This is What Happens When the Facts are Fairly Presented

We got lucky in that we got a judge who would listen to reason no matter what his preconceptions were.

I doubt we would be so lucky in many of the red states if we got somebody like former judge Roy Moore of Alabama.

I think in the future when intelligent design creationists ask scientists to debate them in the public square we should simply send a copy of the Kitzmiller ruling and let the facts speak for themselves...

I doubt we would be so lucky in many of the red states if we got somebody like former judge Roy Moore of Alabama.

That Opinion was so totally excellent, it was better than sex -- I had to have a cigarette afterwards. Jones may be a Bush 43 appointee, but he bravely went against the sector in the GOP that is religion-based, and may have thereby ended any chance for a seat on the federal appellate bench.

As lawyer, my respect and admiration for him are simply boundless.

And yes, this shows how ID fares in a venue with such things as rules of evidence and sober, intelligent consideration of both sides' best arguments.

It's not just that Judge Jones listens to reason: he actually understands what he hears. As someone who has followed this debate for some time, I have to say I was extremely impressed with not only the decision, but with the way the judge presented the evidence and basis of his ruling. I didn't find a single instance in the entire decision where I thought Jones betrayed a faulty understanding of one of the scientific arguments, or where he misjudged the relevance or applicability of an argument. This guy just took a quickie science class and scored an A+ on the exam; a lot of smart, open-minded people would not necessarily have done so well.

I love that ruling. When I first read it I thought it was some kind of sick hoax - there was no way a real judge would rule that solidly on the side of reason. However, I have since gathered enough evidence to confirm that the hypothesis of the ruling being genuine does in fact deserve the label of "theory".

Is it legal to send boxes of choccies to judges?

Hey Mr Beckwith, I believe you were saying something about all the reasons why it's Constitutional to teach ID . . . . . ?

(snicker) (giggle)

A six-week trial over the issue yielded "overwhelming evidence" establishing that intelligent design "is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory," said Jones, a Republican and a churchgoer appointed to the federal bench three years ago

Is it fair to say that each of you, the commenters, knows everything about every part of the universe? Then isn't it possible that God exists in one of those parts that you know nothing about? Before you uncork the champagne I suggest you consider what you will say to him when you finally meet him. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" Genesis 1:1. "Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgement, so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many..." Hebrews 9:27-28. God loves you.

I suggest you consider what you will say to him when you finally meet him

And, David, while you're at it, can you point to the passage in the Theory of Evolution which says that God did not create the heavens and the earth?

And I'd particularly like to see you point to any passage in ToE that says anything about Christ the Redeemer, one way or the other.

Before coming here to threaten with Judgment Day those who accept the Theory of Evolution as the only current model that fits all the evidence for how life on earth diversified , did it occur to you that you might want to understand what the ToE actually does and doesn't say?

Oh, you didn't bother to do that? Let's see, threatening people that you don't know with supernatural doom, even though you don't have a clue about what they actually think, or why they actually think it...aren't you the least bit worried that your God might be a little bit upset with your dishonest and ignorant hypocrisy?

It's pride that goeth before the fall, David, not knowledge based on evidence, or didn't you get around to that particular passage yet either?

But, hey David, it's never too late to repent your sins...and, just maybe, you ought to consider making that your number one priority.

... I suggest you consider what you will say to him when you finally meet him.

— David

Is it fair to say that each of you, the commenters, knows everything about every part of the universe? Then isn't it possible that God exists in one of those parts that you know nothing about? Before you uncork the champagne I suggest you consider what you will say to him when you finally meet him. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" Genesis 1:1. "Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgement, so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many..." Hebrews 9:27-28. God loves you.

I suggest you consider what you will say to him when you finally meet him

— fundie David

"Creationists like public debates because they know that such debates are far more about theater than they are about science."

Indeed. I engaged in two debates on the evolution/creation controversy in high school, many years ago. Consensus was a draw in the first, and a clear victory for me in the second ... Trouble was, on reflection, the win was a result of superior style & strategy on my part, not because the facts were on my side. They *were* on my side, but that's not why I won, that is. Seemed to me a pretty poor way of trying to establish scientific facts.

(Oh, and both debaters were devout Christians. Just an FYI for David.)

To sir toejam, steviepinhead, and Scott: God loves you. To Jim: Those fundamentalists that you spoke of were every day people just like you and I, they were built up to be someone they weren't and need forgiveness from God. The churches are full of them today. But, it is important to know that they do not reflect who God is, nor do they change his character. He is a loving God and wants, more than anything, to have a relationship with each of us. He has made a way for that to happen for everyone who will listen. "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus" Romans 3:23-24.

Is it fair to say that each of you, the commenters, knows everything about every part of the universe?

— David

Then isn't it possible that God exists in one of those parts that you know nothing about?

Clown boy (AKA David) wrote: He is a loving God

Oh, David. Did it ever occur to you that maybe, the best way to understand evolutionary theory would be to put down your Bible and pick up a biology textbook? Or perhaps, you could come to an appreciation of ET through the route I took, with a course on dynamical systems which showed how order can arise from disorder, thus showing there's nothing illogical about self-organization. I mean, it wouldn't be the first time a Christian has used logic; logic was an important tool for theologians back when the RCC was a major (and I mean *major*) political power. Or are you one of those folks who thinks that Catholics aren't True Christians(TM)? (And by the by, I'm fully acceptant of the fact that, as an agnostic, I'd be damned if the deity you worship exists. However, I place more value on the search for the truth than on the potential fate of my immortal soul. I thought you Christians valued altruism?)

Now, to be on topic. I'm glad that Judge Jones ruled as he did, but I do find it scary that we're having law decide reality. Stuff like this reminds me of the 19th-century attempt to redefine pi: "In 1897 the Indiana House of Representatives unanimously passed a measure redefining the area of a circle and the value of pi. (House Bill no. 246, introduced by Rep. Taylor I. Record.) The bill died in the state Senate." (Taken from Snopes.com.) Yes, the bill ultimately failed, and it was more than a century ago, but it was passed by the House of Representatives of Indiana. *Unanimously*. It may be my paranoia kicking in, but that, combined with the necessity to go to trial over whether ID is science or not, just echoes in my ears as "2 + 2 is whatever Big Brother wants it to be."

The comments from/to David really underscore how UNreligious that side is, and how little they know even the Book that they want to hit us over the head with. Even *I* know that one should not presume to be an authority on what God really thinks, or what His opinion is on the preachers who claim that authority.

Even if every word David said is a true reflection of God's message, that does not place David on par with God. David, perhaps should pay more attention to his own soul then to the souls of others.

As Martin Luther once said, "Every man must do two things alone; he must do his own believing and his own dying."

Then isn't it possible that God exists in one of those parts that you know nothing about?

— David

Well, I go by the notion that the christian god died on the cross for our sins, so if it turns out that I have sinned when I die (by not believing in him, but in a whole series of deities), I will be absolved because their god died for everybody, so also for me on that cross.... (Was crucifixion not for criminals, and stoning for blasphemy?)

Holy Moly, is that Indiana Legslature thing actually true? I assumed these things were all jokes, but the urban legends page does assert that the Indiana bill was real:
http://www.snopes.com/religion/pi.htm

...I would like more confirmation though...

Oh Kim Kim Kim, is that Circular, or is that Circular!

You're welcome to think whatever you wish - I just object to you (and all the others who watch the same TV show to get your thinking points) placing yourself in the Seat of Judgement. It just don't seem too saintly, if you know what I mean.

As for me, since I KNOW that Grandmother Spider is the TRUE source of creation, at the End of All Things I'll be hanging out with the Ancestors laughing at look on the faces of all those Christians.

Holy Moly, is that Indiana Legslature thing actually true? I assumed these things were all jokes, but the urban legends page does assert that the Indiana bill was real: http://www.snopes.com/religion/pi.htm ...I would like more confirmation though...

Holy Moly, is that Indiana Legslature thing actually true?

— Nick Matzke

HOUSE BILL NO. 246 "A bill for an act introducing a new mathematical truth and offered as a contribution to education to be used only by the State of Indiana free of cost by paying any royalties whatever on the same, provided it is accepted and adopted by the official action of the legislature of 1897. "Section 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana: It has been found that a circular area is to the square on a line equal to the quadrant of the circumference, as the area of an equilateral rectangle is to the square on one side. The diameter employed as the linear unit according to the present rule in computing the circle's area is entirely wrong, as it represents the circles area one and one-fifths times the area of a square whose perimeter is equal to the circumference of the circle. This is because one-fifth of the diameter fils to be represented four times in the circle's circumference. For example: if we multiply the perimeter of a square by one-fourth of any line one-fifth greater than one side, we can, in like manner make the square's area to appear one fifth greater than the fact, as is done by taking the diameter for the linear unit instead of the quadrant of the circle's circumference. "Section 2. It is impossible to compute the area of a circle on the diameter as the linear unit without trespassing upon the area outside the circle to the extent of including one-fifth more area than is contained within the circle's circumference, because the square on the diameter produces the side of a square which equals nine when the arc of ninety degrees equals eight. By taking the quadrant of the circle's circumference for the linear unit, we fulfill the requirements of both quadrature and rectification of the circle's circumference. Furthermore, it has revealed the ratio of the chord and arc of ninety degrees, which is as seven to eight, and also the ratio of the diagonal and one side of a square which is as ten to seven, disclosing the fourth important fact, that the ratio of the diameter and circumference is as five-fourths to four; and because of these facts and the further fact that the rule in present use fails to work both ways mathematically, it should be discarded as wholly wanting and misleading in its practical applications. "Section 3. In further proof of the value of the author's proposed contribution to education, and offered as a gift to the State of Indiana, is the fact of his solutions of the trisection of the angle, duplication of the cube and quadrature having been already accepted as contributions to science by the American Mathematical Monthly, the leading exponent of mathematical thought in this country. And be it remembered that these noted problems had been long since given up by scientific bodies as unsolvable mysteries and above man's ability to comprehend."

What are you doing up posting at this hour? You're supposed to be nuked in some Harrisburg strip joint by now! LOL! RBH

— RBH

I suggest you consider what you will say to him when you finally meet him

As Martin Luther once said, "Every man must do two things alone; he must do his own believing and his own dying."

Posted by David on December 20, 2005 08:50 PM (e) (s) Is it fair to say that each of you, the commenters, knows everything about every part of the universe? Then isn't it possible that God exists in one of those parts that you know nothing about? Before you uncork the champagne I suggest you consider what you will say to him when you finally meet him. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" Genesis 1:1. "Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgement, so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many..." Hebrews 9:27-28. God loves you.

"It's pride that goeth before the fall"

actually, pride before destruction and haughty spirit before a fall [/quibble]

This from Dembskis' Blog:
-------------------------------------------
"So regardless of what the ACLU did or did not do, didn't the judge hear a legitimate version of ID from Behe et al?"

Indeed he did. Which is why we can conlcude that this judge is thoroughly intellectually dishonest. I'm not sure how he sleeps at night.

Comment by Bombadill --- December 21, 2005 @ 9:15 am

-------------------------------------------

Had the decision gone the other way, I'm positive Judge Jones would have been the smartest, most honest man alive...worthy of the best trailer in the park

After reading their blog, it's amazing at what they don't actually understand regarding Evolution.

Had the decision gone the other way, I'm positive Judge Jones would have been the smartest, most honest man alive...worthy of the best trailer in the park

— Steverino

When I finally meet God I am going to go "kickass work on that evolution stuff" and She will go "yeah it saved a lot of work dude" and I will go "no seriously you're awesome" and She will go "thanks I appreciate it" and I will go "it was really cool to live on earth and breathe the air and live my life amongst my fellow beings and also my wife was totally hot so thanks for that especially" and She will go "totally hot I can get behind that evaluation your wife was smoking hot" and I will go "well anyway I am going to go check out this next thing you got I am looking forward to it" and She will go "if you liked earth you will love this I guarantee" and I will go "great see you around" and She will go "not if I see you first" and we'll laugh and the next guy I run into I'll go "hey I just talked to God She is totally cool" and he'll go "true true".

Bill, you being a racist who claims to believe in geocentrism, your opinon is much valued. Have you read the judgement? It seems a no-nonsense assesment of the facts and evidence presented. I have to admit being surprised at its unequivocal clarity,

Admit it guys, the only reason you're praising this man's intelligence and character is because he ruled your way; otherwise, it would have been, "Stupid Bush appointee, what does he know about science. What else can you expect from a Christian?!"

Bill, you being a racist

— Alan Fox

who claims to believe in geocentrism

— Alan Fox

your opinon is much valued. Have you read the judgement? It seems a no-nonsense assesment of the facts and evidence presented. I have to admit being surprised at its unequivocal clarity,

— Alan Fox

I'm just contesting the claim that he was an unbiased observer through it all.

Judge Jones seems bright; I'm just contesting the claim that he was an unbiased observer through it all.

Judge Jones has proven himself biased indeed. Unfortunately for the creationists, it turns out his biases are those one would expect from a critical thinker and competent judge: biases against pseudoscience, illogic, dishonesty and unconstitutional attacks on legitimate science education.

It is funny as all hell to see the poor pathetic souls trying to cast a Bush-appointed Christian conservative federal judge as some sort of athieist granola activist.

GoP,

I've generally just scrolled past your long insults to truth and decency, but you post so often, and are evidently such a tempting troll, it has proven impossible to avoid your blatherings on this forum by such a method (Oh! For the option of blocking out proven trolls and closet racists/fascists, as you likely are yourself, More power to your right to free speech, and my right to not have to make much effort to avoid the result of my "liberalism.") but having been silly enough myself to read your "take" on Dover, I will also take the time to evaluate YOU.
You, GoP (and what an insult that is to the wonderful and thoughtful Paley!) are a very, very - to the silliest extent - dishonest person (and therefore, in a perverse fashion, I suppose you ARE the "perfect" defender of today's utterly, insanely, vulgarly dishonest 'mur'kin Xian creationism)!

I'll go back to attempting to entirely avoid any of your lies and muddyings on this or any other thread.
May truth somehow puncture the spiritless shell you have encased yourself within!

--LD

Sorry, Bill, for the unfinished sentence, when my wife calls "Supper" I go. It seems others have rendered any further remark by me superfluous.

GoP,

Did you actually read any of the nonsense posted in Dembski's Blog??? If you had, you would have realized my comments were a correct assessment.

You don't have to be a scientist to see/recognize the flaws in ID or in its logic.

Posted by The Ghost of Paley on December 21, 2005 02:17 PM (e) (s) .....and he would be a leper in this colony. Admit it guys, the only reason you're praising this man's intelligence and character is because he ruled your way; otherwise, it would have been, "Stupid Bush appointee, what does he know about science. What else can you expect from a Christian?!" Or are these men buffoons? Before smarting off, remember that Rehnquist was class valedictorian at Stanford Law school while Scalia graduated summa cum laude at Georgetown.

.and he would be a leper in this colony. Admit it guys, the only reason you're praising this man's intelligence and character is because he ruled your way; otherwise, it would have been, "Stupid Bush appointee, what does he know about science. What else can you expect from a Christian?!" Or are these men buffoons? Before smarting off, remember that Rehnquist was class valedictorian at Stanford Law school while Scalia graduated summa cum laude at Georgetown.

By the way GoP, didja ever notice that ID/creationists lost not only this Dover case, but they lost every other Federal court case they have ever been involved with. Every single, solitary one. All of them. Every one. Without exception.

Why do you suppose that is?

Wait --- let me guess: the activist judges are part of the vast international atheist conspiracy (along with the liberal churches, the liberal press, the atheistic scientists, and Steven Spielberg) to destroy True Christianity(tm)(c).

Right?

And, in case this isn't perfectly obvious, neither judges nor juries appreciate people lying to them. Even if they're bending over backwards trying to be fair and render justice--and even if we try to imagine some set of facts where the liar might somehow still be "entitled" to a favorable ruling despite the lie--lying is simply not the recommended way for a litigant to advance his or her case.

Even if these defendants had otherwise possessed a plausible case, as soon as the judge caught the school board members in their blatant lies, the defendants were virtually guaranteed to lose at least the "religious purpose" prong of the case--a more classic case of Lenny's "shoot themselves in the foot" scenario would be difficult to imagine.

So, Ghosty, to bring it down to terms even you can understand, should you ever find yourself in a courtroom, try to remember this equation: obvious liars=complete losers, and even more "competent" liars had better be darned sure not to get caught in the act. Your attempt to shift the burden of this loss onto the judge for being righteously incensed at the elected officials--entrusted with the education and upbringing of schoolchildren!--who were stupid enough to try to lie to him this blatantly, all while under oath to tell the truth in the judge's own courtroom, is nothing more than your usual mendacity. You really need to pick a spiffier set of running buddies.

IDiocy lost on the merits of the science, the facts, and the law, and due to the stupidity and transparent hypocrisy of its champions, not because of any bias on the part of the judge.

Get over it.

I've stated on more than one occasion that I do not believe that genes are the root cause of cultural differences, which last time I checked, would make me a nonracist by definition.

— A Whiter shade of Paley

racism * noun 1 the belief that there are characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to each race. 2 discrimination against or antagonism towards other races. --- DERIVATIVES racist noun & adjective.

— The Oxford Compact English Dictionary

The Ghost of Paley Posted: Dec. 23 2005,16:16 Since I'm still not sure if there's a glitch in the email system, and since I won't be able to access the moderator's reply shortly, I grant permission to the moderators to delete any part of the Dean Morrison rebuttal they feel necessary; I just ask that they keep as much of the original message as possible. I appreciate whatever assistance they can provide. Thanks.

Okay... it may be that Paley is being censored for his rebuttal of the above, and is not actually asking for my comments to be censored.
I'd still like to hear what he has to say - try again with more moderate language GOP....

And a Merry Xmas to you!

Yenta:

I can't do hyperlinks on this $#%@ computer, and block quotes are too tedious, but let me make a few comments that will give you something to chew over until I can get to a real computer:

1) As I mentioned before, the "Wizard" and "Master" stuff is borrowed from the book Princess Bride, not a terrorist organisation

2) I quote bunches of papers; I hardly need to stumble on one by typing in "White Gene" (which is a patently stupid search command anyway; really, Yenta, you can do better than this)

3) The K bit was started by MidnightVoice, not I. Besides, your methodology reeks. For example, it's clear that you don't believe in Neonazi philosophy, correct? On that we can be agreed, right? And yet on one of your picture posts I counted a total 14 typed words. Does this coincidence mean anything? No. But the "clue" is there anyway. So see, it's very easy to uncover false positives by your method. This is how people can "find" De Vere's hand in Shakespeare's work.

4) Your misunderstanding of whom was being censored proves that you're not a careful reader of my posts. So why should anyone trust anything you say about me?

5) Why didn't you pull up the thread in which I express my admiration for Asian women and link to Shu Qi? I notice you "missed" that one. Afraid that it might, errr, topple your "hypothesis"?

Oh, yes, I almost forgot. I never said that White Nationalism couldn't be refuted, only that Jared Taylor's study hasn't been. Look at the Dean Morrison thread on "After the Bar Closes". I used the words "if this study is so transparently false, then why no one can refute it" or something like that. You engaged in a classic bit of quote-mining, and ignored my clear statements endorsing immigration for Jews, N.E. Asians, and others in "A Modest Proposal". As well of my disgust with Jim Crow and affirmative action, two policies that are racist to the core. I do not believe that the government has any right to choose people's living arrangements, jobs, or mates. This is libertarianism if it's anything.
Why shouldn't I be allowed to cite a person, even if I don't agree with him? You still haven't answered that. Do you believe in Big Brother? And is John McWhorter a racist? Read his book Losing the Race; it takes contemporary black culture to task in very harsh terms. Is Michelle Malkin a racist? She shares many of my immigration and cultural concerns. According to liberal philosophy, white people can't question their views because they're "people of color". Or should they have more liberty to speak their mind? More later, but not on this thread....

My you are in a flap GOP.

No matter how much you wriggle, you don't deny that you meet the Oxford English Dictionary definition of a racist.

Which is why I consider you to be a racist.

In mitigation you are totally barmy, believing in: 'intelligent design; that the universe revolves around the earth'; and that its a good idea to quote 'white nationalists' and the 'Princess Bride' in your defense.

You'll have to explain to myself, and I guess a lot of other people, what a 'Yenta' is - I seem to remember Barbara Streisand was in a film called 'Yentl' or something - is that it?

You engaged in a classic bit of quote-mining,

Can't be arsed .. not that there's a smashing new ruling to read Whiter Shade of Paley.. apart form this fun bit of quote mining which I think sums up the point: Quote 1) my citation of The Color of Crime proves that I agree with Jared Taylor's views; ...nobody can refute it.

Yenta, I have only one question:

Is English your first language?

Well I am English Larry - unlike you.

.. and you don't deny you are a racist do you?

Job done as far as I'm concerned.

hi can you tell me any thing about the lesser red pandas?

As long as Ghost of Paley has reared his white-shrouded head, perhaps he would like to chew on this recent discovery of a transitional fossil, and let us know how it tastes:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12168265/.
Associated Press headline, 4/5/06:
"Fossil shows how fish made the leap to land.
375 million-year-old remains look like a cross between fish and crocodile"

More like fish, or more like frog legs?

Or maybe just a little like, um, crow?

Drat! That darn PZ beat me to it:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/.

Currently his top-most entry, and he'll doubtless cross post it here within minutes.