Legal eagles flutter on

Jones could see right through it, and so can pretty much everyone else.

Or Alito? How about Roberts? Will thomas sign on without comment?

Lord, please make my opponents ridiculous.

— Voltaire

Flint,

I agree, the evidence is pretty plain and it's available to anyone that cares to perform even a quick background check.

Of course, they're pandering to an audience for whom questioning any aspect of the agenda is grounds for exclusion (witness Dave Scott at UC).

After following the link to DI about their Ohio tactics, I found the January 9th posting about the American's United response to a ID philosophy class in Frazier Mountain High School outside of Bakersfield, CA.

Does anyone know what was the actual text of the AU letter sent to the
district superintendent that DI described as follows:

Instead, the school district is issued with an ultimatum according to the Bakersfield Calfiornian which reports that the districts superintendent received a nasty letter from Americans United for Separation of Church State saying in part:

"Pull the intelligent design class at Frazier Mountain High School," was the letter's ominous message, "or we file an injunction."

Weren't the Ohio standards drafted by the guy who tried to stack his thesis committee at OSU with creationists, in contravention of the rules of the school?

Won't all this come out in any court discovery, just like the evidence in the Dover case about the editorial hijinks with Pandas and People in Dover, and all the religious motivation evidence on the Dover school board?

A classic case of the Rev. Dr.'s "Extend Foot - Pull Trigger" Syndrome.

Here are the thoughts I have on Ohio/Kansas:

Now that the Dover Dolts are finished with, it's time to move on to the next fight, the Kansas Kooks and the Ohio Halfwits. The IDers had already, even before the Dover Dolts introduced their "statement", dropped the "teach our alternative scientific theory of design" in favor of "OK, *don't* teach our alternative scientific theory of ID -- teach the controversy about evolution instead". And this is the argument they are presenting in Ohio and Kansas. The Dover decision, DI is arguing, doesn't apply to the "teach the controversy" approach, since, they say, "teach the controversy" doesn't mention ID and doesn't attempt to teach it.

To beat this strategy in court, we therefore need to demonstrate that (1) teach the controversy is nothing but the same old creation "science" and "design theory" under a different name, and (2) it has the same religious motivation and effect that creation 'science' and ID did.

Fortunately for us, this is not difficult to demonstrate, using the IDer's own statements.

A short history of the "teach our alternative theory/ don't teach our alternative theory" switch: The IDers were forced into this position by their loss in Ohio, where they tried to push for the insertion of "ID theory" into the state science standards. The Ohio officials were unimpressed with the Discovery Institute arguments, and instead of including ID in the state standards, they BANNED it. Specifically. By name. "The intent of this indicator does not mandate the teaching or testing of Intelligent Design." (Ohio Board of Education, December 10, 2002)

This forced the DI into an abrupt change, which was spelled out by DI fellow Stephen Meyer during a presentation sponsored by the Ohio Board:

"Finally, and most importantly, Meyer offered a "compromise" on the issue. This was, of course, accompanied by a slide labeled "compromise" showing cartoon people smiling, shaking hands, and slapping one another on the back. Compromises, apparently, make people very happy. The compromise was that his side was willing to drop its insistence that ID be placed in the State standards --- if, of course, the standards made it clear that individual teachers should be free to teach the scientific controversy about Darwinism." (Kenneth Miller, Ohio Citizens for Science website)

As part of the new strategy, members of the Ohio Board of Education proposed a "model lesson plan" that was largely written by Discovery Institute members and supporters, entitled "Critical Analysis of Evolution". The model lesson pointed out the same supposed "scientific problems with evolution" that the Discovery Institute had been preaching for years. Included in the model lesson plan were "goals" such as:

"Describe one piece of evidence used to challenge evolution and explain why it is important.

Compare and contrast the supporting and challenging information regarding the aspect of evolution you studied.

Evaluate the scientific data supporting and challenging areas of evolution in light of the scientific method. In other words, is the data that is used to support or challenge evolution consistent or inconsistent with the scientific method? Are there any limitations? (NOTE: steps of scientific method: Observation, hypothesis, test, retest and conclusion)"

The model lesson plan included links to several Internet websites from the Discovery Institute and other supporters of intelligent design "theory". These websites were later dropped after heavy criticism. Also dropped was a direct reference to the anti-evolution book "Icons of Evolution", written by Discovery Institute member Jonathan Wells.

In March 2003, the Board passed a modified version of the lesson plan which, while erasing all of the references to intelligent design "theory", nevertheless accepted most of the Discovery Institute's "teach the controversy" strategy and included many of the supposed "scientific criticisms of evolution" that have been trotted out for years by the Discovery Institute and other creationists.

Meanwhile, in August 1999, a group of creationists on the Kansas State Education Board, led by veterinarian Steve Abrams, tried to cut evolution from the state standards. The action failed, but caused so much outrage that most of the board members were kicked out of office in the next election.

In 2004, however, riding on Bush's coattails, the fundamentalists again captured a majority on the Education Board, and once again made plans to advance a creationist agenda. A routine periodic evaluation of the state's science curriculum led to a majority report, written by 17 scientists, listing evolution as the core concept of modern biology, and a minority report, written by the 8 creationists/IDers, who rejected evolution. The Education Board, with its new fundie majority, rejected the majority report and adopted a minority report that followed the Discovery Institute's new "teach the controversy" line. Board Chairman Steven Abrams stated; "The Minority Report does not mandate the teaching of Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design is not a code word for creationism. Teaching the arguments against evolution is not a code word for creationism. It is simply good science education. At this point, however, we do not think it's appropriate to mandate the teaching of Intelligent Design. It's a fairly new science, it's a modern science of Intelligent Design, it's a maturing science and perhaps in time it would be there, but at this point we think mandating it is inappropriate." (Kansas Hearings transcript)

In order for DI's "teach the controversy" policy to survive court challenges in Ohion and Kansas, it must survive two different questions. First, is "teach the controversy" different in any substantial way from either intelligent design 'theory' or creation 'science', both of which have already been ruled illegal by the courts? And second, is "teach the controversy" religiously motivated, does it imply state endorsement of religion, or does it have the effect of advancing religion?

If the answer to the first question is "no", or if the answer to the second question is "yes", then "teach the controversy" fails.

So, is "teach the controversy" different in any substantial way from either ID or creation "science"? No. In fact, they are all identical. In the case of Ohio, this was made obvious by the fact that all of the "scientific evidence against evolution" listed by the proposed "teach the controversy" curriculum was lifted intact, word for word, from standard ID books and websites. Indeed, the standards even attempted to list these ID resources themselves as part of the lesson plan. All of the "controversies about evolution" listed by the proposed curriculum are standard ID boilerplate, and most of them have already been presented as part of the "scientific theory of intelligent design" and/or creation 'science'. None of these 'arguments against evolution" has appeared in any peer-reviewed science journal with any supporting data or evidence. All of them are found in ID/creation 'science' texts, and ONLY in ID/creationist texts. The arguments are not substantially changed, in form or in substance, from the very same previous arguments made in support of ID and/or creationism.

In the case of Kansas, the absolute unity between ID/creationism and "the scientific arguments against evolution" were spelled out, in great detail, during the "hearings" that were held by the Board before adopting the "teach the controversy" policy. During these hearings, 23 witnesses testified in favor of "teach the controversy". Every "scientific argument against evolution" presented by these 23 witnesses had already been made previously by creation 'scientists' and/or intelligent design "theorists". In addition, several of the witnesses testified to their belief that science should not be "limited" to "naturalistic" or "materialistic" explanations, that humans and apes have a separate ancestry, that the earth is relatively young, that evolution can occur only within narrowly fixed limits, and that life made a sudden appearence through the actions of a designer. All of these are tenets of creation 'science' as defined in the Arkansas Act 590 bill, thus establishing that the arguments made by creation "science" and "teach the controversy" are in fact identical and have not changed at all in the intervening 25 years.

In both cases, "teach the controversy" is based upon the same false "two models" approach already used by both creation "scientists" and IDers. Under this view, any evidence against evolution must necessarily be viewed as evidence for creation/design. The intention of the "teach the controversy" approach is thus made apparent -- any "evidence against evolution" is viewed by both creation "scientists" and intelligent design "theorists" as support for their "alternative model", even if that "alternative model is un-named. The intent and aims of both "teach the controversy" and ID/creationism are therefore one and the same --- to attempt to discredit evolution in favor of a religious model of origins.

Not only are the aims, intent and arguments presented in the Ohio "teach the controversy" approach identical in every way with ID and/or creation "science", but it is the very same people presenting them as ID and/or creation science. In the case of Ohio, the "teach the controversy" policy was itself proposed by the Discovery Institute, as a "compromise" over teaching intelligent design "theory". As a matter of public record, the Discovery Institute introduced its "compromise" only after it became apparent that the Ohio Board would not only not approve teaching intelligent design "theory", but would actually ban it, by name. At a hearing about the "teach the controversy" policy in March 2002, leading ID "theorists" Jonathan Wells and Stephen Meyer both spoke in favor of the policy. Ohio Board member Deborah Owens-Fink, who asserted that the policy contained nothing from ID, had nevertheless herself introduced measures in 2000 and in 2002 that would have presented ID in class as a scientific theory. Board members Robert Lattimer and Michael Cochran both also spoke in favor of including ID "theory" in the standards, before supporting the "teach the controversy" policy and declaring that it did not contain any ID theory.

The fact that IDers themselves introduced and supported the "teach the controversy" policy in Ohio indicates clearly that "teach the controversy" and "intelligent design" are one and the same, with the same supporters, same financial/political backers, and same framers.

In the case of Kansas, the continuity between the supporters/framers of "teach the controversy" and Creationism/design are apparent from the witnesses who testified in support of "teach the controversy" at the hearings. Among those who spoke in favor of "teach the controversy" were Stephen Meyer, William Dembski, and Jonathan Wells, all of whom were fellows at the Discovery Institute, all of whom were recognized as leading figures in the intelligent design"theory" movement, and all of whom had written extensive ID materials that were being offered as part of the "scientific arguments against evolution". Another witness was Charles Thaxton, who was one of the chief architects of the intelligent design movement's Wedge Strategy. Even more clearly than in Ohio, Kansas shows us that "teach the controversy", far from being substantially different than intelligent design 'theory", is in fact written, produced and directed by the very same people, and makes the very same arguments. There simply is no substantial difference between ID/creationism and the "teach the controversy" policies in Kansas and Ohio.

Quite aside from the fact that "teach the controversy" is indistinguishable in any substantive sense from creation 'science" and ID, if it can be shown that the policy has religious motivations, has the effect of advancing religion, or implies governmental endorsement of religion, it will independently fail on church/state grounds. And this is not difficult to show.

In Kansas, the religious motives behind the "teach the controversy" policy are explicit and obvious. The Chairman of the education board, Steve Abrams, who played a pivotal role in getting the "teach the controversy" policy adopted, has made open statements to the press pointing out his religious motivations: ""At some point in time, if you compare evolution and the Bible, you have to decide which one you believe. That's the bottom line." (Lawrence Journal-World, Sept 24, 2005) Board member Kathy Martin, when asked if ID had a religious agenda, Martin declared, "Of course this is a Christian agenda. We are a Christian nation. Our country is made up of Christian conservatives. We don't often speak up, but we need to stand up and let our voices be heard. (Pitch.Com, May 5, 2005) Prior to the hearings, Board member Connie Morris asked for a list of witnesses that those opposing the policy planned to call, explaining that she would be "praying over" the witness list. (Kansas Star, April 20,2005)

In Ohio, the board members were more careful not to speak openly of any religious motives. The Discovery Institute members and other IDers who introduced the "compromise", however, have been publicly vocal about their religious motivations. One of the early IDers to show up in Ohio was John Calvert (who was also the lawyer who questioned the 23 witnesses in the Kansas hearings). The Kansas City Star reports (June 14, 2005): "Ohio began work on its standards in 2001. It was the same year that Calvert retired early from the Lathrop & Gage law firm to devote his time to the Intelligent Design Network of Shawnee Mission, which he had co-founded. On a cold January night in 2002, Calvert was in Columbus, Ohio, to address the standards committee of the Ohio Board of Education. The committee is comprised of about half of the state board's 19 members. One of them, evolution defender Martha Wise, remembers Calvert well. "I sat through his half-hour presentation and thought, 'What is he talking about --- a higher power?' During a break, I remember going over to some people who are recognized as our Ohio Academy of Science and I said to them: 'It sounds like he is talking about God' and they said: 'You got it.' I was flabbergasted."

The conclusion seems clear and inescapable, in both Ohio and Kansas. The "teach the controversy" policy is identical in every substantive way with creation "science" and/or ID "theory, both of which have already been ruled illegal on church/state grounds. "Teach the controversy" and ID/creationism both depend on exactly the same "scientific arguments" -- none of which have ever been published in any scientific journal, none of which are accepted as valid by the scientific community, and all of which are lifted, word for word, from creation "science" and ID texts. The identical nature of the "controversy"/ID arguments is matched by a similar identity in supporters, backers and framers. The people who have put together and are pushing for adoption of "teach the controversy" are the very same people who were earlier putting together and pushing for adoption of creation "science" and/or ID "theory". And public statements from both board members and from the individuals who helped formulate and implement the "teach the controversy" policy make it clear that they are still motivated by the very same religious motives that fueled their earlier efforts to introduce creationism/ID into classrooms.

In short, "teach the controversy" *IS* creationism/intelligent design. There is no substantive difference between them. "Teach the controversy" is, transparently, nothing more than an attempt to respond to court rulings banning creationism/ID by dropping the words altogether, while leaving the arguments the same.

American's United would do well to offer a copy of the letter they supposedly sent and not let another day go by where this school district keep portraying them as bullies.

Also, I just went by there web site. No obvious mention of this riff raff in California.

Only slightly off-topic:

Why isn't there more emphasis to the other side's potential converts about viewing the issue backwards. In other words, what are the theological implications if the ID argument is correct? I've said it before and I'll say it again, if ID is right and God left fingerprints in the bacterial flagellum or some such that we're just now becoming sophisticated enough to recognize, then it signals the end of faith. If you can prove objectively that God exists, then faith becomes superfluous, and according to Christian doctorine (if I'm not mistaken; I'm no expert), that's a heresy.

After following the link to DI about their Ohio tactics, I found the January 9th posting about the American's United response to a ID philosophy class in Frazier Mountain High School outside of Bakersfield, CA.

— Liz

Lenny--

Keep a copy of your post #69807. A little editing, and you could practically submit it as an amicus curae.

There's nothing wrong with teaching basic evolutionary science in a philosophy class. I'd recommend using something like Elliott Sober's _Philosophy of Biology_ for that very subject.

You can't do philosophy of biology without knowing something about biology and evolution. I don't see that this denigrates evolution or biology.

Note: the "editorial" in the Bakersfield California was written by Marylee Shrider, "the conservative take on life in Kern County". So it makes sense the piece's spin on the issue and why the DIers would refer to it on their website. This is not an objective piece of reporting.

I agree with Mr. Christopher that the AU needs to respond.

Here are links to information about the course syllabus:

http://www.mountainenterprise.com/IntelDesignSyl/IntelDesignSyllabus051209.htm

http://www.mountainenterprise.com/IntelDesignSyl/IntelDesignSyllabus051209_kjh_markup.htm

http://www.mountainenterprise.com/IntelDesignSyl/Syllabus-051229.html

As you can see, it's all SOS (the Same Old S**t). Anything to sneak creationism into the public school curricula, by any means necessary.

Note the bit of backpedalling in the "revised" course syllabus (last link above).

You can't do philosophy of biology without knowing something about biology and evolution. I don't see that this denigrates evolution or biology.

— Jim Lippard

Comment #69800 posted by Liz on January 10, 2006 06:09 PM Instead, the school district is issued with an ultimatum according to the Bakersfield Calfiornian which reports that the districts superintendent received a nasty letter from Americans United for Separation of Church State saying in part: "Pull the intelligent design class at Frazier Mountain High School," was the letter's ominous message, "or we file an injunction."

Comment #69809 posted by Mr Christopher on January 10, 2006 06:32 PM American's United would do well to offer a copy of the letter they supposedly sent and not let another day go by where this school district keep portraying them as bullies.

Lenny,

Excellent read. I agree with B. Spitzer. You should keep a copy of this for later. Perhaps forward a copy to Mr. Rotheschild, see if he'd like to carry the banner just a little further?

A Law suit has been filed by AU against El Tejon (ie. Frazier Mountain)
...

See the AP article.

There's nothing wrong with teaching basic evolutionary science in a philosophy class. I'd recommend using something like Elliott Sober's _Philosophy of Biology_ for that very subject. You can't do philosophy of biology without knowing something about biology and evolution. I don't see that this denigrates evolution or biology.

— Jim Lippard

Liz thanks for that update. Ok, warm up chief intelligent deign creationism theologian William Dembski for the defense and bring on the Discovery Institute!

Lenny--- Keep a copy of your post #69807. A little editing, and you could practically submit it as an amicus curae.

— B. Spitzer

Larry Fafman: Doesn't the quote from the letter say it all ? The quote does not ask that the course be modified; the quote just asks the school district to "pull" the course --- or else.

Having evolution discussed in a philosophy class would be good IF:

It was examining different ways of "knowing" about the world, in this case the diversity of species and human origins, i.e. ID = faith driving logical reasoning, evolution = empirical evidence driving logical reasoning, greek mythology = faith driving logical reasoning. Then asking the questions such as 'Which should carry more weight, and why?', and 'why is there no longer a belief in the Greek pantheon of gods?'

Or

It was discussing the philosophical implications of the reality of evolution on personal and/or religious beliefs regarding one's place in the world.

It could be quite confronting for some.

However I have a sneaking suspicion that in this class evolution will be relegated (denigrated) to a belief system that one can choose to believe or not, rather than an empirically demonstrated reality.

Isn't it nice that Sharon (the teacher) is planning on presenting a balance of treatment of ID and evolution....

(As exerpted from her syllabus)

2. What is Intelligent Design? @ 5 days

3. What is Darwinism/ Evolution? @5 days

There is actually 5 days of materials to present on ID?

Ha!

And as biblical creation begat natural theolology and that begat creation science and that begat intelligent design and that begat teach the controversy so will teach the controversy inevitably beget? its own spawn and so ad infinitum wasting scarce taxpayer resources and the eager contributions of countless minions of the faithful with nothing else to do with their hard earned wages while waiting for the rapture. Meanwhile Philip Johnson is crying all the way to the bank. James Dobson should take a lesson from this boy.

Students will prepare a position paper supporting their beliefs on the subject of evolution or intelligent design

Comment #69822 posted by B. Spitzer on January 10, 2006 06:57 PM Lenny--- Keep a copy of your post #69807. A little editing, and you could practically submit it as an amicus curae.

It's interesting that the syllabus pretty much identifies the conclusion of each component of the course. For example, under What is ID? the question is asked whether it is based on science, and under What is darwinism/evolution? the question is asked whether it is based on a religion.

The course answers will of course be Yes and Yes, based on such seminal scientific works as (imagine Troy McLure speaking here) Of Pandas and People and Icons of Evolution.

The real answers are of course No and No. But we should never let the facts get in the way of the "Truth"!

Americans United, representing parents of Frazier High students, sent a Jan. 4 letter to Superintendent John Wight and school board members advising them that teaching a particular religious viewpoint in a public school class violates the constitutional separation of church and state. ... The "Philosophy of Design" course description, which was given to students and their families in early December, stated that it would "take a close look at evolution as a theory and will discuss the scientific, biological, and Biblical aspects that suggest why Darwin's philosophy is not rock solid.... Physical and chemical evidence will be presented suggesting the earth is thousands of years old, not billions." ... In its order seeking to block the high school from teaching the course, Americans United noted that teacher Sharon Lemburg proposed the course for overtly religious reasons. Lemburg wrote the course description and also prepared a course syllabus showing that intelligent design would be the primary topic of discussion. ID maintains that life is so complex that an intelligent entity, likely God, must have created it. For example, Lemburg's syllabus asks why ID is "gaining momentum" and why it is "so threatening to society, the educational system and evolutionists." The original syllabus for the class listed 24 videos for potential use, virtually all of them produced by religious organizations and centered on attacking evolution and advancing intelligent design. One video, called "Chemicals to Living Cells: Fantasy or Science," is produced by a Christian ministry called Answers in Genesis.

Keep a copy of your post #69807. A little editing, and you could practically submit it as an amicus curae.

My posting wasn't a "straw man," it was a response to a specific comment here.

Now that I've read more about this particular class in California, it sounds like it doesn't contain much in the way of philosophy or science. It should be an easy win for AU.

The "Philosophy of Design" course description, which was given to students and their families in early December, stated that it would "take a close look at evolution as a theory and will discuss the scientific, biological, and Biblical aspects that suggest why Darwin's philosophy is not rock solid....

Sorry, that should be AU, not ACLU.

Of course, it'd be nice for ACLU to jump right on in. ;)

Larry, is there any topic for which you think it might be useful to wait for information before jumping to an unwarranted conclusion?

larry I think some folks in California could use a good legal strategist right about now. Are you busy?

My posting wasn't a "straw man," it was a response to a specific comment here.

Now that I've read more about this particular class in California, it sounds like it doesn't contain much in the way of philosophy or science. It should be an easy win for AU.

The Intelligent Design Hoax. Now that rolls nicely off the tongue. Thanks Popper's ghost.

Let's see that phrase, or its corollary The Intelligent Design Fraud, spread.

Help me out legal eagles...doesn't the fact that Ms. Lemberg's class is optional weaken's AU case? I understand that Ms. Lemberg's class is a poor excuse for a class in secondary education and could probably further the indoctrination of the students whose parents approve their attendence. However, this class is an elective and if the local school board wants to pay a teacher to teach it, how is this a violation of the establishment clause and not an expression of free speech?

The Intelligent Design Hoax. Now that rolls nicely off the tongue. Thanks Popper's ghost.

However, this class is an elective and if the local school board wants to pay a teacher to teach it, how is this a violation of the establishment clause and not an expression of free speech?

Extracted from Comment #69865:Americans United press release about their suit against the El Tejon Unified School District: For example, Lemburg's syllabus asks why ID is "gaining momentum"

and why it is "so threatening to society, the educational system and evolutionists."

The original syllabus for the class listed 24 videos for potential use, virtually all of them produced by religious organizations and centered on attacking evolution and advancing intelligent design.

One video, called "Chemicals to Living Cells: Fantasy or Science," is produced by a Christian ministry called Answers in Genesis.

"Americans United for (lefty, Darwinist, atheist church group) files suit to keep intelligent design out of philosophy class"

Lawsuit filed by the Americans United for...to Stop Scocial Studies Teacher from Teaching Intelligent Design with Creationist Material"

Lenny Flank asked, "I think one has to be invited by someone involved in the case to submit an amicus brief ... ?"

AFAIK, anyone can petition a court to file an amicus brief. The petitioner has to demonstrate some special interest in the case, or some special expertise, and be able to provide a unique perspective on the facts in the case. The judge can allow or deny the petition. Unlike the DI, most petitioners actually ask before filing.

Has anyone already posted Ken Hurst's critique of the proposed IDC course?

In March 2003, the [Ohio] Board passed a modified version of the lesson plan which, while erasing all of the references to intelligent design "theory", nevertheless accepted most of the Discovery Institute's "teach the controversy" strategy and included many of the supposed "scientific criticisms of evolution" that have been trotted out for years by the Discovery Institute and other creationists.

— 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank

Board members Robert Lattimer and Michael Cochran both also spoke in favor of including ID "theory" in the standards, before supporting the "teach the controversy" policy and declaring that it did not contain any ID theory.

— 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank

larry I think some folks in California could use a good legal strategist right about now. Are you busy?

— Mr Christopher

Comment #69882 posted by Ed Darrell on January 10, 2006 10:24 PM Larry, is there any topic for which you think it might be useful to wait for information before jumping to an unwarranted conclusion?

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 11, 2006 04:37 AM (e) (s) Comment #69882 posted by Ed Darrell on January 10, 2006 10:24 PM Larry, is there any topic for which you think it might be useful to wait for information before jumping to an unwarranted conclusion?

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 10, 2006 07:39 PM (e) (s) ... Doesn't the quote from the letter say it all ? The quote does not ask that the course be modified; the quote just asks the school district to "pull" the course --- or else...

Comment #69847 posted by Andrea Bottaro on January 10, 2006 08:09 PM Larry Fafman: *****Doesn't the quote from the letter say it all ? The quote does not ask that the course be modified; the quote just asks the school district to "pull" the course --- or else.***** As I read it, that quote is from Wight describing what the letter says, no the letter itself. It seems rather unlikely that AU has lawyers who say, literally: "Pull the intelligent design class at Frazier Mountain High School, or we file an injunction."

Comment #69980 posted by Stephen Elliott on January 11, 2006 04:57 AM How do you know it was a "quote" from the letter?

That's obviously NOT a quote from the letter, clearly a clumsy paraphrase by the shrill columnist.

Larry,
It would seem to me that a lot of people in the USA would like to have their religion taught as fact in public schools. They also seem to want anything that they think challenges their religious viewpoint banned.

ID is/was a front to get religion into science classes.

The weird thing is, that if all this actually succeeded then the very people who wanted it would be among the most outraged.

What a can of worms it would open. Eventually almost anything could be taught at taxpayers expense. Whatever any individual teacher wanted to spout-off about would be OK.

A short while ago on PT we had a thread that was a mini religious war. Christians come in all shapes and sizes...to the point where describing someone as a Christian says very little.

Imagine the outcry from someone who thought evolution was a threat to their religion when they find out their children are being taught the wrong (in their point of view) religion as a scientific fact.

Comment #69994 posted by ben on January 11, 2006 08:12 AM That's obviously NOT a quote from the letter, clearly a clumsy paraphrase by the shrill columnist.

"hey, let's talk about this?"

Larry,
Thanks for this link.

http://www.bakersfield.com/updates/story/5817917...

Did you actually read it?

If so, do you think it was a neutral and unbiased report? Do you consider the writer to be a dogged journalist in search of truth?

Or maybe it is possible that it was written by someone with an agenda.

Am I the only one who has difficulty with the phrase "Philosophy of Biology"?

I can understand "Philosophy and Biology," or "Philosophical Implications of Biology," or even "Philosophy of Science." But I confess I can't see what the philosophy of biology (per se) would be.

Are there also distinct philosophies of chemistry, geology, astronomy, etc.?

As for teach the controversy, the IDCers might have some success with this. Of course, there is *no* scientific controversy, so teaching the supposed criticisms of evolutionary theory that they trot out is flat out misinformation. However, I don't think that there are many (enforced) state laws about teaching badly or delivering incorrect material. However, since this particular misinformation is organized around an unconstitutional central message/goal (even if unspoken), is it possible that it could also be found unconstitutional? Does anyone know?

Also, one thing left out of Lenny's post. The only supposed 'evidence' for ID that IDCers have ever trotted out has in fact been a body of (incorrect) criticisms of evolutionary theory. Thus, it seems that taking this body of (incorrect) criticisms and simply dropping that now-troublesome label before delivering it would still amount to establishment.

Comment #69858 Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 10, 2006 08:51 PM (e) (s) Comment #69822 posted by B. Spitzer on January 10, 2006 06:57 PM Lenny--- Keep a copy of your post #69807. A little editing, and you could practically submit it as an amicus curae.

Comment #69905 Posted by Liz on January 10, 2006 11:39 PM (e) (s) Help me out legal eagles...doesn't the fact that Ms. Lemberg's class is optional weaken's AU case? I understand that Ms. Lemberg's class is a poor excuse for a class in secondary education and could probably further the indoctrination of the students whose parents approve their attendence. However, this class is an elective and if the local school board wants to pay a teacher to teach it, how is this a violation of the establishment clause and not an expression of free speech?

larry it is too bad that you are so dedicated to being nothing but a distraction here. There are some very bright and well educated folks. There is a ton that can be learned here but you are so busy trying to push your personal agenda that you are missing out on some very good information and very good insight.

That's a not a bright plan for enlightened living.

Comment #69932 posted by Scott on January 11, 2006 01:02 AM Lenny Flank asked, "I think one has to be invited by someone involved in the case to submit an amicus brief ... ?" AFAIK, anyone can petition a court to file an amicus brief. The petitioner has to demonstrate some special interest in the case, or some special expertise, and be able to provide a unique perspective on the facts in the case. The judge can allow or deny the petition. Unlike the DI, most petitioners actually ask before filing.

Comment #70033 posted by Moses on January 11, 2006 10:03 AM Lenny wasn't pushing himself out as an Internet 'legal expert' in bashing a highly qualified judge while fumbling around and exposing himself for an incompetent armature with dubious interpretations and conclusions.

And, as I will point, you don't have to be an attorney to hold an opinion or have a good understanding of the issues.

And nice way to treat an unsolicited compliment.

Comment #69996 posted by Stephen Elliott on January 11, 2006 08:16 AM Larry, It would seem to me that a lot of people in the USA would like to have their religion taught as fact in public schools. They also seem to want anything that they think challenges their religious viewpoint banned.

Context Noun 1. context - discourse that surrounds a language unit and helps to determine its interpretation 2. context - the set of facts or circumstances that surround a situation or event; "the historical context"

And the Americans United for Separation of Church and State wants all challenges to evolution banned from public schools. They are even opposed to having ID in philosophy classes.

My reasons for favoring the teaching of ID in public schools are non-religious.

Comment #70045 posted by Mr Christopher on January 11, 2006 10:34 AM larry it is too bad that you are so dedicated to being nothing but a distraction here. There are some very bright and well educated folks. There is a ton that can be learned here but you are so busy trying to push your personal agenda that you are missing out on some very good information and very good insight.

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 11, 2006 11:39 AM (e) (s) Comment #70045 posted by Mr Christopher on January 11, 2006 10:34 AM larry it is too bad that you are so dedicated to being nothing but a distraction here. There are some very bright and well educated folks. There is a ton that can be learned here but you are so busy trying to push your personal agenda that you are missing out on some very good information and very good insight.

Are you just posting as a joke?

Evolution theory is no more scientific than the irreducible complexity concept of ID. Evolution theory cannot be used to make predictions of macro-evolution, because macro-evolution in progress cannot be directly observed.

[T]hose evolutionary changes that are so drastic that they have never been directly observed.

hehehehehe Jim almost right.
Except it is we performing an experiment on the archetypal cretin.
Larry has Darwinian envy, he believes he is inferior and it would suit him much better if the theory was just plain wrong.

Inferiority . Complex , . and . Power.

LOL. The irony is almost beyond belief.
Are you just posting as a joke? Maybe to get material for a comedy show you are writing.

If so, then someone should tell Larry not to give up his day job; I DO write comedy, but I'd get booed off the stage if I used his stuff...

Comment #70076 posted by Stephen Elliott on January 11, 2006 11:49 AM I really would hate to see you banned Larry.

It should be seen as an obvious end-run to circumvent the Lemon test that got the board in trouble in Dover. It's pretty clear from the context in which all ID courses have/will arise that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a target of a certain group of people who are offering religious explanations in lieu of scientific explanations. Just moving the specific religious criticisms of Evolution from the Biology class to the Philosophy class doesn't change the underlying religious motivations.

— Moses

Judge Jones noted that Meyer's expert witness report was included as an appendix in DI's own brief(the one submitted on Oct. 17). If that witness report caused this brief to exceed the normal limit for amicus briefs (5,000 words or so many pages ?), then I think that Jones was right in rejecting the brief (but I think he rejected it for the wrong reasons). I don't know whether deleting Meyer's expert witness report would have required re-writing the brief. In any case, this was near the end of the trial and DI was running out of time --- the brief should have been submitted much earlier to allow problems to be ironed out. I think that the judge should have accepted a normal length brief from DI, for the simple reason that DI is the most prominent ID-promoting organization. The judge should have treated DI as though Dembski and Meyer (who I presume are both affiliated with DI) had never been scheduled to testify.

— Larry

This is a clear cut case. If in fact the teacher is espousing ID or creationism, the class should be disallowed. If the teacher is discussing ID or creationism in their social context without espousing them, the class should be allowed. It's as simple as that. Now the trick becomes finding out and proving which tack the teacher is taking.

Re Post 69813

That's an excellent observation, Bill. I've often wondered why more have not observed this conundrum facing the Christian apologist. If
proof could be given that a god exists then what the need of faith?
One would be up against Hebrews 11:6-

"And without faith it would be impossible to please Him."

Archie Bunker defined faith as-

"It ain't supposed to make sense; it's faith. Faith is something you believe that no one in his right mind would believe."

I know whereof I speak as I taught a branch of Christianity for 16
years in my early wasted life.

qetzal: Yes, philosophy of biology is quite a respectable field, with journals, symposia and conferences and so on. It is probably the second oldest subfield of the philosophy of science (afer philosophy of physics). And yes, there are philosophies of X for every field of inquiry X. However, one should know about X as at least a corequisite to doing philosophy of X. This is why I oppose teaching "intelligent design" in philosophy classes. Teach about it, as a great example of pseudoscience motivated by religion, sure. But I am firmly convinced a nonscientific philosophy is at best worthless. And antiscienfic one, like one that would espouse "intelligent design" certainly has no place in schools.

Dover Teaches

The sea is calm to-night.
The news is full, the Court rules fair
On ID's fate----on legal fronts the light
Gleams at least for now; the cliffs of Science stand,
We hope secure, out in our natural world.
Thanks to Judge Jones' ruling, sweet is nature's air!
Only, from old anxieties still at large,
Where reason jolts sectarian hope,
Listen! you hear evolution tell
Of evidence consiliently displayed, and bring,
The neutral note of science in.

Plato, later Paley, long ago
Attempted to deny this natural trend
Proclaiming rather that this ebb and flow
Not earthly matter, but
Plan and Spirit do announce:
And also find therein a thought,
That science can approve and render true.

The Sea of Faith
Was once, too, at the full, round Nature's shore
Lay like the folds of a bright girdle furl'd.
But now I only hear
Its melancholy, long, withdrawing roar,
Retreating, to the breath
Of wishful thinking, of deception bred by fear
And naked dogmas of the world.

Ah, Science, let us be true
To nature, as the world we strive to know
That seems so complex, and planned, as if for us;
So wondrously designed it looks to all,
Hath really neither morals, virtue, sin.

Nor blessed certitude, nor Final Truth;
But science classrooms can't surrender to
Confused religious strife, sectarian struggles,
Where ignorant armies clash by night.

(Apologies to Matthew Arnold, "Dover Beach")

Intelligent Design: Burning Bright, or Paper Tiger?

ID's ID

ID, ID, burning bright
Rescue us from Darwin's fright
Beastly origin of our race
Evolution's dread embrace.

But what science or what art
Frames immortal hand, eye, heart?
Can we force religion's claim,
Dare pronounce His very name?

Yahweh, Zeus, or Allah, then?
Yaldaboath, Urizen?
Raël's ET DNA?
Hosts of deities at play?

Ask the Ichneumonidae
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Who created Heav'n and Hell,
Human creativity?

ID's ID burning bright
Through obscuring fog and night
Whether wielding Wedge or prism
ID is: Creationism.

(Apologies to William Blake, "The Tiger")

Casey Is A Wack

The Outlook wasn't brilliant for the Institute that day;
After they lost Dover, the donors wouldn't pay.
And then Behe died in testimony, and Minich did the same,
A sickly silence fell upon the patrons of the ID game.

A straggling few got up to go in deep despair. The rest
Clung to that hope which springs eternal in their tiny brains
They thought, if only Casey could tell a lie or two
We'd put up even money, now, 'cause Casey's such a tool.

So Dembski whined to Casey, as did also John G West,
And the former was a lulu and the latter was a cake;
So upon that stricken Institute grim melancholy grew
For there seemed but little chance of Casey's getting to the truth.

Then from 5,000 Christian throats and more there rose a lusty hymn;
It rumbled through the School Board, it rattled in the gymn;
It came up from the sewer and recoiled upon the plain,
For Casey, wack-job Casey, was writing something lame.

There was grease in Casey's manner as he stepped into his place;
There were lies in Casey's writing and drool on Casey's face.
And when, responding to the DI cheers, he slandered a good judge,
No stranger in the crowd could doubt 'twas Casey throwing fudge.

Ten thousand eyes were on him as he tried to obfuscate
Five thousand Pandas taunted him for his large mistakes.
Then while the writhing preacher called down the wrath of God,
Chromosomes gleamed in Casey's eye, but PZ mowed him down.

Do you see my point he begged, the chromosomes say NO!
And Casey stood a-hopin his argument could go;
Close by the flakey Discovery tool, the answer unheeded sped-
"That ain't my style," said Casey. "Strike one," the Pandas said.

From the benches, black with people, there went up a muffled roar,
Like the beating of the storm-waves on a stern and distant shore.
"Kill him! Kill the Scientist" shouted someone on the Christian right;
And its likely they'd a-killed him if Casey had his way tonight.

Never one for Christian charity, slick Casey's visage shone;
He stirred the rising tumult; he wanted science gone.
He tried to count the chromosomes, and once more the answers flew;
But Casey still ignored them, and the Pandas said, "Strike two."

DI is "Fraud!" cried the maddened thousands, and echo answered fraud;
But at a special pleading try from Casey, the audience guffawed.
They saw his face grow stern and cold, they saw his girly muscles strain,
And they knew that Casey didn't have the balls to go again.

The sneer is stuck on Casey's lip, his teeth are clenched in hate;
He pounds with cruel violence upon the Buckeye State.
Once more the PT board responds, throws the answer back to him,
And now Casey is shattered by the force of Pandas' reason.

Oh, somewhere in this favored land the sun is shining bright;
The band is playing somewhere, and somewhere hearts are light,
And somewhere men are laughing, and somewhere children shout;
Because there is no joy at Discovery - slimy Casey has struck out.

With Apologies to Ernest L. Thayer.

wow.
now that was some serious creativity; nice job, both! you should work on getting those published somewhere. Or at least posted for posterity somewhere linkable from PT.

made my day.

Yes, philosophy of biology is quite a respectable field, with journals, symposia and conferences and so on. It is probably the second oldest subfield of the philosophy of science (afer philosophy of physics).

Most objectionable here from my point of view is that this course is being taught by someone apparently completely lacking in credentials relevant to philosophy. She's the wife of an Assemblies of God pastor who is a special education teacher! No, I don't think philosophy and special ed are intellectual cousins, and the probability that someone associated with the A/G has credentials in philosophy is not zero, but...

Why are we having poorly qualified social studies teachers teach a meaty philosophy course when there are plenty of jobless philosophy majors out there who would jump at the opportunity to stop eating dog food, at least for the 1 month duration of the course?

I kid, but seriously, I think philosophy should have a place in secondary school education. Since it's as useful for doing science as studying Latin is for learning European languages or developing good writing skills.

This is a clear cut case. If in fact the teacher is espousing ID or creationism, the class should be disallowed. If the teacher is discussing ID or creationism in their social context without espousing them, the class should be allowed. It's as simple as that. Now the trick becomes finding out and proving which tack the teacher is taking.

Apparently on the first version of the syllabus the teacher claimed to have "Francis Krich" as a guest speaker, and Ken Hurst figured out that she meant Francis Crick, who was dead at the time. Ouch. I hope she's not teaching Special Ed just because the administration figured she'd do the least damage there...

ah, so this IS the same person that wanted to have Crick speak. I was a bit confused about that specific issue.

so... she's just a complete nutter then?

i doubt this would have gotten ANY press at all if it weren't for Dover.

Comment #70110 posted by W. Kevin Vicklund on January 11, 2006 01:14 PM Not just Meyer's expert witness report, but Dembski's as well

do appendices qualify as part of the length restriction?

the brief was a dishonest attempt to get the two expert witness reports into the record without them being subjected to cross-examination.

Another thing to note: the two parties had an agreement that if Dembski's expert witness report made it into the record, Shallit would be allowed to testify for the plaintiffs for rebuttal. This would have made the trial even longer than it was.

The judge noted that the brief was too intertwined with the expert reports to be admitted without rewrite.

Had you read the full order, you would have known the judge told the DI that he would accept a rewrite if the DI removed all reference to the expert reports.

The judge should not have treated DI as though Dembski and Meyer had never been scheduled to testify. Permitting such an abuse of the system would set a dangerous precedent, as parties could protect their expert witnesses from cross-examination.

quack...quack...quack...

Comment #70082 posted by qetzal on January 11, 2006 12:05 PM Over on the 'ID offers biblical alternative...' thread, Larry wrote (#69810): *****Evolution theory is no more scientific than the irreducible complexity concept of ID. Evolution theory cannot be used to make predictions of macro-evolution, because macro-evolution in progress cannot be directly observed.***** When challenged about that claim, part of his justification was that he prefers to define macro-evolution as (#69984): ******[T]hose evolutionary changes that are so drastic that they have never been directly observed.****** The possibility that someone might really think this way just boggles the mind.

hey larry:

after having to scroll through mountains of your drool, the only question i have for you is:

is fafarman an alias, or is farma an alias, or are they both aliases?

I came into this a little late but I would like to register an objection to the use of the words "hoax" and "fraud" to label ID. A hoax is the deliberate production of an artifact or possibly data for someone else to discover and come to an erroneous conclusion about. The Cardiff Giant and Piltdown man are examples. Hoaxes usually aren't driven by an underlying agenda beyond tweaking someone else nose and making them look foolish. A fraud (cold fusion or So. Korean cloning scandal) occurrs when someone deliberately falsifies data either for personal gain or to advance an agenda. Since ID has no published data or discovered anythings and has no intention of producing anything amenable to investigation it is someting else. Intelligent design is not "wrong" or "false": what it is is useless as an investigative scientific tool. There are already 2 accurate descriptions of ID relative to science and those are "pseudoscience" and "belief". These are the words that most accurately describe it. As M. Behe so accurately placed in the same category as astrology the gold standard of pseudoscience up to now.

Two quibbles:

Lenny wasn't pushing himself out as an Internet 'legal expert'

jobless philosophy majors

The only supposed 'evidence' for ID that IDCers have ever trotted out has in fact been a body of (incorrect) criticisms of evolutionary theory. Thus, it seems that taking this body of (incorrect) criticisms and simply dropping that now-troublesome label before delivering it would still amount to establishment.

Comment #70261 posted by Sir_Toejam on January 11, 2006 07:22 PM hey larry: is fafarman an alias, or is farma an alias, or are they both aliases?

C'mon Lenny. Where is your sense of fun. Surely you could buy an LLB (or the US equivalent) over the internet. You could be 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank 'LLB' and then you COULD play an internet lawyer.

Pro - are the IDists not fraudulently misrepresenting science and scientific data to promote their beliefs? ID Fraud fits the bill in my book.

My real name is Larry Fafarman. LarryFarma@aol.com is the screen name that my dad gave to me when he signed me on to his AOL account, and I have used if ever since.

Comment #70296 posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on January 11, 2006 08:09 PM ****Lenny wasn't pushing himself out as an Internet 'legal expert'**** Indeed, I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on the Internet. As I clearly noted, my thoughts on the matter were, well, just my thoughts on the matter.

Larry:

since i know you can do it, as evidenced by your post above, might i suggest shortening your rambling missives to the following:

when speaking about Kitzmiller, stick to the following:

I don't like Judge Jones.

The trial wasn't fair.

when speaking about ET and ID:

I only listen to talking points from the Discovery Institute, everything else is wrong.

for any other topic use the following:

"I am a revisionist, not a denier"

I think this will make your positions succinct and clear, and waste far less space on this site (and help the rest of us scroll past your posts faster).

thanks

oh, and i don't claim copyright on those phrases, larry, so feel free to use them as is as many times as you like.

Just don't bother to elaborate, as these phrases clearly need no elaboration.

C'mon Lenny. Where is your sense of fun. Surely you could buy an LLB (or the US equivalent) over the internet. You could be 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank 'LLB' and then you COULD play an internet lawyer.

I would just like to add some more to my Comment #70246 of this thread.

In that comment, I noted that trying to sneak an expert witness's unrebutted opinions in through the "back door" by putting them in an amicus brief is not a good idea, because amicus briefs carry much less weight than courtroom testimony. There is no better illustration of the relative insignificance of amicus briefs than the fact that briefs rebutting them (variously called "answering briefs" or "reply briefs") are normally not permitted. Judges probably routinely ignore amicus briefs. An exception was Harvard's amicus brief submitted in the Bakke case (one of 62 briefs submitted, I believe) -- that brief played a major role in the Supreme Court's decision.

The acceptance of an amicus brief from the Foundation for Thought and Ethics (publisher of the book Of Pandas and People) in the Dover case was really not adequate compensation for the denial of FTE's motion to intervene.

see, there ya go, larry.

your last post would have been much clearer if you had simply used of of the Larry Phrases (TM) i posted for you.

In this case, the one you should have used was:

The trial wasn't fair.

see how easy that was?

Request ---

Would those quoting or otherwise responding to other comments please give the comment number of the comment that they are responding to ? Many commenters here give just the name of the author of the original comment or nothing at all. The comment number is very useful for checking the context of the original quotes or ideas and also for responding directly to the original commenter. Thanks.

Scary Larry

Comment #70299 posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on January 11, 2006 08:19 PM ****The only supposed 'evidence' for ID that IDCers have ever trotted out has in fact been a body of (incorrect) criticisms of evolutionary theory. Thus, it seems that taking this body of (incorrect) criticisms and simply dropping that now-troublesome label before delivering it would still amount to establishment.**** Yes. Particularly when every one of those (incorrect) criticisms is nothing but rehashed ICR boilerplate from forty years ago, all of which has already been ruled as religious.

So how exactly did the court judge a non religious critiscism of evolution?

What is "rehashed" about irreducible complexity ? It is a fairly old concept, but became well-known only in the last few years.

— Larry Fafarman

What is "rehashed" about irreducible complexity ? It is a fairly old concept, but became well-known only in the last few years. None of the previous court cases dealing with the teaching of creationism in the public schools dealt with the concept of irreducible complexity. The Dover case, in dealing with the concept of irreducible complexity, was breaking new ground. Anyway, I don't think that the courts should be in the business of judging non-religious criticisms of evolution theory, e.g., irreducible complexity.

Actually I will correct myself. Paley of course first used the "it looks designed to me, therefore it must be designed" argument (another favorite of Behe's). The argument from ignorance has probably been around since time immemorial, and is still going strong today.

Let's remember that Judge Jones was there when Behe - the 'inventor' of irreducible complexity - was there being cross examined. Judge Jones was also there when other scientists were being cross examined on the subject.

Some nice quotes on irreducible complexity from the Judge (emphasis mine):

"As referenced, the concept of irreducible complexity is ID's alleged scientific centerpiece. Irreducible complexity is a negative argument against evolution, not proof of design, a point conceded by defense expert Professor Minnich."

"Irreducible complexity additionally fails to make a positive scientific case for ID,"

"Professor Behe excludes, by definition, the possibility that a precursor to the bacterial flagellum functioned not as a rotary motor, but in some other way, for example as a secretory system."

"As expert testimony revealed, the qualification on what is meant by "irreducible complexity" renders it meaningless as a criticism of evolution."

"We therefore find that Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large. Additionally, even if irreducible complexity had not been rejected, it still does not support ID as it is merely a test for evolution, not design."

Comment #70541 posted by Red Mann on January 12, 2006 08:50 AM Just because things don't work when you pull pieces of them off after they are made, doesn't mean they weren't put together one piece at a time.

Comment #70546 posted by Tim Hague on January 12, 2006 08:59 AM Some nice quotes on irreducible complexity from the Judge (emphasis mine): "As referenced, the concept of irreducible complexity is ID's alleged scientific centerpiece. Irreducible complexity is a negative argument against evolution, not proof of design, a point conceded by defense expert Professor Minnich."

(Judge Jones said --) "Irreducible complexity additionally fails to make a positive scientific case for ID"

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 12, 2006 11:48 AM (e) (s) ... The courts should not be in the business of judging the scientific merits of criticisms of evolution theory...

(performed while holding his hands over his eyes) I will not read TalkOrigins because I might learn my arguments are wrong and I prefer ignorance. Na na na (performed while holding his hands over his ears) Na na na, I can't hear you, na na na ... (performed while holding his hands over his mouth like a mega phone) I refuse to keep on topic in a thread because the rules just don't apply to me and everyone has the obligation to hear what I say!

— Larry F.

I never played lawyer on the Internet, either.

I refuse to keep on topic in a thread because the rules just don't apply to me and everyone has the obligation to hear what I say!

Comment #70597 posted by Stephen Elliott on January 12, 2006 12:01 PM Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 12, 2006 11:48 AM ****The courts should not be in the business of judging the scientific merits of criticisms of evolution theory...**** But you should be?

Comment #70609 posted by Andrew McClure on January 12, 2006 12:29 PM ****I never played lawyer on the Internet, either.***** Right--- you just tried to present yourself as a legal expert with litigation experience and more authoritative law knowledge than either your debate opponents or federal judges.

The problem is that they remove the ability to use the site for legitimate purposes, by flooding out ontopic discussion with their own personal pet topics---

The argument from ignorance has probably been around since time immemorial, and is still going strong today

Where is it written that a scientific theory may not be criticized without at the same time introducing a plausible alternative scientific theory or hypothesis ?

Larry, I'm tellin' ya, you would do much better if you would stick to the Larry Phrases(TM) i made for you.

here take these examples:

Comment #70594 would state your position much more succinctly thusly:

I only listen to talking points from the Discovery Institute, everything else is wrong.

The trial wasn't fair.

I only listen to talking points from the Discovery Institute, everything else is wrong.

see how much cleaner and to the point that is? it essentially outlines your arguments correctly, without wasting space.

here's another example (Comment #70642):

I don't like Judge Jones.

see? taste's great, but less filling.

try it, you'll see it works in this forum exactly the same way as all that unnecessary typing you force yourself to do does.

The argument from ignorance has probably been around since time immemorial, and is still going strong today.

— Tim Hague

am really getting whipsawed here --- my comments on one thread are being quoted and analyzed on another thread !!

OK, let me put it this way. No truly testable theory of macro-evolution is possible, because macro-evolution cannot be directly observed. *snip loads of drivel*

Evolutionists claim that macro-evolution just consists of series of micro-evolutions, but there is no evidence that this is possible, and this idea is counter-intuitive and contrary to reason.

Also, there is plenty of evidence of irreducible complexity. Some of the attempts to explain away irreducible complexity are very far-fetched. For example, there is the notion that the parts of some seemingly irreducible complex systems previously had functions as independent parts, even though those functions might have been different from the functions in the complete system (when a part changes function in evolution, it is called "exaptation"). But these parts must often have been quite a bit different in structure or operation when they had independent functions --- e.g., it has been argued that the middle ear bones evolved from jawbones, an argument noted and accepted in the Dover opinion. Yet supposedly all of these different parts suddenly simultaneously appeared in their final forms to form the complete system --- that seems extremely unlikely. Also, parts that had essential functions as independent parts would not have been available to form the complete system.

One can become overly obsessed with accepting evidence even when that evidence defies common sense. An example is the following joke about the trial of an alleged chicken thief --- Defendant (to witness) --- "Did you see me enter the henhouse?" Witness --- "Yes." Defendant --- "Did you see me leave the henhouse?" Witness --- "No." Defendant --- "Aha ! I'm still in that henhouse !" Evolution theory is counter-intuitive and contrary to reason. I would find it easier to believe that the world is no older than 60 years (my own approximate age --- I have not seen with my own eyes that the world existed before that) than to believe in evolution theory. Scary Larry

Comment #70671 posted by Tim Hague on January 12, 2006 03:34 PM Larry replied: ****Where is it written that a scientific theory may not be criticized without at the same time introducing a plausible alternative scientific theory or hypothesis ?***** Larry - all you had to do was read FOUR LINES down my post where I posted another line from the Judge: "As expert testimony revealed, the qualification on what is meant by "irreducible complexity" renders it meaningless as a criticism of evolution."

Comment #70721 osted by Edin Najetovic on January 12, 2006 05:21 PM Evolutionists do not claim that macro evolution consists of loads of micro evolution, they just claim there is no distinction between the two.

if you can find one example of irreducible complexity not working, change it to a more workable definition or throw it out the window.

It has been pointed out by those wiser than me that credibly reworking irreducible complexity to a workable tool of observation is not possible.

Larry ...woe is me ....who chose the losing "fundamentalist credibility" side... produces more insatiable self identity desires of irrelevant opinion causing him to accept nonsense as evidence said:

"They have their opinions and I have mine."

Larry opinion is not fact. You can get it in practically all of the media these days as thought it were fact.

Turds dressed up as Caramels.

Your imagination will try to fool you, but they still taste like turds.

c'mon larry, say it with me now:

#70770

I don't like Judge Jones.

#70839

I only listen to talking points from the Discovery Institute, everything else is wrong.

oh and relying on "wikipedia" as a primary source of information is a trap many of us fall into larry, when we are too lazy to do any real research.

are you that lazy larry, to assume you can understand how evolutionary theory is applied by referring to wiki definitions?

trust me, evolutionary biologist don't use terms like "macroevolution" when they publish studies involving evolutionary theory.

the term is quite meaningless to anybody but a creationist.

you continue to astound and amaze with your unsubstantiated suppositions and illogic, super larry.

"old coot", doesn't even begin to describe the apparent place you exist.

Comment #70882 posted by Sir_Toejam on January 12, 2006 10:15 PM I only listen to talking points from the Discovery Institute, everything else is wrong.

oh and relying on "wikipedia" as a primary source of information is a trap many of us fall into larry, when we are too lazy to do any real research

I have found Wikipedia to be a darn good, usually unbiased introduction to many subjects, and I rarely find Wikipedia to be wrong. This is a bit surprising, considering that anyone can edit a lot of the Wikipedia articles.

And you only listen to the talking points of the following --- everything else is wrong ---

lol. and do you think any of us here think your opinions on the accuracy and precision of an online encyclopedia influential in ANY way?

In addition, after a careful review of the Discovery Institute's submission, we find that the amicus brief is not only reliant upon several portions of Mr. Meyer's attached expert report, but also improperly addresses Mr. Dembski's assertions in detail, once again without affording Plaintiffs any opportunity to challenge such views by cross-examination. Accordingly, the "Brief of Amicus Curiae, the Discovery Institute" shall be stricken in its entirety.2 In the event that the Discovery Institute requests to re-file an amicus curiae brief, it shall file such brief in accordance with the confines of this Order and shall concurrently file a motion seeking leave to file such submission.

— Judge Jones, an Order (re: DI Amicus Briefs),

One big mistake I did find in Wikipedia was the classification of Dover defendant William Buckingham as a "hostile witness" just because he was called to the stand by the plaintiffs' attorneys instead of by the defense attorneys. He could be declared to be a hostile witness only by the judge at the request of a defense attorney while testifying for the defense.

— Larry, 70897,

Rule 611. Mode and Order of Interrogation and Presentation (a) Control by court. The court shall exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of interrogating witnesses and presenting evidence so as to (1) make the interrogation and presentation effective for the ascertainment of the truth, (2) avoid needless consumption of time, and (3) protect witnesses from harassment or undue embarrassment. (b) Scope of cross-examination. Cross-examination should be limited to the subject matter of the direct examination and matters affecting the credibility of the witness. The court may, in the exercise of discretion, permit inquiry into additional matters as if on direct examination. (c) Leading questions. Leading questions should not be used on the direct examination of a witness except as may be necessary to develop the witness' testimony. Ordinarily leading questions should be permitted on cross-examination. When a party calls a hostile witness, an adverse party, or a witness identified with an adverse party, interrogation may be by leading questions.

— Federal Rules of Evidence

Subdivision (c). The rule continues the traditional view that the suggestive powers of the leading question are as a general proposition undesirable. Within this tradition, however, numerous exceptions have achieved recognition: The witness who is hostile, unwilling, or biased; the child witness or the adult with communication problems; the witness whose recollection is exhausted; and undisputed preliminary matters. 3 Wigmore §§ 774-778. An almost total unwillingness to reverse for infractions has been manifested by appellate courts. See cases cited in 3 Wigmore § 770. The matter clearly falls within the area of control by the judge over the mode and order of interrogation and presentation and accordingly is phrased in words of suggestion rather than command. The rule also conforms to tradition in making the use of leading questions on cross-examination a matter of right. The purpose of the qualification "ordinarily" is to furnish a basis for denying the use of leading questions when the cross-examination is cross-examination in form only and not in fact, as for example the "cross-examination" of a party by his own counsel after being called by the opponent (savoring more of re-direct) or of an insured defendant who proves to be friendly to the plaintiff. The final sentence deals with categories of witnesses automatically regarded and treated as hostile. Rule 43(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure has included only "an adverse party or an officer, director, or managing agent of a public or private corporation or of a partnership or association which is an adverse party." This limitation virtually to persons whose statements would stand as admissions is believed to be an unduly narrow concept of those who may safely be regarded as hostile without further demonstration. See, for example, Maryland Casualty Co. v. Kador, 225 F.2d 120 (5th Cir. 1955), and Degelos v. Fidelity and Casualty Co., 313 F.2d 809 (5th Cir. 1963), holding despite the language of rule 43(b) that an insured fell within it, though not a party in an action under the Louisiana direct action statute. The phrase of the rule, "witness identified with" an adverse party, is designed to enlarge the category of persons thus callable.

— Federal Rules of Evidence - Notes to Rule 611

The final sentence deals with categories of witnesses automatically regarded and treated as hostile. Rule 43(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure has included only "an adverse party or an officer, director, or managing agent of a public or private corporation or of a partnership or association which is an adverse party."

Comment #70948 posted by W. Kevin Vicklund on January 13, 2006 03:03 AM It should be clear to a reasonable observer, based on the contexts of my post and the Order, that "removed all reference to the expert reports" includes explicit and implicit references to the ideas contained within the reports.

Shallit's expert witness report cannot be stricken from the record as it was never entered into the record. It does remain as part of the case file, as does Dembski's and Meyer's expert reports.

It should be noted that Mr. Buckingham was declared a hostile (or adverse, if you prefer) witness for the plaintiffs prior to the start of the trial - you will not find it in the trial transcripts.

Perusal of his depositions make it abundantly clear that he is sufficiently adverse to the plaintiffs position to be so called.

"When a party calls a hostile witness, an adverse party, or a witness identified with an adverse party, interrogation may be by leading questions." -- from Rule 611 ( c ), Federal Rules of Evidence, emphasis added

Buckingham, as an officer of a public corporation (the DASD) during the period in dispute, is automatically regarded as hostile if called as a witness by the opposing party (in this case, the plaintiffs). Therefore, it is entirely appropriate for Wikipedia and the denizens of PT to refer to him as a hostile witness. Also, Larry's assertion that only the defense is allowed to request a witness declared hostile is incorrect. Either party can request that (at least in a civil case) for a witness that they call.

Not true --- many evolutionists distinguish between micro- and macro-evolution, but there is a lot of disagreement as to what these terms actually mean.

Irreducible complexity is not a scientific law like gravity or Newton's laws of motion, where finding one exception to the law either invalidates the law or requires it to be rewritten. If someone happens to choose an example of irreducible complexity that turns out to be invalid, so what?

They have their opinions and I have mine.

Larry, would you share with us which two appeals you prepared for the US Supreme Court?

I can chip in, Edin.

The "micro-macro distinction", like "God", means whatever the particular believer wants it to mean.

That, and the utter lack of evidence for it, makes it quite meaningless regarding reality. Of course, man assigns meaning, so in the minds of the believers, it can have great meaning. Many consider the "micro-macro distinction" to be proof that evolution cannot be accurate. Many consider "God" to be the source of their morality. In their own minds, these are true statements. The world, however, does not care.

Irreducible complexity as a tool doesn't even make it out of the box. It is flawed in principle. The ignorance of an individual has no bearing on reality, though it can certainly inspire him to search for knowledge. The trouble is that some people's egos are more important to them than accuracy. These people tend to synthesize self-satisfying "knowledge", often without so much as a glance at the world. Even worse, they often do so maliciously, with eyes wide open to the world, misrepresenting reality in various ways.

Though you are correct that many (all?) proposed examples of IC have, upon further, closer examination, proved to be misguided. As far as evolutionary science is concerned, there are questions about mechanisms, but virtually all scientists in relevant fields do not recognize a "micro-macro distinction".

Comment #70721 posted by Edin Najetovic on January 12, 2006 05:21 PM Wikipedia may be right that some evolutionists maintain the micro-macro distinction (can anyone chip in on this, please?), but even it states it is hard to define. ----- ----- Also, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/. What a quick google search can give you...

IC has been proven not to work in a situation where it by its own tenets should have: blood clotting.

****They have their opinions and I have mine.**** Their 'opinions' are based on evidence, yours on rhetorics. I wonder who is more scientifical?

I disagree with the judge's reasoning. Expert opinions have much less weight in an amicus brief than in trial testimony (judges can ignore amicus briefs completely), so there is no advantage to sneaking unrebutted expert opinions in through the "back door" (as the judge put it) by putting them into an amicus brief. And Shallit could have been permitted to testify against Dembski's opinions in exchange for allowing DI's amicus brief into the case file. I thought that the idea behind rejecting DI's amicus brief was to keep Dembski's and Meyer's unrebutted expert reports and/or opinions out of the case file. Dembski's and Meyer's expert reports should have been removed from the case file as soon as they withdrew from the case. Shallit's expert report should have been removed as well, since he never testified either.

Is there any record of the judge ever declaring Buckingham to be a hostile witness? Buckingham was probably "declared" to be a hostile witness just by the plaintiffs and the newsmedia.

There was no need to declare him to be hostile to the plaintiffs' attorneys, because a party in a case is always presumed to be hostile to the attorneys of the opposing party, whether testifying in direct examination or cross examination. The only purpose of declaring a witness to be hostile is so that leading questions can be used where they are not normally allowed --- but attorneys of the opposing party are always allowed to use leading questions.

The above rule appears to distinguish between "hostile witness" and "adverse party." I think that officially Buckingham was an "adverse party" rather than a "hostile witness" when being questioned by the plaintiffs' attorneys --- the fact that the plaintiffs' attorneys called him to the stand had nothing to do with it. According to one law dictionary's definition, Buckingham could be declared to be a "hostile witness" only by the judge at the request of a defense attorney while testifying for the defense. See ---- http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?typed=hos... I think that leading questions should generally always be outlawed. I found the plaintiffs' attorney's questioning of Buckingham to be mocking and browbeating, with repeated questions like, "isn't that true?" and "isn't that correct?"

hostile witness n. technically an "adverse witness" in a trial who is found by the judge to be hostile (adverse) to the position of the party whose attorney is questioning the witness, even though the attorney called the witness to testify on behalf of his/her client. When the attorney calling the witness finds that the answers are contrary to the legal position of his/her client or the witness becomes openly antagonistic, the attorney may request the judge to declare the witness to be "hostile" or "adverse." If the judge declares the witness to be hostile (i.e. adverse), the attorney may ask "leading" questions which suggest answers or are challenging to the testimony just as on cross examination of a witness who has testified for the opposition. See also: leading witness adverse witness

— Law.com

You yourself admit that he was automatically regarded as hostile while being questioned by the plaintiffs' attorneys --- so there was no point in "declaring" him to be hostile. And so far I have seen no evidence that he was ever officially declared to be a hostile witness.

I presume that it is quite common for a party to be called to the stand by opposing attorneys rather than by the party's own attorneys. If every party so called to the stand were classified as a "hostile witness," there would be quite a few hostile witnesses out there.

Comment #71047 posted by JohnK on January 13, 2006 10:48 AM Larry, would you share with us which two appeals you prepared for the US Supreme Court?

(1) the mechanisms of the propagation of favorable mutations in organisms that reproduce sexually,

— Larry

(2) the mathematical probability or improbability of evolution,

and (3) co-evolution of two co-dependent organisms, e.g., bees and insect-dependent flowering plants.

(2) the mathematical probability or improbability of evolution,

— Larry F.

Comment #71140 posted by W. Kevin Vicklund on January 13, 2006 12:46 PM Well-explained by evolution. Not a criticism. -- therefore not a criticism of evolution. Well-explained by evolution. Not a criticism.

Heck, ~20 years ago, as an eight-year-old, I understood intuitively how mutualism was well-explained by evolution (on a basic level, of course). I had a kick-ass science fair project to prove it (self-researched, overall first place in the school science fair (grades K-4)).

Unfortunately for Larry, he doesn't understand that theories are explanations of facts. And my statements actually are facts, in that evolution does explain the three points quite well (per the previously noted qualifications), if you bother to follow the field. You made a bald statement, I returned it in kind. I've been following the literature since I was six - can you make the same claim?

By the way, by self-researched, I meant that I came up with the project by myself, and did all of the fact-checking myself, as opposed to having my parents do it for me. My parents only provided transportation and costs to obtain the materials I needed (plus review of my work before I presented it). My research was not original, and I never claimed that it was or that it was peer-reviewed. At the time, as a second-grader, I knew more science than any other student in the school (not just based on a single science fair project, by the way), which went up through 4th grade. So yes, it is possible that I might have been considered a prodigy at that age, but I wouldn't claim the title myself.

Unfortunately for Larry, he doesn't understand that theories are explanations of facts.

Of course he doesn't. He's an armchair BSer, cheerfully unencumbered by facts or having to fit their preconceptions to the real world. It's the type that blithely tries to appeal to the Supreme Court and wonder why the Court denies it....

Comment #71102 posted by W. Kevin Vicklund on January 13, 2006 12:06 PM The purpose of an amicus brief is to get additional evidence added to the record, not the case file.

Once a document is made part of a case file it is not removed, barring unusual circumstances

It would have been very ugly trying to get Shallit's testimony in during or after defense testimony.

No declaration by the judge is required, it is automatic. It is possible that the judge officially did so prior to the trial (perhaps during the meeting in which they scheduled the order of witnesses

In Buckingham's instance, the opposing party is the defense.

An online dictionary does not trump the Federal Rules of Evidence

the referenced site (see full quote below) a) is addressing the more common occurence of a witness unexpectedly becoming hostile, and b) indicates that only the calling party, in this case the plaintiffs, - not the defense - can request that the witness be declared hostile.

Besides, counsel for both plaintiffs and defense engaged in asking leading questions on cross-examination with just those phrases [i.e., "isn't that true?" and "isn't that correct?"]. Buckingham's recalcitrance to answer may be why they were used so frequently.

I don't know why the defense decided to not include Buckingham as a witness for the defense

I presume that if defense did attempt to assert client-attorney privilege on the memo from the city solicitor that played a decidedly minor role in the final decision, it occured during Jen Miller's deposition

You said that Buckingham was "declared" to be a hostile witness, and you have presented no evidence of that

In four hours on the stand, Buckingham, who was called by plaintiffs' attorneys as a hostile witness, tried to confront reams of documentary evidence and testimony from numerous witnesses by blaming the news media for misrepresenting his statements.

October 27, 2005 --- William Buckingham testified and was ruled a hostile witness.

Comment #71298 posted by W. Kevin Vicklund on January 13, 2006 03:52 PM Unfortunately for Larry, he doesn't understand that theories are explanations of facts. And my statements actually are facts, in that evolution does explain the three points quite well (per the previously noted qualifications), if you bother to follow the field.

You made a bald statement, I returned it in kind.

I've been following the literature since I was six -- can you make the same claim?

But I am a fast learner.

Comment #71354 posted by Fafafooey on January 13, 2006 04:58 PM *****You said that Buckingham was "declared" to be a hostile witness, and you have presented no evidence of that**** The Philadelphia Inquirer says here: "In four hours on the stand, Buckingham, who was called by plaintiffs' attorneys as a hostile witness, -----" And your beloved wikipedia weighs in: "October 27, 2005 --- William Buckingham testified and was ruled a hostile witness."

Yo, you! Yeah, that's right, ya longwinded, um, that is, tediously lengthy maroon, uh, commentator!

I'm serious, please get your ignorant self back over to the Dembski thread right now--you might be able to make your first substantive contribution to this blog!

(But it would be, like, really helpful if you could break some of your longer posts up into several smaller ones, like, y'know, one moronic "point" at a time, instead of running a whole slew of them together like you usually do. There's a good reason for this, but it's kind of complicated, so I'm not going to go into it all right now. Just take my word for it!)

Thanks in advance!

--Your Long-time Fan, Stevie

I still say if he would just stick the Larryphrases(TM) i carefully constructed for him, there would be no complaints from long-time fans like Stevie.

see, Larry, I told you!

When a party calls a hostile witness, an adverse party, or a witness identified with an adverse party, interrogation may be by leading questions.

The final sentence deals with categories of witnesses automatically regarded and treated as hostile. Rule 43(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure has included only "an adverse party or an officer, director, or managing agent of a public or private corporation or of a partnership or association which is an adverse party."

There is absolutely no basis for that presumption --- the proper words here are "I am making a wild guess." And the memo played more than a "minor role" in the decision --- it was a big piece of supporting evidence. And the judge failed to explain how the memo got into the opinion.

— Larry

The trial commenced September 26, 2005 and continued through November 4, 2005. This Memorandum Opinion constitutes the Court's findings of fact and conclusions of law which are based upon the Court's review of the evidence presented at trial, the testimony of the witnesses at trial, the parties' proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law with supporting briefs, other documents and evidence in the record, and applicable law.3 Further orders and judgments will be in conformity with this opinion.

— Judge Jones

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

— Judge Jones (footnote 3)

Well, I have to agree that just using the phrases would be helpful, STJ, but I was a bit hesitant to suggest that on top of all my other requests--reasonable as they were!--because, well, I have to admit that my relationship with, um, our retired teenage "friend" has perhaps not gotten off to the very smoothest start.

Thinking about it though, the little feller has really been the recipient of a lot of effort here, for which he has not properly appreciative.

Returning to the Dembski thread--where his presence is really wanted, where in fact the whole thread has now been dedicated to him, and where he would feel ever so much more "at home"!--and, once there, trying to restrain the length of his comments just a teensy tiny bit--not the number, young feller, just the length!--doesn't seem too much to ask, after all we've done for him.

The reference you gave above, a pro-evolution article written by a scientist, is titled, "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution --- The Case for Common Descent" (emphasis added), and gives definitions of microevolution and macroevolution in its introduction. So here is an example of an evolutionist who maintains the micro-macro distinction.

OK, theories are based on facts, but facts cannot be based on theories.

Evolutionists accuse ID proponents of lacking inquiring minds, saying that once ID proponents have decided that something is irreducibly complex, they can just throw up their hands, say "the intelligent designer did it," and not investigate any further. But the evolutionists are the real ones lacking inquiring minds ---- once they have decided that they have refuted a particular criticism of evolution, the refutation is final for all time and they need not consider that criticism ever again, even if plausible new evidence and/or plausible new arguments supporting that criticism are presented.

My lawsuits concerned a $300 California car tax called the "smog impact fee," which was a tax on some out-of-state vehicles newly registered in the state. The tax was eventually declared unconstitutional by the state courts. I sued in federal court, arguing for various reasons that the federal government was a necessary party to the suit because the tax was entirely based on federal auto emissions regulations and owed its existence to those regulations. I persisted because I was very annoyed that my suits were thrown out without the judge(s) giving a reason. An attorney acquaintance of mine told me that my district court judge had a bad reputation for issuing decisions without opinions. My work was all pro se, performed without the assistance of an attorney. Anyway, it was definitely good experience, which is helping me do the legal research I have done for some of the comments I have posted here. For example, it is important to know that the federal district courts and the federal appeals courts have their own separate sets of rules (for example, there is nothing about amicus briefs in the district court rules). People should be taught in high school or college how to sue the government on their own.

Comment #71478 posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on January 13, 2006 08:00 PM OK, so you're a crank.

Comment #71443 posted by W. Kevin Vicklund on January 13, 2006 07:19 PM The error from which all your other errors flow in regards to Buckingham - Buckingham was not a defendant during the trial because he was no longer on the Board. Technically, Bonsell and others ceased to be defendants when they lost their positions on the Board due to the election. They were not individually named as defendants - rather, they were the agents of the defendant entity known as the Dover Area School District Board

Trust us, we'd love to be able to sue them directly.

But in exchange for us not being able to sue them as individuals, they can't act as individuals to advance the case to appeal.

Let's take a look at this again. The relevant quotes: "When a party calls a hostile witness, an adverse party, or a witness identified with an adverse party, interrogation may be by leading questions." (FRE Rule 611 ( c ) ) The adverse party here is the Board. Buckingham was an officer of that board during the period in question. Therefore, he is "a witness identified with an adverse party" that is "automatically regarded and treated as hostile".

Hostile witness and adverse party is a distinction without meaning.

Based upon these facts, the most likely candidate for your alleged attempt to assert privilege would be during the Jen Miller deposition. Do you actually disagree with my assessment? In any case, any such attempt must have occurred prior to the beginning of the trial.

We really have no idea

Comment #71463 posted by Edin Najetovic on January 13, 2006 07:41 PM No, theories EXPLAIN facts and propose mechanisms by which those facts came to be. In other words, they predict facts.

ID has given us no mechanisms (heck, Behe and Dembski say we don't even need one!) so it is no valid alternative for Evolutionary theory.

Larry, Larry. A 'tu quoque' [ad hominem] fallacy does not validate your argument

The nature of a strong claim is that once one fact is found that is fallacious to this claim, the strong claim itself is fallacious.

Larry rhubarb rhubarb rhubarb rhubarb rhubarb rhubarb Sincerely, Prof. Charles Darwin

Lala says statements are just theories, not facts. Lala says OK, theories are based on facts, but facts cannot be based on theories. Lalalalalalnahanahnaha I'm not listening says But I am a fast learner.

...even a five-year-old can see through it.

Apparently now there is a last-minute effort on the part of the El Tejon district to avoid the AU's lawsuit by reaching some sort of settlement . . . .

I see ID as just a collection of criticisms of evolution theory (irreducible complexity is the best known). A lot of people have this strange idea that a scientific theory may not be criticized unless a plausible alternative scientific theory or hypothesis is introduced at the same time.

But in the case of irreducible complexity, if one bad example is chosen (and I am not conceding that the examples chosen have been bad), then another example can be chosen.

Larry what you are 60 years old now?

(..)60 years (my own approximate age (...)

— Larry

Comment #72114 posted by Edin Najetovic on January 15, 2006 11:46 AM ****I see ID as just a collection of criticisms of evolution theory (irreducible complexity is the best known). A lot of people have this strange idea that a scientific theory may not be criticized unless a plausible alternative scientific theory or hypothesis is introduced at the same time.***** and *****But in the case of irreducible complexity, if one bad example is chosen (and I am not conceding that the examples chosen have been bad), then another example can be chosen.***** You make me smile. You have just said ID is marginal and that it is NOT a scientific criticism of evolution, so scientists can ignore it. Thank you very much, QED.

The rest of your post was more misunderstanding on your part and I'm getting tired of it, consider revealing this self induced demasking my final contribution to this thread.

I am not just "getting tired" of you, I am tired of you. So this is your "final contribution to this thread" ? Good riddance.

LaLa (16 going on 60, apparently!), it escapes me why you are wasting your time on THIS thread--and getting people ticked off at you--when you could be accomplishing something productive on your very "own" thread.

But then, once a maroon, always a maroon.

that my friend is tautological solipsism

— k.e.

Larry (#71513) wrote: Yet the media covering the trial called Buckingham a "hostile witness," so people could start taunting, "na-na-na-na-na, Buckingham is a hostile witness!"

The fun part is that Buckingham wasn't the only witness reported as hostile by the media during the trial. Why oh why isn't Larry jumping to the defense of poor Robert S. Linker?

Why oh why isn't Larry jumping to the defense of poor Robert S. Linker?