
    > There are hundreds of cases, sometimes involving billions of dollars, concerning efficacy or safety of a drug.
    >There are hundreds of cases every year alleging that environmental toxins caused a disease.

    Chazing would require that hundreds of jurisdictions each hire PhD judges in hundreds of different specialties, to hear these cases.[1]

    .

    Would you care to abjure this delusional position now, or would you rather watch your credibility continue to plummet into pools of laughter?

    =====================

    [1] Just in case Chazing thinks the US is the only country in the world that does not employ PhD judges in these cases, here is another news flash: No country in the world makes this a requirement. Every one of them use expert witnesses.

  15. My issue is with your legal system. Is copying allowed to such a large extent in any section of a legal document?

    No.

    Do you have any other stupid questions?

  16. Olorin, the DI is not a creationist organization since many believe in guided evolutionary processes.

    The DI is a creationist organization. This is the holding of the Kitzmiller case. It is based mainly on the testimony of Barbara Forrest, who produced more than a thousand documented references for this conclusion.[1] At trial, the defense (DI) was not able to counter or impugn any of her testimony. None.[2]

    The prevailing opinion is that the DI will not challenge this appellation. They no longer attempt to teach “intelligent design” in schools, but rather direct their efforts entirely toward policies and legislation promoting unspecified “alternative views” and “shortcomings of evolution.”

    And they bend every effort toward staying out of the courts. Although Kitzmiller technically only applies to the Middle District of Pennsylvania, the vast majority of attorneys feel that the Kitzmiller trial was so thorough, and the opinion so compelling, that every other court in the country would follow it if the question comes up again..

    ===================

    [1] The DI strove mightily to have Prof. Forrest disqualified as a witness, including personal smears and threats.

    [2] The infamous smoking gun was the wholesale change from “creationists” to “design proponents” between two successive editions of Of Pandas and People, immediately following the Supreme Court case ruling in Aguillard that creationism is a religious and not a scientific, theory. Nothing else was changed, except for the terminology. In one laughable occurrence, the change was botched, resulting in a reference to “cdesign proponentsists.”

  17. Chazing would require that hundreds of jurisdictions each hire PhD judges in hundreds of different specialties, to hear these cases.

    No, I am saying that the system is inadequate and that for you to make Jones a legal scholar is to elevate a man with only at best a JD. Since he does not have a PhD in biology and in theology, his opinion, as erudite as it may be, is limited to what was presented and the shortcomings of his own education. To think that a judge without any knowledge on these topics could be adequately versed by experts is simplistic. For instance, that assumes that the experts are not biased (and we all know that they are), not lying (or misinformed) and that other experts, if offered, would not have changed the final view of said judge. Just because that’s the way the system works does not mean that that’s the way the system should work.

    I am not making a pompous pronouncement on legal matters but making an observation to the absurdity of thinking that a judge is the final arbiter of whether ID is religious or not. And I am a West Indian.

    No. Do you have any other stupid questions?

    If that’s the case you have admitted that Jones was wrong to copy so much for a section of his ruling and thus his entire ruling should be legally thrown out. I’m sure the DI would be pleased to have you for an ally. Contact them so that your ‘expertise’ can be used for their counter-attack.

    The DI is a creationist organization. This is the holding of the Kitzmiller case.

    Why is it that you cannot think independently? Wait, don’t answer that. The law is NOT and will never be the final arbiter of anything. Given the record of your own (so-called) supreme court towards persecuting non-Europeans, one would think you would realize this. If the DI approves of evolutionary mechanisms, they are evolutionists. For them to be creationists, they would have to use the bible and identify the designer as God. They don’t so they aren’t creationists contra Forrest and Kitzmiller. One wonders if Jones had copied much from the DI and ruled in their favour, if you would be singing praises to the US legal process.

  18. I am not making a pompous pronouncement on legal matters but making an observation to the absurdity of thinking that a judge is the final arbiter of whether ID is religious or not.

    Chazing seems to think that a judge cannot be the final arbiter of anything. You might ask a couple of death-row felons whether they agree.

    Chazing, the hole keeps getting deeper and deeper.

    And I am a West Indian

    Really? Does that explain your insular worldview?

    My younger daughter lived on Montserrat for two years. Then, one night, they told her she had an hour to pack everything she could get into one bag and and hightail down to the airport in Plymouth. She did go back several months later to help the local physician, but the place where she lived was buried in many feet of ash. We still follow Soufriere Hills’ progress from time to time. Now she lives on Maui, whose volcano, Haleakala, is more reliably dead.

  19. To think that a judge without any knowledge on these topics could be adequately versed by experts is simplistic. For instance, that assumes that the experts are not biased (and we all know that they are), not lying (or misinformed) and that other experts, if offered, would not have changed the final view of said judge.

    You’re not listening again.

    Both sides had 6 expert witnesses of their own choosing. Each side got to cross-examine the other side’s witnesses. In addition each side got to pick rebuttal witnesses for aspects of the other side’s experts.[0] That is precisely because the witnesses are biased to at least some extent, and they may be misinformed or even lying.[1]

    As noted previously, he really laughable part was that half of the defendant’s experts decamped before the trial, and refused to testify in favor of ID as a scientific theory. Including Bill Dembski, who had boasted of the opportunity to confront evilutionists in court, where they would squirm and sweat. Instead, it was Michel Behe who squirmed and sweated, and refused to provide direct answers so often that the judge had to threaten him with contempt of court.

    Plaintiff’s witnesses, on the other hand, made their points so solidly that neither cross-examination nor other witnesses could shake them.

    ===================

    [0] See the list in my previous comment. You must have missed it before.

    [1] Some of the defendants’ witnesses certainly lied. We were surprised that no perjury charges were bought against them after trial.

  20. Chazing seems to think that a judge cannot be the final arbiter of anything. You might ask a couple of death-row felons whether they agree.

    Is a judge God? Is death final? Is there not a final judgment? Can’t another legal proceeding discard Jones’ ruling? Can’t anarchy discard all rulings? Who are you to say the DI won’t succeed at some point in time?

    Really? Does that explain your insular worldview?

    My worldview is not insular Olorin. Unlike you, I don’t revel in simplicity. I believe that your legal training might be the reason for your faulty logic despite your physics and EE background.

    Both sides had 6 expert witnesses of their own choosing. Each side got to cross-examine the other side’s witnesses. In addition each side got to pick rebuttal witnesses for aspects of the other side’s experts.[0] That is precisely because the witnesses are biased to at least some extent, and they may be misinformed or even lying.[1]

    Spoken like a lawyer defending the inadequacy of his profession. What does this minimization of bias have to do with the process. If there is one judge with simplistic legal training, he simply cannot understand much, despite all the efforts of expert witnesses. Minimize bias also by having more educated judges.

    Including Bill Dembski, who had boasted of the opportunity to confront evilutionists in court, where they would squirm and sweat.

    IDers do seem to think the world of themselves despite what others think or show. Kinda like you.

    But anyhow, I am glad that we are on the same page that Jones’ ruling was illegal and is thus not applicable.

  21. But anyhow, I am glad that we are on the same page that Jones’ ruling was illegal and is thus not applicable.

    You’re still not listening. We are most definitely not on the same page. And you’re holding the book upside down. How you could possibly think the Kitzmiller decision was “illegal” is beyond the pale of denial and into the slough of delusion.

    Legal scholars almost all agree that the Kitzmiller opinion was thorough, reasoned, and well considered.[1] And correct. Enough that the DI will probably never again mount a direct legal challenge to the issue of whether ID is a form of creationism, and thus a religious dogma rather than a scientific theory.

    What does this minimization of bias have to do with the process? If there is one judge with simplistic legal training, he simply cannot understand much, despite all the efforts of expert witnesses. Minimize bias also by having more educated judges.

    It has everything to do with the process. You’re not making sense. Why would more educated judges produce less biased decisions? Judges can be biased, too. And nether side can examine or cross-examine a judge to ferret out his bias–or his qualifications in the technical subject matter.

    The function of judges in the US is to apply the law to the facts found in the case. That’s why they go to law school.[2] The facts are established by witnesses, through examination and cross-examination.[3] It is both impractical and ineffective to require that a judge himself possess PhD-level expertise in cases involving thousands of different technical and non-technical areas.

    Behold Chazing, who has as few qualifications to belch forth on legal matters as he does in biology, cosmology, and philosophy of science. That is to say, NONE. I might trust an exposition on the legal status of the (former) Dutch Caribbean islands, that’s about as far as I would go.[4]

    =============

    [1] Casey Luskin doesn’t agree, but then he gets a lot of things wrong.

    [2] Having majored in EE as an undergrad, I was surprised to find that law school was more like engineering school that engineering school was. And, having gone to grad school in physics, I was surprised to find that legal investigation is quite like scientific research.

    [3] Judges can question witnesses directly, but tis is not common.

    [4] Well, perhaps also on the exchange rate between the Antilles guilder and the EC dollar. But only because I could verify it online.

  22. If as you state, Jones should not have copied so much of his ruling (91% for a section), then his ruling is effete. Why then are you arguing otherwise? I am not talking about practicality, I am saying that one cannot consider Jones’ ruling as erudite. Rather, he is just a glorified lawyer without much (any?) understanding of science and/or theology. One does not need to have legal expertise to belch forth on any topic. We have you as an excellent example of this.

  23. One does not need to have legal expertise to belch forth on any topic. We have you as an excellent example of this.

    I listed by qualifications. You, ion the other hand, refuse to proffer any qualifications or background whatever on any subject. You are a complete quacksalver.

    One more try on the “copying”— Let’s say you were capable of designing a widget. In your presentation to management, you show not only the design itself, but list which of many possible criteria and approaches that you used in the design. And you included references to the particular formulas that you selected for the goober glue to hold the parts together, and to estimate thumb sizes for the typical user. That is, you COPIED almost all of one section of your report, rather than coming up with your own unique formulas and estimates from scratch.

    Rank plagiarism. Complete lack of erudition. No understanding of glue chemistry or human-factors analysis.

    (Since you won’t catch it by yourself, that was intended to be just a skosh satirical.)

    You have no idea what you are talking about, and apparently never will. Bye.

  24. Olorin, where have you listed your personal qualifications in biology and theology? I missed that post. Providing references does not constitute copying or plagiarism. Also, this [the references] would naturally constitute a small portion of the actual report. Copying 91% from a document where there were TWO sides proffered and which required legal ANALYSIS, clearly shows that Jones was biased and his ruling effete. One would expect almost equal level of copying from the briefs on BOTH sides. If you are an example of US legal logic, I am not surprised by the sad state of your country or the quality of your arguments.

  25. One would expect almost equal level of copying from the briefs on BOTH sides.

    “Bizarre” is to kind a word for this statement. Have you been into the ganja again?

    Most of the proposed findings of facts in one side’s statement contradict those in the the other side’s statement. Please try to form a mental image of an opinion that forms a decision based upon two sets of mutually contradictory facts.[0]

    In a trial, each side presents a list of facts which that side believes the evidence at trial supports.[1] The judge analyzes both statements, and selects those facts which he believes the evidence has demonstrated.[2] He then applies the law to those facts to produce a holding. Because the holding, the decision, must be for one side or the other, it is rare that proposed facts will be plucked from each side equally. The winning side will always dominate.

    In the Kitzmiller trial, the judge found that the plaintiffs had established almost all of what they had set out to prove—that is, the facts in their proposed statement. It was carefully crafted and did not overreach. On the other hand. the defendants’ (ID) statement was broad, vague,and in may cases just plain misunderstood or even misrepresented the evidence.[3] Therefore, the judge incorporated almost all of the plaintiffs’ statement, and almost none of the defendants’.

    You call this “bias.” I have read both statements and I have read all 26 days of the trial transcript. There is no doubt that he plaintiffs made all their points, and successfully defended them against cross-examination. One the other hand, defense witnesses tried to avoid answering questions, and in some cases outright lied.[4] In many incidents, the defense attorneys[5] did not have a clue as to what questions to ask when cross-examining the other side’s witnesses. Even in direct examination of their own witnesses they seemed to fumble around aimlessly, unable to gain a purchase on any issue.

    Then, too, there was the fact that half the defendants’ expert witnesses had absquatulated to avoid testifying. What does that tell you?

    Reading the trial transcripts and the other court documents shows that this trial was a rout for the defendants. A Waterloo. A ruin. Legal scholars agree that the opinion was definitive of the issue that ID is a religious doctrine and not a scientific theory; that ii is in fact a form of creationism. Legal analysts predict that the DI will never again raise this issue in court. The DI itself has changed its tactics since the trial, parading only the (real or imagined) shortcomings of evolutionary theories.[6] They officially recommend that ID not be taught directly in public schools. This is a 180-dgree change of course from before the Kitzmiller trial, aimed at keeping the ID-as-science question out of any future court proceeding. They know they would lose again..

    And that is why Judge Jones drew his findings of fact almost entirely from one statement and not the other. Go read the transcripts for yourself, instead of bloviating from a complete lack of knowledge as is your wont.

    =====================

    [0] E.g., “I find that the defendant was present at the victim’s home in East Overshoe the evening of September 31. I also find that the defendant was drinking with two friends at the Bar None in Narrow Bridge at that time.”

    [1] The facts pertain to the legal elements of the case. For example, premeditation (“malice aforethought”) is a legal element of first-degree murder. Therefore, many of the proposed facts will be aimed at establishing (prosecution) or denying (defense) whether the defendant had premeditated the killing. A lot of fraud or cover-up cases hinge upon which person made a crucial decision; many of the facts in such trials will be relevant to determining how the decision was made—“Who knew what, and when did they know it.”

    [2] Sometimes the judge will adduce his own facts, but this is not common, because each side is usually very thorough in listing proposed facts favorable to its own position, and in selecting witnesses to develop those facts.

    [3] Both statements are (or used to be) available on line.

    [4] Plus, they, and the DI, tried in several instances to smear plaintiffs’ witnesses personally, and to intimidate them.

    [5] Thomas More Law Center, which defends or brings cases involving religion and fundamentalist causes. Their Web page does not list Kitzmiller as one of the cases that they were involved in, even though it had the highest national profile. Strange, no?

    [6] “Teach the controversy.” “Academic freedom.” “Darwin’s Doubt.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s