I'm from Missouri

This site is named for the famous statement of US Congressman Willard Duncan Vandiver from Missouri : "I`m from Missouri -- you'll have to show me." This site is dedicated to skepticism of official dogma in all subjects. Just-so stories are not accepted here. This is a site where controversial subjects such as evolution theory and the Holocaust may be freely debated.

Name:
Location: Los Angeles, California, United States

My biggest motivation for creating my own blogs was to avoid the arbitrary censorship practiced by other blogs and various other Internet forums. Censorship will be avoided in my blogs -- there will be no deletion of comments, no closing of comment threads, no holding up of comments for moderation, and no commenter registration hassles. Comments containing nothing but insults and/or ad hominem attacks are discouraged. My non-response to a particular comment should not be interpreted as agreement, approval, or inability to answer.

Tuesday, May 09, 2006

Judge Jones the hypocrite

In a speech on April 26, Judge Jones said that politics should be kept out of the courts. Yet the conclusion section of his own Kitzmiller v. Dover opinion was highly political in nature. This conclusion section attacked elected officials, i.e., the Dover school board members who voted for the ID policy, saying "The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID policy" and "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," and accusing the former board members of "breathtaking inanity." So far as I know, no other judicial opinion dealing with the evolution controversy has attacked public officials so maliciously. I agree that the behavior of the Dover school board members left a lot to be desired, but Judge Jones should have kept his negative opinions about them to himself. His attacks on them do nothing to enhance the credibility of the opinion.

Judge Jones derogatory remarks about the Dover school board members indirectly attack ID, all proponents of ID (particularly public officials), and all science-based challenges to evolution theory. An amicus brief submitted by 85 scientists in support of the defendants said, "....the scientific theory of intelligent design should not be stigmatized by the courts as less scientific than competing theories.......Doubts as to whether a theory adequately explains the evidence should be resolved by scientific debate, not by court rulings........As this litigation demonstrates, opponents of intelligent design frequently resort to ad hominem attacks, asserting that because some scientists hold religious views, their scientific work should be dismissed as merely 'religious.' " But Judge Jones paid no heed to that advice when he made his derogatory remarks about ID proponents. The opinion's following disclaimer does not compensate for those derogatory remarks: "....we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed."

Also, there has been a lot of ballyhoo about the fact that Judge Jones was featured on the cover of Time magazine as one of the 100 most influential people. Being on the cover of Time is not necessarily a desirable distinction -- past honorees of the Time Person of the Year award have included Adolf Hitler (1938), Josef Stalin (1939, 1942), and Ayatollah Khomeini (1979).

Labels:

40 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"So far as I know, no other judicial opinion dealing with the evolution controversy has attacked public officials so maliciously."

Hey there LaLaLooneyMan ... two of those board members were caught lying on the stand. They were lucky not to be charged with perjury.

And the Board *was* inane. Their own counsel told them they'd be sued and would probably lose if they went forward.

Pointing out the inanity and stupidity of the defendents in a trial isn't "bringing politics into the courtroom". It's simply point out facts.

Tuesday, May 09, 2006 1:02:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Also, there has been a lot of ballyhoo about the fact that Judge Jones was featured on the cover of Time magazine as one of the 100 most influential people. Being on the cover of Time is not necessarily a desirable distinction -- past honorees of the Time Person of the Year award have included Adolf Hitler (1938)"

Oops, you're guilty of violating Godwin's Law.

No amount of misquoting or misunderstanding of case law will absolve you of this crime.

Tuesday, May 09, 2006 1:52:00 PM  
Anonymous Ben said...

"Also, there has been a lot of ballyhoo about the fact that Judge Jones was featured on the cover of Time magazine as one of the 100 most influential people. Being on the cover of Time is not necessarily a desirable distinction"

It's not meant to be. It's simply picking someone who's had a notable influence on world events, whether good or bad.



"past honorees of the Time Person of the Year award have included Adolf Hitler (1938), Josef Stalin (1939, 1942), and Ayatollah Khomeini (1979)."

Uh huh. Don't forget about Gandhi, Churchill, Roosevelt, Pope John Paul, and Martin Luther King having been listed though, will you?

Tuesday, May 09, 2006 2:07:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Ben said ( Tuesday, May 09, 2006 2:07:14 PM ) --

>>>>>>
"Also, there has been a lot of ballyhoo about the fact that Judge Jones was featured on the cover of Time magazine as one of the 100 most influential people. Being on the cover of Time is not necessarily a desirable distinction"

It's not meant to be. It's simply picking someone who's had a notable influence on world events, whether good or bad.
>>>>>>>

Exactly. But Darwinists want people to believe that Jones' selection as one of the top 100 was necessarily complimentary -- see http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/05/judge_jones_mak.html#comments

I have never seen so much weight given to the judgment of a single judge. Indeed, some Darwinists think that they have already won the battle in the courts.

If the Selman v. Cobb County evolution-disclaimer textbook stickers decision is reversed, which appears to be a strong possibility, then I think that people will quickly forget about the Dover decision. I predict that if Selman is reversed, those textbook stickers will spring up all over the country. BTW, I wonder what has happened to the Selman appeal -- the oral hearings were held nearly five months ago and still there is no decision.

Tuesday, May 09, 2006 4:08:00 PM  
Anonymous Rilke's Granddaughter said...

Larry, they HAVE won in the courts. If you actually understood law, instead of simply being able to parrot your own fantasies, half-researched opinions, and wikipedia-level knowledge, you'd understand that.

Watching Colin wipe the floor with you was a real treat.

Doesn't it embarrass you to look like an idiot. On your own blog?

Tuesday, May 09, 2006 4:46:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Rilke's Granddaughter said ( 5/09/2006 04:46:34 PM ) --

>>>>>>Watching Colin wipe the floor with you was a real treat.

Doesn't it embarrass you to look like an idiot. On your own blog? <<<<<<

RG, you talk big, but I have yet to see Panda's Thumb attack any of my posts or comments here. PT can even challenge me to a debate on these posts and comments by unbanning me pro hac vice ("for this time only") so that I can post my rebuttals on PT. They won't do it because they are scared pissless of me. That's why I was banned from PT in the first place.

Tuesday, May 09, 2006 8:09:00 PM  
Blogger Colin said...

"But Darwinists want people to believe that Jones' selection as one of the top 100 was necessarily complimentary..."

From the Time blurb: "In a rebuke to the proponents of intelligent design, Jones called the phrase 'a mere relabeling of creationism,' intended to get around the 1987 judicial ban on teaching creationism as science in public schools, and a 'breathtaking inanity' that fails the test as science. He castigated its proponents and said Dover's students, parents and teachers 'deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom' . . . . Perhaps now, after Jones, people will accept that if they want to teach children about God, they should do so in church, not in science classes."

Seems complimentary to me.

Tuesday, May 09, 2006 10:37:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Anonymous said ( Tuesday, May 09, 2006 1:02:48 PM ) --

>>>>>"So far as I know, no other judicial opinion dealing with the evolution controversy has attacked public officials so maliciously."

Hey there LaLaLooneyMan ... two of those board members were caught lying on the stand. They were lucky not to be charged with perjury.<<<<<

Buying the Pandas books with funds raised in a church and then lying about it in court seems quite petty in comparison to a lot of the other shenanigans that go on in the government. Also, the rule is that perjurers who agree to tell the truth are generally not charged with perjury -- otherwise the threat of perjury charges would be a disincentive for telling the truth.

>>>>>>And the Board *was* inane. Their own counsel told them they'd be sued and would probably lose if they went forward.<<<<<

Well, I suppose the state of South Dakota was also "inane" when it recently passed that anti-abortion law that was a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade. Taking a risk of being sued is not necessarily inane.

>>>>>Pointing out the inanity and stupidity of the defendents in a trial isn't "bringing politics into the courtroom". It's simply point out facts.<<<<<

The term "inanity" is defamatory enough. But "breathtaking inanity" ?

Jones also implicitly defamed ID proponents who are a lot more sensible than the Dover school board members were.

The defamatory remarks do not help support the decision -- they detract from the decision.

Wednesday, May 10, 2006 4:22:00 AM  
Blogger Colin said...

Buying the Pandas books with funds raised in a church and then lying about it in court seems quite petty in comparison to a lot of the other shenanigans that go on in the government.

So the defendants' perjury is excusable because the government does bad things? That's an infinite excuse - under that 'logic,' all perjury is excusable.

Also, the rule is that perjurers who agree to tell the truth are generally not charged with perjury -- otherwise the threat of perjury charges would be a disincentive for telling the truth.

No, that is not the rule. If it were, then no one would ever be prosecuted for perjury, because if they got caught they would just change their story at the last minute. Some prosecutors might decide not to bring charges, but that is a discretionary and fact-dependent matter, not a "rule".

Well, I suppose the state of South Dakota was also "inane" when it recently passed that anti-abortion law that was a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade.

Yes they were. Passing an obviously unconstitutional law that has no chance of changing the law is inane, especially when the consequences of the law itself aside from its constitutionality would be harmful. It's inane, and even grotesque, to take unconstitutional steps to impair the education of schoolchildren or strip women of their reproductive autonomy.

Wednesday, May 10, 2006 8:19:00 AM  
Anonymous Larry's Shrink said...

They won't do it because they are scared pissless of me.

delusions of grandeur

n : a delusion (common in paranoia) that you are much greater and more powerful and influential than you really are

hu·bris Pronunciation Key (hybrs) also hy·bris (h-)
n.

Overbearing pride or presumption; arrogance

Wednesday, May 10, 2006 9:36:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Colin said ( Tuesday, May 09, 2006 10:37:34 PM ) --
>>>>>"But Darwinists want people to believe that Jones' selection as one of the top 100 was necessarily complimentary..."

From the Time blurb: "In a rebuke to the proponents of intelligent design, Jones called the phrase 'a mere relabeling of creationism...................... Perhaps now, after Jones, people will accept that if they want to teach children about God, they should do so in church, not in science classes."

Seems complimentary to me.<<<<<<<

Panda's Thumb's article about Jones' selection did not quote anything complimentary from the Time blurb (though PT had a URL link to the blurb) -- the PT article just assumed that Jones' mere selection was an honor. BTW, the complete Time blurb is no longer available for free on the Internet, so nonpaying people cannot determine for themselves whether or not the article was complimentary (and who would want to pay for an article about Jones?).

Wednesday, May 10, 2006 10:54:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Colin said ( Wednesday, May 10, 2006 8:19:39 AM ) --

>>>>So the defendants' perjury is excusable because the government does bad things?<<<<<

The former board members' perjury was of no practical consequence -- the purchase of the books with funds raised at a church was not a pivotal factor in the Dover decision. Public officials do worse things constantly. Apparently you have not had a lot of bad experiences with public officials -- I have.

>>>>>"Also, the rule is that perjurers who agree to tell the truth are generally not charged with perjury -- otherwise the threat of perjury charges would be a disincentive for telling the truth."
No, that is not the rule. If it were, then no one would ever be prosecuted for perjury, because if they got caught they would just change their story at the last minute.<<<<<<

I think that people are prosecuted for perjury only when one or more of the following conditions exists: (1) there are major and irreversible harmful effects of the perjury, (2) the proof of the perjury is airtight, and (3) the authorities do not want to get more information out of the perjurer. I was not in the least surprised that the Dover school board members were not prosecuted for perjury.

>>>>>Well, I suppose the state of South Dakota was also "inane" when it recently passed that anti-abortion law that was a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade.

Yes they were. <<<<<

I am not trying to justify or defend what South Dakota did -- I am just pointing to that state as an extreme example of where the government has knowingly taken the risk of a lawsuit. Governments take the risk of lawsuits all the time, though South Dakota's action was unusually defiant. Other states have just tried to chip away at Roe v. Wade.

The state of Ohio, despite its deep pockets for fighting a lawsuit, disgracefully caved in to a phony threat of a lawsuit when the Ohio Board of Education deleted the Ohio evolution lesson plan ( though I myself thought that the lesson plan was a bad idea for reasons that had nothing to do with the absurd charge that the plan was "creationist" ).

Also, the finding that the Dover school board ignored the advice of its own attorney happened because the defendants gave a normally-privileged attorney-client message to the plaintiffs. I never found out why the defendants did that.

Well, at least you apparently agree with me that Jones went overboard in his defamation of the Dover defendants, because you said nothing about that.

Wednesday, May 10, 2006 11:58:00 AM  
Anonymous Larry's Shrink said...

I forgot to mention in my earlier post that Larry's also a pathological liar.

But of course the readers of this blog already know this.

Also, the finding that the Dover school board ignored the advice of its own attorney happened because the defendants gave a normally-privileged attorney-client message to the plaintiffs.

Liar.

I never found out why the defendants did that.

Liar. You were told dozens of times that it wasn't privileged, and WHY it wasn't privileged.

How do you live with yourself, telling such lies over and over? I ask you this at each of our therapy sessions, and you've never been able to give a satisfactory answer.

Wednesday, May 10, 2006 1:45:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>>Larry's Shrink said...

Also, the finding that the Dover school board ignored the advice of its own attorney happened because the defendants gave a normally-privileged attorney-client message to the plaintiffs.

Liar.

I never found out why the defendants did that.

Liar. You were told dozens of times that it wasn't privileged, and WHY it wasn't privileged.<<<<<<<

OK, smartass, since you know so much, why don't YOU tell us why it wasn't privileged. Provide evidence. PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

It was stated in the trial testimony that the defendants gave the message to the plaintiffs. The defendants did not have to do that, whether the message was privileged or not.

Also, I am really disgusted with you hypocritical sleazebags who come over from Panda's Thumb and post here under different names. You have no shame.

Wednesday, May 10, 2006 2:46:00 PM  
Blogger BWE said...

Judge Jones derogatory remarks about the Dover school board members indirectly attack ID, all proponents of ID (particularly public officials), and all science-based challenges to evolution theory.
Boy oh boy. I would say it wasn't indirect at all. And... there are no scientific challenges to evolution. It's interesting to note that you use the phrase "science-based".

An amicus brief submitted by 85 scientists in support of the defendants said, "....the scientific theory of intelligent design should not be stigmatized by the courts as less scientific than competing theories.......Doubts as to whether a theory adequately explains the evidence should be resolved by scientific debate, not by court rulings........
Right. My point exactly. see above.

As this litigation demonstrates, opponents of intelligent design frequently resort to ad hominem attacks, asserting that because some scientists hold religious views, their scientific work should be dismissed as merely 'religious.' "
No no no. Write 100 sentences:
"Science requires evidence"
"Science requires evidence"
"Science requires evidence"
"Science requires evidence"
and so on.

Jones also implicitly defamed ID proponents who are a lot more sensible than the Dover school board members were. Hee hee.


The former board members' perjury was of no practical consequence -- the purchase of the books with funds raised at a church was not a pivotal factor in the Dover decision. Public officials do worse things constantly. Apparently you have not had a lot of bad experiences with public officials -- I have.

Like the plans examiner who wouldn't let you fill awetland at the top of a hill?

How does it matter the severity? It seems like a pretty relevant lie.

Wednesday, May 10, 2006 3:51:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It was stated in the trial testimony that the defendants gave the message to the plaintiffs. The defendants did not have to do that, whether the message was privileged or not.

Liar.

Uh, each side has to turn over all relevant documents when asked.

Discovery:

A formal investigation -- governed by court rules -- that is conducted before trial. Discovery allows one party to question other parties, and sometimes witnesses. It also allows one party to force the others to produce requested documents or other physical evidence.

The message in question wasn't privileged because the content had already been publicly disclosed.

Wednesday, May 10, 2006 3:51:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

BWE said ( 5/10/2006 03:51:39 PM ) --

>>>>>It's interesting to note that you use the phrase "science-based".<<<<<<

And it is interesting to note that you asserted that there are no "scientific" challenges to evolution theory. I switched to the term "science-based" because carpers like you keep objecting to the word "scientific." I use "science-based" to distinguish these challenges from "religion-based."


>>>>>>(from scientists' amicus brief).....Doubts as to whether a theory adequately explains the evidence should be resolved by scientific debate, not by court rulings........
Right. My point exactly. see above.<<<<<

Good -- so you agree that Judge Jones should not have ruled on the scientific merits of ID !

Wednesday, May 10, 2006 6:03:00 PM  
Blogger BWE said...

>>>>>>(from scientists' amicus brief).....Doubts as to whether a theory adequately explains the evidence should be resolved by scientific debate, not by court rulings........
Right. My point exactly. see above.<<<<<

Good -- so you agree that Judge Jones should not have ruled on the scientific merits of ID !


Err... Not exactly. I think it's sad that Judge Jones had to rule on ID... That scientists weren't able to squelch the idiocy without the aid of the court.

Wednesday, May 10, 2006 6:23:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

BWE said ( 5/10/2006 06:23:07 PM ) ---

>>>>>(from scientists' amicus brief).....Doubts as to whether a theory adequately explains the evidence should be resolved by scientific debate, not by court rulings........
Right. My point exactly.

Good -- so you agree that Judge Jones should not have ruled on the scientific merits of ID !

Err... Not exactly. I think it's sad that Judge Jones had to rule on ID... That scientists weren't able to squelch the idiocy without the aid of the court. <<<<<<

Whaddya mean, "not exactly"? Yes, exactly !

So now it is the job of the courts to help scientists "squelch" scientific controversies! This is the living end ....................

Wednesday, May 10, 2006 7:40:00 PM  
Blogger Sean said...

Larry said:
So now it is the job of the courts to help scientists "squelch" scientific controversies!

Yup! Particularly as scientists don't determine schools' curriculum. That is instead set by non-scientists, some of whom want to teach a controversy where there isn't any.

Wednesday, May 10, 2006 10:05:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Anonymous said ( 5/10/2006 03:51:48 PM ) --

>>>>>>It was stated in the trial testimony that the defendants gave the message to the plaintiffs. The defendants did not have to do that, whether the message was privileged or not.

Liar.<<<<<

Liar ? About what? Which assertion? Is that all you can do -- call someone a liar?

>>>>>Uh, each side has to turn over all relevant documents when asked.<<<<<<

Not necessarily. Do you know what the word "privilege" means?

>>>>>The message in question wasn't privileged because the content had already been publicly disclosed.<<<<<<

No one has provided proof that the message had been publicly disclosed. Here is all the Dover opinion said about the disclosure of the message: "On August 26, 2004, Board Solicitor Stephen S. Russell sent an email to Nilsen ......Nilsen subsequently shared this email with everyone present at the Board Curriculum Committee meeting on August 30, 2004, including Buckingham, Bonsell, and Harkins." There is no indication that any members of the public were present at that Aug. 30 meeting. Attorney-client messages include or are supposed to include advice about protecting the privilege of the message. If the message's existence or the message's contents had been inadvertently disclosed during discovery, the defendants could have requested that the message's privilege be restored. Even if the message's existence and/or parts of the message's contents had been publicly disclosed, it still does not stand to reason that the defendants could be required to turn an official copy of the message over to the plaintiffs, because the message might have contained some information that had not been publicly disclosed.

Anyway, I found a huge two-volume set of references books on attorney-client privilege in the United States, at http://www.acprivilege.com/ . It has 1800 pages and analyzes more than 4000 federal judicial opinions. The price is $225. Maybe you could buy this set and see if it contains the answers to my questions. A reference on attorney-client privilege under state laws is also available on 12 computer diskettes.

BTW, Anonymous, when are you going to stop using multiple names on this blog and post under the name that you use on Panda's Thumb?

Wednesday, May 10, 2006 10:32:00 PM  
Blogger BWE said...

Whaddya mean, "not exactly"? Yes, exactly !

So now it is the job of the courts to help scientists "squelch" scientific controversies! This is the living end ....................


No. I mean, Not exactly. Remember what we were talking about?

>>>>>>(from scientists' amicus brief).....Doubts as to whether a theory adequately explains the evidence should be resolved by scientific debate, not by court rulings........
Right. My point exactly. see above.<<<<<

Good -- so you agree that Judge Jones should not have ruled on the scientific merits of ID !


So, after scientists debated and won, the rat bastard fundies tried to use a legal maneuver to cram it down innocent, unprotected kids' throats without ever saying anything about what kind of a rat bastard thing it was to do and Judge Jones' hand was forced. SOmeone had to do the right thing and deliver a crushing rebuke to the rat bastard fundies. For god's sake. The living end...

Wednesday, May 10, 2006 11:00:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No one has provided proof that the message had been publicly disclosed. Here is all the Dover opinion said about the disclosure of the message: "On August 26, 2004, Board Solicitor Stephen S. Russell sent an email to Nilsen ......Nilsen subsequently shared this email with everyone present at the Board Curriculum Committee meeting on August 30, 2004, including Buckingham, Bonsell, and Harkins." There is no indication that any members of the public were present at that Aug. 30 meeting.

Doesn't matter if the public were present or not, dufous. A public meeting's a public meeting whether or not anyone actually shows up, and what happens at the meeting's a matter of public record.

This is why states have open meeting laws in the first place.

I love the way you trot your tardness out for all to see, using your real name.

You're one of the most repellent people on the internet. Sort of the intellectual equivalent of tubgirl.

Thursday, May 11, 2006 8:14:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Anonymous said ( 5/11/2006 08:14:56 AM ) --

>>>>>Doesn't matter if the public were present or not, dufous. A public meeting's a public meeting whether or not anyone actually shows up, and what happens at the meeting's a matter of public record.<<<<<<

Not all meetings of public bodies are open to the public, birdbrain. This was a meeting of the board curriculum committee and might have been closed to the public. In fact, it probably was closed to the public -- this meeting was held at the end of the month, on Aug. 30, whereas the board's semimonthly publicly announced meetings are held early in the month and around the middle of the month.

Also, public-body meetings held to discuss actual or possible litigation are often closed to the public. Furthermore, attorney-client messages include or should include advice about protecting the message's privilege -- the board's attorney was negligent if his message did not include such advice.

You are very good at jumping to conclusions.

Thursday, May 11, 2006 8:57:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

BWE said ( Wednesday, May 10, 2006 11:00:38 PM )

>>>>>So, after scientists debated and won, the rat bastard fundies tried to use a legal maneuver to cram it down innocent, unprotected kids' throats without ever saying anything about what kind of a rat bastard thing it was to do and Judge Jones' hand was forced<<<<<

Pity the poor impressionable kiddies. Now they are going to be brainwashed by the godless Darwinist goons.

Thursday, May 11, 2006 9:09:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


You are very good at jumping to conclusions.


You are very good at ignoring reality.

Listen to your shrink, Larry. Putting your hands over your ears and shouting "la-la-la-la-la" won't make the voices in your head go away.

Please take your meds.

Thursday, May 11, 2006 10:13:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Pity the poor impressionable kiddies. Now they are going to be brainwashed by the godless Darwinist goons.

And chemistry goons. And physics goons. Gosh, next you know godless science teachers are going to teach that the EARTH'S NOT FLAT!

What's next? Teaching that the earth's not the center of the universe?

Thursday, May 11, 2006 10:14:00 AM  
Blogger Colin said...

What's next? Teaching that the earth's not the center of the universe?

I think Larry's next goal would be teaching kids that the Holocaust never happened.

Thursday, May 11, 2006 11:55:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


I think Larry's next goal would be teaching kids that the Holocaust never happened.


Bingo!

Thursday, May 11, 2006 12:35:00 PM  
Blogger improvius said...

Indeed, some Darwinists think that they have already won the battle in the courts.

It would be more accurate to say that, for the past 40 years or so, the "Darwinists" have won every battle in the courts.

Thursday, May 11, 2006 12:53:00 PM  
Blogger beervolcano said...

Pity the poor impressionable kiddies. Now they are going to be brainwashed by the godless Darwinist goons.

Yeah, ID isn't religious. It's Darwinism that's trying to supress the word of God and keep ID, which isn't religious, out of schools.

Thursday, May 11, 2006 1:27:00 PM  
Blogger beervolcano said...

ID people: please answer my question here:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?N2391281D

Thursday, May 11, 2006 1:39:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, beervolcano, I'm no IDer but I do have plenty of experience with designed items.

In my experience, as time passes designed items can only lose information. New information can never be gained by random deteriation combined with unnatural selection.

As time goes on, eventually you have two "kinds" of designed items.

The working kind, and the broken-down kind.

However, I think you could argue that each designed artifact is already a separate species.

After all, automobiles, airplanes, and the like can not reproduce.

This means that each individual item, even if they look exactly alike, is reproductively isolated from all others!

Isn't that the definition of a species?

Thursday, May 11, 2006 3:11:00 PM  
Blogger beervolcano said...

Thanks anonymous.

Could you please go to the thread and leave your reply there?

Better yet, I'll just cut and paste your reply so that I can actually have something to reply to in that thread.

Friday, May 12, 2006 2:36:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

improvius said ( Thursday, May 11, 2006 12:53:28 PM ) --

>>>>Indeed, some Darwinists think that they have already won the battle in the courts.

It would be more accurate to say that, for the past 40 years or so, the "Darwinists" have won every battle in the courts.<<<<<<

Well, the Darwinists' luck may be running out -- it looks like the Selman v. Cobb County textbook stickers decision has a good chance of being reversed. And a reversal of Selman would put a big dent in Kitzmiller v. Dover, because the name of the Selman decision appears 15 times in Kitzmiller, so Kitzmiller relies heavily on Selman. If Selman wins, I predict that those textbook stickers will start appearing all over the country -- maybe even in Dover, PA. Judge Jones never ruled against textbook stickers.

Saturday, May 13, 2006 12:31:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Larry,

I've read your posts at Dispatches (unfortunately) and now some of your 'work' here -- and quite frankly, the only reason you're getting banned is because you're an idiot who seems to be completely divorced from reality in terms of these arguments.

After reading this thread, I see that you have NO supporters. Doesn't that tell you something? It should tell you that you're paranoid and that you need serious help. Too bad you'll apparently want to see a neurological study of the brain in order to accept your mental lackings, but you should just take it on faith -- remember, insanity is making the same mistake over and over again. Your blog just proves it (just as your comments on other sites did as well, I might add).

Sunday, May 21, 2006 6:21:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Anonymous said...

>>>>>After reading this thread, I see that you have NO supporters.<<<<<

I have no supporters? LOL Do you think that I am the only one who thinks that Judge Jones is a hypocrite? LMAO

>>>>> Doesn't that tell you something?<<<<<<

Yeah, it tells me that you are a stupid moron for thinking that I have no supporters.

Sunday, May 21, 2006 9:31:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Regarding my previous post (most recent 'Anonymous' comment), I don't doubt that there are people who agree with you -- but that doesn't mean that they're any more based in reality than you are (which is to say, not at all). I'm not sure anyone has called him a hypocrite besides you, but what basis would there be to find his actions hypocritical? That a religious, Church-going, Republican judge (fairly recently appointed, perhaps meaning that his career is on the upswing, or at least potentially so) would rule against ID because of his so-called culture-wars-affiliation with ID-supporting Republicans fighting a holy war against atheist leftists hell bent on removing every mention of God from all of American life?

Well, that didn't happen and it didn't happen because it wasn't the case. This policy wasn't voted down because it "mentioned God" or because it even invoked him through the idea of the designer; it was ruled unconstitutional because it was a view advocated for by the statement and was a view that can only exist if some sort of god-like (i.e., supernatural) figure is involved in the process that science has come to call evolution.

Supporting the first commentor to your idiotic post, Jones didn't take a political position per se; he pointed out that avowed religious folks acted at odds with one of their ten commandmants (thou shall not bear false witness) and presented an analysis of why their actions were dumb: they didn't listen to their lawyer, they didn't listen to the experts (the school's science teachers), and lied about where they got the money for the books. When your lawyer tells you -- "Don't do this, you're going to lose a lawsuit," the experts -- the school's science teachers -- say, "this isn't science; we refuse to be involved in the presentation of this material", and they (well, at least two of them) knew where the money for the books came from -- not to mention at least one other member not knowing ANYTHING about intelligent design -- that pretty much defines stupidity.

As for what I said before about not having supporters -- look, as I said above, there may be people who agree with some of your views, despite your lame arguments (and probably their same lame arguments), but what I mostly referred to was a lack of supporter on your own board. Why don't you go back to taking your meds and see the psychiatrist -- and psychologist -- a little more often. From what I've seen of you so far (thankfully just a few of your rants here and an incoherent debacle on Ed's board) I'm not sure -- no, make that I am certain that you would not recognize the truth if it were spelled out in small words in front of you -- you missed those points on Ed's board and your own arguments are inconsisten when not incoherent.

Sunday, May 21, 2006 6:18:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Anonymous said ( 5/21/2006 06:18:09 PM ) --

>>>>I'm not sure anyone has called him a hypocrite besides you, but what basis would there be to find his actions hypocritical?<<<<<<

People have called him worse things, e.g., Pat Buchanan called him a "Neanderthal." I explained in my opening post why I call him a hypocrite -- he says that politics should be kept out of the courts but his own Dover opinion was highly political.

>>>>>That a religious, Church-going, Republican judge ....... would rule against ID because of his so-called culture-wars-affiliation with ID-supporting Republicans .....? <<<<<

Are you suggesting that I think that he ruled against ID just to avoid suspicion that he was influenced by his religious and political connections? I don't think that.

>>>>>it was ruled unconstitutional because it was a view advocated for by the statement and was a view that can only exist if some sort of god-like (i.e., supernatural) figure is involved in the process that science has come to call evolution.<<<<<

Well, I could say the same about evolution theory. I can say that the flaws in evolution theory are so huge that the only possible way to ever account for them is to assume supernatural intervention. Assumptions about the religious implications of something that has no overt religious connections are very arbitrary and subjective.

>>>>>Supporting the first commentor to your idiotic post, Jones didn't take a political position per se; he pointed out that avowed religious folks .....presented an analysis of why their actions were dumb: they didn't listen to their lawyer, they didn't listen to the experts (the school's science teachers), and lied about where they got the money for the books<<<<<

You called my post idiotic, yet it is well backed up by the facts -- Jones went overboard in criticizing the defendants. That is not his job.

As for not listening to their lawyer, the Dover board members listened to other lawyers instead.

I agree that the board should have taken more input from the teachers -- maybe a satisfactory compromise might have been worked out. Instead, the teachers were largely excluded from the process.

As for lying about getting the book money at a church, it is too bad that the judicial Lemon test -- which is partly based on people's motivations -- causes people to lie about their religious motivations. Meanwhile, the lead expert witness for the plaintiffs, Kenneth Miller, was religiously motivated -- see thread titled, "Kenneth Miller the hypocrite," http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2006/04/kenneth-miller-hypocrite.html There is obviously a double standard here.

>>>>As for what I said before about not having supporters -- look, as I said above, there may be people who agree with some of your views, despite your lame arguments (and probably their same lame arguments), but what I mostly referred to was a lack of supporter on your own board.<<<<<

Well, if you think that my arguments are so lame, why do you waste your time reading them? There is a commenter on this blog -- I won't name him -- but his comments are very repetitive and often consist mostly of insults and ad hominem attacks, so I don't even bother reading his comments anymore.

I may not have many supporters here, but I don't have many detractors, either. On my threads dealing with legal issues, almost all the debate came from just two commenters -- the other commenters were just hecklers. I am sure that there are a hell of a lot of people who agree with my views. I am sure that the folks at Discovery Institute agree with my views -- they just don't have the time to comment here. And people who agree with what they read are less likely to leave comments.

Monday, May 22, 2006 3:29:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Interesting exchanges you have going here. Not much content.

Two points.
>>>>>>(from scientists' amicus brief).....Doubts as to whether a theory adequately explains the evidence should be resolved by scientific debate, not by court rulings........
<<<<<
ID has clearly lost the debate in the scientific forum. That is why they try to load school boards with their proponents in order to bypass scientists with their pseudo-science. That is why this question ends up in the courts. Referees are needed when one side breaks the rules.

Creationist (sorry... ID) "institutes" do not do any field-work of a scientific nature, do not publish any new findings that advance our understanding of biology. They do not even have the honesty to write up a comprehensive description of their cosmology.
In this they are wise, because the only thing that unites this marginal minority is their anti-evolution position. Creationist groupings in the past ripped themselves to shreds in the internal doctrinaire debates on the various flavours of creationism. Since the most influential ($) members are Young-Earth Creationists, detailing their views would expose them to such ridicule that they would not recover.

So they sit on the sidelines of science and take negative pot-shots, and then compliment each other on how smart they are.

Second...
It is also typical of creationists to become instant experts based on superficial, selected readings. You seem to have become an expert on court proceedings by googling references and cherry-picking quotes out of context.

Graham.

Monday, May 22, 2006 5:42:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home