BS: Intelligent Judge

Subject: BS: Intelligent Judge
From: Paul Burke
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 12:34 PM

The Dover case ruling: here .

Obviously some judges are numbered among the 55% of Americans who do NOT reject reason.

Subject: RE: BS: Intelligent Judge
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 12:52 PM

One down.

Ten to go.

See:

OPEN LETTER TO KANSAS SCHOOL BOARD:
CC:
DOVER SCHOOL BOARD (PENNSYLVANIA)
OHIO STATE SCHOOL BOARD
RIO RANCHO SCHOOL BOARD (NEW MEXICO)
GRANTSBURG SCHOOL BOARD (WISCONSIN)
COBB COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD(GEORGIA)
SHELBY COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD(TENNESSEE)
CHARLES COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD(MARYLAND)
NAPERVILLE SCHOOL BOARD(ILLINOIS)
DARBY SCHOOL BOARD (MONTANA)
BLUFFTON-HARRISON SCHOOL BOARD (INDIANA)

Good news, and it only took a six week trial. Now for the inevitable appeals, and the preachings about activist judges.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Intelligent Judge
From: robomatic
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 01:41 PM

Leave us not forget the sensible position taken by the people of Pennsylvania in replacing the self-righteous school board with a sensible school board composed of people of both faith and common sense, who set things right even before the recent ruling.

Subject: RE: BS: Intelligent Judge
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 05:25 PM

This won't slow the fundie god-botherers down one little bit in their campaign to ram their interpretation of "religion" down everyone else's throats- but will confirm' em in the "righteousness" of their "holy" cause because they're being "persecuted".

God Help America.

Subject: RE: BS: Intelligent Judge
From: robomatic
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 08:51 PM

Frankly I think it's a great opportunity to fight the good fight for Saint Chuck.

Subject: RE: BS: Intelligent Judge
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 09:06 PM

It was fascinating to learn today that the textbook that the 'intelligent design' people were touting for the curriculum was one that had been originally written as a Creationist textbook, but when the Supreme Court ruled against teaching creationism, they simply changed the language to 'intelligent design' format.

The judge, fortunately, saw thru the attempt and said VERY plainly that 'intelligent design' was simply a thinly veiled religious argument.

And so far, I have not seen the best answer/reply to 'intelligent design' claims....which is "well, *I* have looked at the complex nature of the universe and life, and it is obvious that is WAY too complex to have ever been 'designed' by an intelligence!"

   That is the flaw in 'intelligent design'...it is basically just a statement of opinion...like an opinion of beauty or taste. This is NOT what science does!!! Anyone who claims that scientific theories about evolution are 'merely opinion' either does not comprehend how scientific method works, or is misusing definitions to muddle the issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Intelligent Judge
From: The Walrus
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 09:55 PM

"...That is the flaw in 'intelligent design'...it is basically just a statement of opinion...like an opinion of beauty or taste. This is NOT what science does!!! Anyone who claims that scientific theories about evolution are 'merely opinion' either does not comprehend how scientific method works, or is misusing definitions to muddle the issue...."

The problem lies in the definition of the word "Theory"

In Science a "theory" is a concidered concept which, although not provable in absolute terms, provides the 'best fit' to the available data, may be modified to fit to any new data and is open to challenge by other members of the scientific community

In general usage a "theory" can be anything from a sound idea to a wild arsed guess.

I will leave the readership to work out where "intellegent design" fits. (HINT: It's not in the scientific definition).

Walrus

Subject: RE: BS: Intelligent Judge
From: Rapparee
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 10:16 PM

From the AP story:

...In his ruling, Jones said that while intelligent design, or ID, arguments "may be true, a proposition on which the court takes no position, ID is not science." Among other things, the judge said intelligent design "violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation"; it relies on "flawed and illogical" arguments; and its attacks on evolution "have been refuted by the scientific community."

"The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources," he wrote.

The judge also said: "It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy."

Subject: RE: BS: Intelligent Judge
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 10:24 PM

yep, Walrus....I should have made that point myself. It is the "fallacy of equivocation" that I have noted before.

Subject: RE: BS: Intelligent Judge
From: Arne
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 10:33 PM

JohnInKansas:

Good news, and it only took a six week trial. Now for the inevitable appeals, and the preachings about activist judges.

Don't think there will be an appeal (here, at least). The fundies on the school board in Dover got turned out en masse in the November elections by a slate that was opposed to these whacks and to wasting school money pushing ID/creationism. The new school board won't waste any more money, were they even inclined to putting this codswallop in the schools.

BTW, you in Kansas have my sympathy; you turned out your own whacks down there, only to see them sneak back in again ... and likely to try the SOS again. The fight isn't over; the Dover case is a big blwo against their latest tactic, but they're a tenacious bunch, and with Gawd On Their Side, they'll keep coming and coming and coming.....

Keep up the good fight.

Cheer,

Subject: RE: BS: Intelligent Judge
From: Arne
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 10:37 PM

BTW, for good coverage of the trial and the upshot, as well as the issues involved, go check out the Panda's Thumb....

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Intelligent Judge
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 10:56 PM

Intelligence is a human characteristic. As such, it is limited, as are all human characteristics. Therefore, assigning intelligence to God places a limit upon God which is a logical contradiction since, by definition, God has no limits.

That some people can see an "intelligent design" in nature is testament to their own limited need to perceive God in purely anthropomorphic terms. A truly limitless God doesn't need to dress His work up with "design" to impress us humans. He can get the job done using the totally random just as easily.

Subject: RE: BS: Intelligent Judge
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 11:13 PM

I just read this:

'Peter Briggs of the Family Research Council, a conservative group, described the ruling as a dangerous precedent.'

"That's a terribly slippery slope if we're going to say in a democracy, in a free country, that people who are motivated by religion are excluded from the public script."

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

Does everyone see what Mr. Briggs is doing in his remark? It is precisely being "motivated by religion" in their analysis of science that is at question here! No one is telling anyone what they must believe or what they can read...only that opinions that are essentially BASED on religion will not be recognized as proper for teaching in the public schools.

The ID people have already decided what the ultimate answer must be....they are just trying to find a way to disguise their logic so that careless folks will mistake it for 'science'.

Peter Briggs is accusing the court of doing exactly what HE is doing...trying to paint his opponents in a bad light by accusing them of prejudice, and portraying HIS group as 'trod upon'.

Subject: RE: BS: Intelligent Judge
From: Arne
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 02:15 AM

'Peter Briggs of the Family Research Council, a conservative group, described the ruling as a dangerous precedent.'

"That's a terribly slippery slope if we're going to say in a democracy, in a free country, that people who are motivated by religion are excluded from the public script."

Ahhhhhhhh, so it wasn't about the science!!! Thank you, Mr. Briggs. But the judge saw right through you anyway, so you might as well come out and say it now..... Now what was that commandment? It's on the tip of my tongue....

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Intelligent Judge
From: mooman
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 06:31 AM

I know some musicians who are devoted followers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster see John in Kansas's post above).

If you scroll to the bottom of this page you will see evidence of

His True Sign

Peace

moo

Subject: RE: BS: Intelligent Judge
From: Donuel
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 08:41 AM

As Amos would say "The judge could see that intelligent design is simply the robes of Creationism fashioned into a lab coat."

Subject: RE: BS: Intelligent Judge
From: jeffp
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 09:17 AM

An interesting sidelight is the fact that the judge in the case was appointed by George W. Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: Intelligent Judge
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 10:14 AM

So he's smarter than Geo. W. Bush.

Who isn't?

Subject: RE: BS: Intelligent Judge
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 10:48 AM

mooman - actually the third pic from the bottom looks most like the "true sign." The two bottom ones obviously come from false prophets - always abundant.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Intelligent Judge
From: Rapparee
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 02:04 PM

"Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources."

More quotes from the decision are here.

Subject: RE: BS: Intelligent Judge
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 06:06 PM

As noted previously, complete transcripts of testimony at the trial are downloadable ad .pdf files from the ACLUPA website. While they're "interesting" all the way through, I don't suppose most people will want to read them all.

The ACLUPA website didn't have the decision up yet, although I suspect that they will eventually. They did give a thanks to another site for supplying some of the missing and garbled transcripts they received from the court, and there is a link to a .pdf of the full decision at National Center for Science Education, along with a number of related sources of information. (See the "All over in Dover" box.)

The Decision itself may be directly accessible at Memorandum Decision. It's a 129 page document, .pdf, 311 KB, and I found it quite interesting reading, although the only surprise it contained was that the judge so completely demolished the School Board's position on every point raised by them, and unequivocally supported the Plaintiffs.

Members of the Kansas School Board have already offered their opinion: "But it won't affect us because ours is different." It's unlikely that the Kansas Crapola will go to court, but my unprofessional opinion is that they're "Fundamentalistically WRONG." It's exactly the same BullShit.

An excellent and thorough job by the judge. And I thank him, and those who supported the Plaintiffs' action.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Intelligent Judge
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 08:12 PM

A wonderfully unequivocal judgment. Scathing even. And like jeffp, I do think it's interesting that it came from a Bush appointee. The Mudcat response in this thread is similarly heartening.

Subject: RE: BS: Intelligent Judge
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 09:07 PM

By the way, in case anyone slept through Philosophy 101, Intelligent Design is really nothing more than a newer version of the Argument by Design, one of the three classic "proofs" of the existence of God. The Argument by Design is often stated in terms on an analogy: If you had never seen a clock, but came across one in the desert, you would be able to intuitively determine that it had been designed and created by someone and was not simply an "accident of nature". Since the Universe exhibits characteristics that also appear to be more than "accidents of nature" (including some that are, coincidentally, strikingly similar to some of the characteristics of a clock), doesn't that indicate the existence of an ultimate designer?

The Argument by Design was a cornerstone of the philosophy of Saint Thomas Aquinas during the 13th Century and has been rebutted, refuted, resurrected and rebutted again an untold number of times during the last 750 years.   

Also by the way, the other two "proofs" of God's existence are the Ontological Argument which says that since, by definition, God is the most perfect being He must have physical existence, and the Cosmological Argument which says that since everything is caused by something else there must be "first cause" which would be God. They also have been refuted numerous times. The general consensus seems to be that using logical means to "prove" the existence of God is a dead end street. Intelligent Design isn't just bad science, it's bad metaphysics.

Subject: RE: BS: Intelligent Judge
From: Paul Burke
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 05:37 AM

Didn't Liebniz 'prove' the existence of god using binary arithmetic? God is 1, nothing is 0, all numbers (and therefore everything) can be created from 1s and 0s alone. Therefore god exists. Sort of.

He didn't think of hi-Z and don't care states.

Subject: RE: BS: Intelligent Judge
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 11:49 AM

I am not with the god idea but I do believe in true and false prophets.

One true prophet is Wainwright. Those that follow the many paths of Wainright shall dwell in the lands of truth, beauty and never ending joy for all of their days.

They will read from the good book: Wainwright's 'A Pictorial Guide to the Lakeland Fells'. Sometimes they will stand on high places and using one of the seven volumes (OK 8 if you count the Outlying Fells) will say the immortal words 'Look Sargeant Man,Pavey Ark, Harrison Stickle, Pike of Stickle'.

Thus satisfied they will share the secular sacriment of cheese and pickle sandwiches, a muslie bar and later a few squares of Kendal Mintcake as climbers and walkers on all majoe expeditions always do.

The final observance will be on licensed premises when a good pint of something real and tasty will enjoyed whilst followers of the prophet plan another day of secular worship.

Subject: RE: BS: Intelligent Judge
From: Peace
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 09:17 PM

Brilliant editorial here.

Subject: RE: BS: Intelligent Judge
From: Peace
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 10:20 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Intelligent Judge
From: Peace
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 10:20 PM

As I sit here tonight the jukebox playin'
The tune about the wild side of life
As I listen to the words you are sayin'
It brings memories when I was a trusting wife

It wasn't God who made Honky Tonk angels
As you said in the words of your song
Too many times married men think they're still single
That has caused many a good girl to go wrong

It's a shame that all the blame is on us women
It's not true that only you men feel the same
From the start most every heart that's ever broken
Was because there always was a man to blame

It wasn't God who made Honky Tonk angels
As you said in the words of your song
Too many times married men think they're still single
That has caused many a good girl to go wrong

Subject: RE: BS: Intelligent Judge
From: Peace
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 10:31 PM

Even country music refutes intelligent design.

Subject: RE: BS: Intelligent Judge
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 10:35 PM

yes...very nicely put editorial. There are some points it doesn't make about how religious beliefs can remain secure, even with evidence of Evolution, but it makes clear the judge's ruling that ID does not belong in Science classes.

I don't know why it is so hard for many folks to understand that evolution is not 'just another type of belief', but is simply a description OF the laws of Nature, so far as we have worked them out.
   The fossils of the Burgess Shale in Alberta ARE several hundred million years old. We humans did NOT coexist with dinosaurs. We DO share 95%+ of our DNA with chimpanzees....etc.....these are bits of information carefully gathered and studied and related to OTHER bits of data about the universe, they are not 'beliefs' in the same way that the story of Genesis is a belief. Science is not in the business of DISproving Genesis....it simply tries to state what CAN be known. In the same ummmmm..spirit...religion should not be in the business of 2nd guessing science and fretting whether data on the age of the Earth creates a problem for Biblical study.

It is still perfectly possible to believe BOTH evolution and Genesis! "Wow...it seems we are learning more every day about how the Earth has developed since God created it.."
It is NOT necessary to accept Bishop Usher's calculations as the last word about 'when it all began'! We DID exist before 4004B.C., and we have relics we can ***PROVE*** are older...and we have the mummy found a few years ago in the Alps as further proof.

   well....if I seem to go on too long, it is because it is important that those who are still confused or dubious about these things have some solid evidence both about the science involved, and about the reasoning involved in separating religious thought from scientific thought.

The ID folks who "intend to go on fighting" should NOT be allowed to insert matters of intrinsically religious faith into school text books.