The Bluff Being Called Was Behe's

So the argument is that the internet limits the extent to which "literature bluffing" can be engaged in, because anyone can look up the cited papers? Pretty humorous that this claim is being made by people too lazy, even with the internet, to actually look up the articles.

Pontificating about how you could call someone's bluff is not the same as actually, y'know, calling the bluff. Do it, already, or shut up about it.

Dangit Matt, you called their bluff.

Pretty humorous that this claim is being made by people too lazy, even with the internet, to actually look up the articles.

This is the second time recently I have heard the phrase "Monday morning quarterbacking". I know that a quarterback has something to do with American football but what he does and why he does it on Mondays I have no idea. Would someone mind explaining what it means for all the Australians, like myself, and other non-Americans who enjoy the discussions on PT.

Since the game is played on Sunday, "Monday morning quarterbacking" is the same thing as using 20/20 hindsight. After the fact, it is easy to see what turned out to be the right and the wrong decisions. In the middle of the game (battle, election campaign, etc.) it's never so easy.

I suppose it should also be mentioned that this probably comes from what would be the coffee room/water cooler discussions at work on Monday as to why the local team lost on Sunday.

Layer upon layer of culture showing. In American football, the quarterback is the lead player on offense, who calls the plays and is most responsible for running the offense. Often referred to by the purple prose journalists as the "field general".

Thank-you DAB, much appreciated.

I suppose you all know by now that "BarryA Responds to His Critics at Panda's Thumb" in now up on UncomDe:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1443

He has, it seems, decided to dig his grave a little deeper.

I have not read any of the 58 articles/books that were put down in front of Behe nor do I feel capable of understanding most of them without a lot of guidance on what particular terms might mean. But I do understand human behavior and I know that just about every biological process has been written in such a way that a mother can understand. Which is a phrase that the lawyer in the Dover case used when talking to Ken Miller. So understanding human nature and knowing that the immune processes could probably be written in a less technical way so all of us could follow the logic I have come to the conclusion that the 58 references do not support the evolution of the immune system. Why, because if they did then someone would want to pile on and shove it in our faces that here is a well documented and scientifically accurate description of a process that proves Behe a fool. But if they did so then their interpretation of the 58 documents would be on paper where their logic and accurate interpetation could be challenged. Since no such document has arisen and knowing the mindset of Darwinists, the only conclusion is that the 58 documents were a giant bluff. An additional point. If sometime someone comes along and provides a thoroughly documented description of the Darwinian evolution of one of the examples of IC, then so what. I will say nice job but there are hundreds of these IC cases and just because you have shown 1 of several hundred has been solved does not mean that they all will be. Maybe they will be but solving one does not eliminate the objection. Now if they solved a large number, say over 50% of the examples, then it would be time to admit that IC may be just a God of the Gaps argument but till then there is essentially nothing but gaps with not even one solution. Comment by jerry --- August 10, 2006 @ 12:25 pm

I've taken to hedging my attempts to post at UD; despite BarryA's professed love of criticism, he dinged at least one post of mine on one of the earlier threads. I'm no evidence expert, but I've studied and applied the Rules of Evidence. BarryA is way off track in the application of 803(18):

"BarryA, you are presenting an extremely inaccurate characterization of FRE 803(18). (I'll limit my criticisms to just that issue, to prevent a repeat of your censorship of one of my comments on your last thread.) You say, for instance, that under the rule "the plaintiffs should have asked Behe one by one if each of the 58 books and articles was authoritative." That is not the case, as is clear from the commentary to Rule 803: "The rule does not require that the witness rely upon or recognize the treatise as authoritative, thus avoiding the possibility that the expert may at the outset block cross-examination by refusing to concede reliance or authoritativeness." The authoritativeness of the texts was abundantly clear in this case; both parties treated these documents as authoritative. In such instances, the court is entitled (and probably encouraged for the sake of judicial economy) to take judicial notice of the fact that the material qualifies under Rule 803.

You're beginning to argue the law as Fafarman does; picking a desired outcome and structuring all the rules to lead to it. It fits the common perception of what lawyers do, but it's poor practice and poor advocacy. One reason for that is that it leads you to make severe errors, as you have here, in this analysis: "I am sure that after reviewing them one by one Behe would have said that all or most of them were. For those that Behe refused to admit were authoritative, plaintiffs could have had another expert testify they were."

They could have, but they certainly wouldn't be required to do so. You're reading in an enormous amount of substance that simply doesn't exist in Rule 803, in order to justify your preconceived criticism of the court. It's great form for ID and UD, but it's factually inaccurate. For instance: "There has to be some evidence from a person qualified to comment on the issue that a book or article is authoritative." That is not true. FRE 803(18) imposes no such requirement, nor does any case that I am aware of. "The judge is not entitled to simply assume that books and articles with fancy titles are authoritative." That is also not true. FRE 803 explicitly allows for judicial notice, which in this case would have been entirely appropriate as both parties treated the texts in question as authoritative and learned treatises.

You have an extremely shallow understanding of the rule in general. For instance, you say: "In the PT example, if expert A truly is unaware of a definitive work in the field, then the opposition could call expert B to testify that the work is definitive, and then impeach A with the work even if he had never read it." Your characterization is inapposite to this case, but ironically you have described a common trial practice. A supposed expert's ignorance of certain texts (such as a psychologist who had never heard of the DSM) is relevant to their expert qualification. Again, from the FRE 803(18) commentary: "In Reilly v. Pinkus, supra, the Court pointed out that testing of professional knowledge was incomplete without exploration of the witness' knowledge of and attitude toward established treatises in the field. The process works equally well in reverse and furnishes the basis of the rule."

You provide a great deal of bloviation predicated on your own expert status, but your legal analysis is not good. I am not convinced that Rule 803 is applicable in this instance, given the use of the literature in regards to Behe's admission that publications are a measure of scientific validity, but you've pegged your own argument to it. And yet, you not only don't seem to understand it, you're teaching a (very credulous) audience that they should scorn a court of law for not following your own shoddy reasoning.

If I've been harsh, then I apologize, but I dislike seeing people twist the law to create politically correct results. And, of course, I'll add my standard disclaimer --- it's unlikely that anyone other than BarryA will see this post."

They're getting awfully postmodernist over there. It's pretty clear that any credibility ID might have had as an intellectual movement has long ago been squandered by this kind of legalistic petty quibbling about semantics.

Has anyone at UD read any of the literature identified by the plaintiffs? Has any single one of them ever read any scientific publication that bears on the question? I don't think I've ever seen a crew that is this proud of their ignorance.

It won't be long now before even the YECs are seeing through their masquerade and concluding that absence of any scientific content makes ID nothing more than warmed over Scientific Creationism. I imagine that the YECs will at that point decide go with the genuine article and leave Dembski and friends to their meta-analyses.

So what do the readers here think will eventually become of Dembski? I really do think he'll be going over to the televangelism circuit, hawking his pretty pictures about watchmakers on late night pay-TV infomercials. It's hard to believe that many of us once thought of him as some kind of scholar, and that his arguments actually needed to be answered seriously. What a joke that he's become.

The case is over, the decision has been rendered yet those at uncommondescent continue with a "what if" mentality. Not surprising, the "what if" science why not the law as well. Do they know the humor they cause us?

Some of them do, some of them don't. For instance, AFDave at After the Bar Closes, has posted hundreds of comments. Each of his claims is destroyed ten ways to sunday, after which he claims victory. Most of the IDers, like AFDave, are oblivious. They don't understand science and they don't care to. Then you have frauds like Dembski and Behe--people who started out believing what they were saying, and now know they were wrong, but they're making money off the obliviods, so they keep it going. Dembski doesn't give a crap if he's refuted over here or not. He doesn't give a crap if Elsberry and Shallitt write a book deconstructing his work line by line. Because it's not going to affect his bank account one whit. The money will roll in, day after day, from the Salvadors, and the DonaldMs, and the BarryAs....

obliviods

You are correct sir. A little too much drinky-drinky tonight.

hey, pass that over here, would ya?

If you are anywhere near Durham/RTP NC, you are welcome to it.

alas, unless you have quite an arm on ya, I guess I won't impose.

It's a bit of a ways between NC and CA, last i checked.

I think rule 803 will soon become the ID advocates equivalent of the "tuck rule". I can almost see Dembski dressed in black and silver, with a viking helmet adorned with little plastic skulls on his head, screaming "We wuz robbed, man!!!"

(And I'll leave our Aussie and European friends to ponder what the heck the "tuck rule" is...)

It's hard to believe that many of us once thought of him as some kind of scholar, and that his arguments actually needed to be answered seriously. What a joke that he's become.

If I've been harsh, then I apologize, but I dislike seeing people twist the law to create politically correct results.

IC states that intemediates are unlikely, given that from all we know about changing existing systems, what Andrea says is true. Severe reductions in function generally result from the alteration of even one component. I would cite what Andrea writes as supportive of IC.

We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution.

That's your real problem. Nothing will satisfy Behe except for infinite detail --- every mutation and selection pressure over hundreds of millions of years, hundreds of millions of years ago.

August 12, 2006 BarryA Responds to His Critics at Panda's Thumb As I write this there have been 80 comments to my posts about the evidence issues implicated by the plaintiffs' literature bluff at the Dover trial. Our friends at Panda's Thumb have also opened a thread to discuss my posts see (here) and also (here). For those interested in my response to PT, read on. 1. The Literature Bluff and Jones reliance on it. To set the stage once again, here is the passage from the transcript where plaintiffs make their literature bluff followed by the passage from Judge Jones' opinion where he swallowed it hook, line and sinker: ...

I suppose you all know by now that "BarryA Responds to His Critics at Panda's Thumb" in now up on UncomDe: http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archive... He has, it seems, decided to dig his grave a little deeper.

"Jones reliance"? "Judge Jones' opinion"? This guy's supposed to be a lawyer, and he has no idea how to work a possessive apostrophe?

Speaking of another Jones, you have to love Stephen E. Jones' remark that the existence of 58 peer-reviewed articles, books, etc. on the evolution of the immune system actually demonstrates that there isn't a detailed explanation, because Einstein said it would take "only one" to disprove his work with Relativity.
As far as I know, disproving something and making the case for something else, including detailed descriptions of something as complicated as the evolution of the immune system, are two somewhat different things.
But I supposed somebody who buys into the ID negative-argument-equals-positive-evidence idea wouldn't know that.

I think rule 803 will soon become the ID advocates equivalent of the "tuck rule".

I think rule 803 will soon become the ID advocates equivalent of the "tuck rule".

(putting on English major's hat) Actually, his second instance is correct. It is perfectly acceptable to write "Jones'" instead of "Jones's".They lost. The fundies might not like it, but ... well ... tough. (shrug)

Comment #119231 Posted by Arden Chatfield on August 13, 2006 01:55 PM (e) | kill Even LARRY wasn't that much of a wuss, and HE's completely insane. :-)

BarryA is miffed that the 58 articles are accepted as evidence that IC has been refuted. Maybe he shd take it up with Behe who spent nearly 10 years claiming that there is nothing on the subject.

"A little too much drinky-drinky tonight."

Hope you enjoyed it. I know I did! :-)

I will give you that some authorities accept the second form. But some don't. All accept "Jones's", and it has the benefit of making for a simpler rule.

— steve s

Really? You wouldn't write "Keeping up with the Joneses?"

Yep, ID is dead. Utterly and unalterably dead. It no longer has any chance at all as any sort of effective political movement. And, from the looks of things, the entire fundamentalist Christian movement is following it headlong into oblivion.

Early on, Lippmann was optimistic about American democracy. He believed that the American people would become intellectually engaged in political and world issues and fulfill their democratic role as an educated electorate. In light of the events leading to World War II and the concomitant scourge of totalitarianism however, he rejected this view. Lippmann came to be seen as Noam Chomsky's moral and intellectual antithesis: He agreed with the Platonic view that the population is a great beast, a herd, that has to be controlled by an intellectual specialist class. Chomsky used one of Lippmann's catch phrases for the title of his book about the media: Manufacturing Consent.

from the looks of things, the entire fundamentalist Christian movement is following it headlong into oblivion.

The 4,000 members of Fairfield Christian are part of the growing evangelical Christian movement in middle America. In a March survey, a quarter of Ohio residents said they were evangelicals --- believing that a strict adherence to the Bible and personal commitment to the teachings of Jesus Christ will bring salvation.... Political analyst John Green said evangelical growth has had a major political impact in Ohio, a key swing state that narrowly decided President George W. Bush's election victory in 2004.

Megachurches appeal to baby boomers and others who enjoy the polished nature of the services, and who find the size of the organisation and the upbeat style of these churches appealing. Typically, such churches offer a wide variety of special-interest opportunities and outreaches; e.g., sports, music, dance, foreign languages, pre-schools, mission groups, and support groups, allowing members to be involved with others of similar interests or needs and a similar faith.

I will give you that some authorities accept the second form. All accept "Jones's", and it has the benefit of making for a simpler rule.

The possessive case of a singular noun is formed by adding -'s: one's home, by day's end, our family's pet, the witness's testimony, a fox's habitat, the knife's edge. Note that although some people use just the apostrophe after singular nouns ending in s (the witness' testimony, Burns' poetry), the -'s is generally preferred because it more accurately reflects the modern pronunciation of these forms. However, in a few cases where the -'s is not pronounced, it is usual to add just the apostrophe: for righteousness' (appearance') sake.

Here (Australia) we would write the possessive form as "Jones'" and the collective form as "Jones's"

The political movement is winning some polls in America.

They lost in Dover, they lost in California, they lost in Ohio, they lost in Kansas. Indeed, they have lost every fight they have ever been involved with. Every single one.

Eventually, they'll have a Pyrrhic victory. It's a dead end to fight fire with fire.

"If can we hit that bullseye, the rest of the dominoes will fall like a house of cards. Checkmate."
Zapp Brannigan

Kif: Uuuuhhhhhhhh.....

Flying saucer nuts win lots of polls too. But they are utterly ineffective as a political movement.

The fundies could not get any of their agenda passed even with the Republicrats controlling the White House, both chaqmbers of Congress, and most of the judiciary....

They lost in Dover, they lost in California, they lost in Ohio, they lost in Kansas. Indeed, they have lost every fight they have ever been involved with. Every single one.

I can't think of a better demonstration of "politically dead".

There're even worse ones than Bartleby, such as dropping the s anytime there's a s, x or z sound at the end of the word. Stupid. Those kind of rules are loved by the kind intolerable gits who like to distinguish acronyms from 'initialisms'. Ugh.

The fundies could not get any of their agenda passed even with the Republicrats controlling the White House, both chaqmbers of Congress, and most of the judiciary. They lost in Dover, they lost in California, they lost in Ohio, they lost in Kansas. Indeed, they have lost every fight they have ever been involved with. Every single one. I can't think of a better demonstration of "politically dead".

The obvious portion of the fundamentalist agenda that did get passed despite popular opposition is stem cell funding. Still, the Republicans don't seem to care all that much about actually doing much for the Religious Wrong.

Still, claiming their politically dead is not accurate as long as Bush is appointing Supreme Court judges, and would just lead to complacency anyway. In 1957, Martin Gardner said in "Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science" that creationism was effectively dead. It would only be 4 years later that Henry Morris would kick the whole thing off again with "The Genesis Flood".

If we've won anything, it's one swing of the bat in whack-a-mole. They aren't dead, they're just looking for the next hole to poke a claw out of.

Yep, ID is dead. Utterly and unalterably dead.

Bruce Thompson - Excellent research, although I am shocked and surprised to find out that there actually is "something" to ID, "something" of course being defined and closely related to fecal matter, as evidenced by your picture of the evidence...

Politically dead? Utterly dead? You folks do not understand YEC and ID zombies. You really ought to research zombies...

Another SCOTUS justice, perhaps? That could bring about a complete rewriting of the Establishment rules.

The obvious portion of the fundamentalist agenda that did get passed despite popular opposition is stem cell funding.

The fundies are dead, as any sort of effective political movement.

Oh really? They've lost some court battles but we now have some George W Bush picked Supreme Court Justices along with other court appointments.

large amounts of money funnelled to fundies via "faith-based initiatives"

Not so much as you'd think, I'll bet. Historically, fundies have never been very involved in "social services" --- it has always been the "liberal churches" who have done things like open soup kitchens, day care centers, etc.

As a representative of Discovery Institute, I sent the following letter to The Seattle Times last week. It didn't appear there, so we're publishing it here.

Not so much as you'd think, I'll bet. Historically, fundies have never been very involved in "social services" --- it has always been the "liberal churches" who have done things like open soup kitchens, day care centers, etc.

Would we atheists be more common if we banded together to do such things?

Would we atheists be more common if we banded together to do such things?

— 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank

Maybe ---- but how're you gonna get the "faith-based" funding? ;)

Ahh, wouldn't it be nice if we (h. sapiens sapiens) could just adopt the sensible philosophy like Matt. 7:12 (the golden rule) without all the superstitious nonsense. Maybe those rules were always there in human culture, and just got co-opted by religion. I wonder.

Atheists should demand faith-based funding. The creationists have been telling you you were a religion for years, so demand that your faith in no-god deserves funding just like their faith in God. After all, you don't have absolutely proof of no-god, so it's just faith, right? Only agnostics can't claim faith in something.

— Michael Suttkus, II

Re "Anyone want to take one for the team :)"

An interesting if probably rather impractical suggested "strategy"... :ROFL:

Henry

We could have a court case, which we would lose, and have it determined once and forall that evolution and/or atheism are not religions.