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.

Wednesday, September 20, 2006

Anti-ID legal scholar says Jones should not have ruled on whether ID is science

The Discovery Institute discusses an anti-ID legal scholar's upcoming lecture titled "Judging Intelligent Design: Should the Courts Decide What Counts as Science or Religion?" The abstract for this lecture says of the Kitzmiller v. Dover decision,

The opinion's main problem lies in the conclusion that most evolution supporters were particularly pleased with -- namely, the judge's finding that ID is not science. The problem is not that ID is science. Maybe it is science, and maybe it isn't. The question is whether judges should be deciding in their written opinions that ID is or is not science -- a question that sounds in philosophy of science -- as a matter of law. On this question, the answer is "no," particularly when the overall question posed to the Court is whether teaching ID endorses religion, not whether it is or is not science. The part of Kitzmiller that finds ID not to be science is unnecessary, unconvincing, not particularly suited to the judicial role, and even perhaps dangerous to both science and freedom of religion. The judge's determination that ID endorses religion should have been sufficient to rule the policy unconstitutional.

As for the last statement above, "The judge's determination that ID endorses religion should have been sufficient to rule the policy unconstitutional," I partly disagree that ID endorses religion. ID makes no reference to any religious sources. I feel that the only apparent endorsement of religion is the term "intelligent design," which implies the existence of a supernatural designer. I think that the choice of the name "intelligent design" was unfortunate -- they should have stuck with names without religious connotations, e.g., irreducible complexity.

Anyway, after Judge Jones decided that ID appears to be an endorsement of religion, presumably one of the purposes of next judging the scientific merits of ID and irreducible complexity was to determine whether these ideas have any scientific merits that could be considered to be a "legitimate secular purpose" that would justify an exception to the general rule that the government may not give the appearance of endorsing religion. But what kind of "legitimate secular purpose"? Must it be an intended purpose of the school board? The Dover school board could not have had an intended secular purpose, because the testimony of some of the board members -- particularly that of William Buckingham, one of the two leading advocates of the ID policy on the board -- showed that they had no idea what intelligent design is. Could it be a perceived secular purpose, that is, a secular purpose that is perceived by the students and the general public? Judge Jones had already decided -- before addressing the question of whether ID is science -- that the students and the general public perceived the school board's ID policy as being a "strong endorsement of religion": the Kitzmiller opinion said, "We have now found that both an objective student and an objective adult member of the Dover community would perceive Defendants' conduct to be a strong endorsement of religion pursuant to the endorsement test. Having so concluded, we find it incumbent upon the Court to further address an additional issue raised by Plaintiffs, which is whether ID is science." Or could the "legitimate secular purpose" be any conceivable secular purpose -- in this case, a finding that ID and/or irreducible complexity have some scientific merits? In the Kitzmiller trial, judging those scientific merits was the purpose of hearing the scientific testimony from experts who had not participated in the enactment of the Dover ID policy, but the Supreme Court indicated in Edwards v. Aguillard that such after-the-fact testimony could be considered to be just a pointless "Monday-morning battle of the experts" because it could not illuminate the school board's intended purposes. Should the intended or perceived purpose be considered at all, since different people have different purposes and what really counts anyway is the "effect"? How can a court decision be universally applicable if it is wholly or partly based on people's purposes or motives? The determination of purpose is part of the judicial "Lemon test", which has fallen into disfavor.

Anyway, I feel that (1) the courts have no general constitutional or legal authority to make decisions on scientific questions and (2) the courts are ill-suited for deciding scientific questions, and I therefore feel that such decisions should be avoided unless absolutely necessary for deciding a case, such as a product-liability case. I feel that judging the scientific merits of ID and irreducible complexity was not necessary in Kitzmiller. Judge Jones ignored an amicus brief submitted by 85 scientists urging him to refrain from ruling on the scientific merits of ID.

I think that attorney Edward Sisson has the right idea that the way to deal with these evolution-disclaimer cases is the "political insider-outsider" principle of the judicial "endorsement test". Under this principle, the government should be allowed to make statements of a possibly religious nature if doing so is necessary to prevent particular religious groups from feeling like political "outsiders." Right now, the atheists and those who believe that Darwinism is compatible with religion are definitely the ones who feel like the political "insiders." Not only is Darwinism the only explanation of life origins that is actually being taught, but any mention of criticism of Darwinism -- whether the criticism is religious or not -- has been banned by some court decisions. Since teaching evolution promotes atheism and/or the belief that evolution is compatible with religion, those who believe that evolution is incompatible with religion are entitled to an evolution disclaimer statement as a concession to their religious beliefs. Indeed, in the Selman v. Cobb County textbook sticker case, the judge ruled,

. . . . after considering the additional arguments and evidence presented by the parties and evaluating the evidence in light of the applicable law, the Court remains convinced that the Sticker at issue serves at last (sic) two secular purposes. First, the Sticker fosters critical thinking by encouraging students to learn about evolution and to make their own assessment regarding its merit. Second, by presenting evolution in a manner that is not unnecessarily hostile, the sticker reduces offense to students and parents whose beliefs may conflict with the teaching of evolution.. For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that the Sticker satisfies the first prong of the Lemon analysis.(emphasis added)

However, the judge ruled against the textbook stickers for other reasons.

Under this "political insider-outsider" principle, an evolution disclaimer could be upheld as constitutional without a ruling that any criticism of evolution has any scientific merit.

Labels: ,

22 Comments:

Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

> the judge's finding that ID is not science. <

That should be the judge's observation that ID is not science.

> Maybe it is science, and maybe it isn't. <

It isn't.

> The question is whether judges should be deciding in their written opinions that ID is or is not science <

The judge must rule on the cases brought before them.
> The part of Kitzmiller that finds ID not to be science is unnecessary, unconvincing, not particularly suited to the judicial role, and even perhaps dangerous to both science and freedom of religion. <

Amazing! A single sentence with four unsupported and false claims.

> I partly disagree that ID endorses religion. <

You completely disagree that the Los Angeles Times is written by humans. Your disagreement has no effect on reality.

> ID makes no reference to any religious sources. <

Of course it does. Design requires a designer. An obvious point that you will continue to duck as you have in the past. That is why you continue to lose this debate.

> I think that the choice of the name "intelligent design" was unfortunate -- they should have stuck with names without religious connotations, e.g., irreducible complexity. <

Intelligent Design and Irreducible Complexity are two different things. In this case we were talking about Intelligent Design which could not be better described in other words.

I can't wait to see what you will misinterpret next. How about a new subject? This one is getting quite old and even you must realize that you have lost every point.

Thursday, September 21, 2006 8:36:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Voice In the Wilderness said --

>>>>>"the judge's finding that ID is not science. " (quoting abstract)

That should be the judge's observation that ID is not science.<<<<<

No, VIW, you are only showing your abysmal ignorance of the law again. A judge's ruling is called a "finding" -- a judge's "observation" is called "dictum." And Jones did not say something like, "I am not really sure about this, but I think it is the best ruling I could make" --- he said that his conclusion was "inescapable": "It is our view that a reasonable, objective observer would, after reviewing both the voluminous record in this case, and our narrative, reach the inescapable conclusion that ID is an interesting theological argument, but that it is not science."(page 89 of Kitzmiller opinion)

>>>>>> Maybe it is science, and maybe it isn't.(quoting abstract) <

It isn't. <<<<<<

I think that Wexler was emphasizing his point that Judge Jones did not have to rule on the matter.

>>>>>> The question is whether judges should be deciding in their written opinions that ID is or is not science (quoting abstract).<

The judge must rule on the cases brought before them. <<<<<

Wrong again, VIW. Judges can dismiss cases entirely or rule on only some of the issues presented in a given case.

>>>>>> The part of Kitzmiller that finds ID not to be science is unnecessary, unconvincing, not particularly suited to the judicial role, and even perhaps dangerous to both science and freedom of religion.(quoting abstract)<

Amazing! A single sentence with four unsupported and false claims. <<<<<<

This is an abstract, VIW. Do you know what an abstract is? It is just an outline.

>>>>>> ID makes no reference to any religious sources.(my statement) <

Of course it does. Design requires a designer. <<<<<<

That is only your own conclusion. I can say that evolution also requires a designer.

>>>>>> Intelligent Design and Irreducible Complexity are two different things. <<<<<

Wrong again. Irreducible complexity is considered to be the main foundation of ID.

Anyway, it is obvious, VIW, that you did not learn anything about the law by filing lawsuits in forma pauperis and submitting your complaints on fast-food wrappers pulled out of garbage dumpsters.

Thursday, September 21, 2006 12:31:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

> A judge's ruling is called a "finding" -- a judge's "observation" is called "dictum." <

I am not talking about the terms for his statements. I am talking about the nature of them. Again you show your inability to read simple English. The point is that the judge did not have to make a decision. He had only to open his eyes and see the obvious.

> "It is our view that a reasonable, objective observer would, after reviewing both the voluminous record in this case, and our narrative, reach the inescapable conclusion that ID is an interesting theological argument, but that it is not science." <

Flawless logic. That is why he did not chose your absurd alternate language.

(page 89 of Kitzmiller opinion)

> I think that Wexler was emphasizing his point that Judge Jones did not have to rule on the matter. <

What Wexler was doing was repeating his misconception.

>>>>> The judge must rule on the cases brought before them. <<<<<

> Judges can dismiss cases entirely or rule on only some of the issues presented in a given case. <

The point is that they can take these actions only on the case presented to them. Judge Jones chose not to avoid the points at issue.

>>>>> Amazing! A single sentence with four unsupported and false claims. <<<<<<

> This is an abstract, VIW. Do you know what an abstract is? It is just an outline. <

Is that what you are alwasys posting, abstracts? Most of what you post is both unsupported and false.

>>>>> Of course it does. Design requires a designer. <<<<<<

> That is only your own conclusion. <

That is a statement of reality (unless we take your ploy of redefining the language).

> I can say that evolution also requires a designer. <

You can and do make ridiculous statements.

>>>>>> Intelligent Design and Irreducible Complexity are two different things. <<<<<

> Wrong again. Irreducible complexity is considered to be the main foundation of ID. <

A tire is the foundation of a car. By your thinking a tire and a car are the same thing.

Get your head out of your ass long enough to see that Irreducible Complexity is not required for, nor does it require Intelligent Design. Intelligent design does require a designer.

> Anyway, it is obvious, VIW, that you did not learn anything about the law by filing lawsuits in forma pauperis and submitting your complaints on fast-food wrappers pulled out of garbage dumpsters. <

No. I did not do those things. You did and learned nothing from it.

Thursday, September 21, 2006 5:13:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Voice In the Wilderness said,

>>>>>>> A judge's ruling is called a "finding" -- a judge's "observation" is called "dictum." <

I am not talking about the terms for his statements. I am talking about the nature of them. <<<<<<

You stupid, addle-brained fathead -- a judge's ruling is never called an "observation," regardless of how obvious it is. This abstract was for a lecture by a legal scholar on a legal subject.

>>>>>> Judges can dismiss cases entirely or rule on only some of the issues presented in a given case. <

The point is that they can take these actions only on the case presented to them. <<<<<<

Well, duh. Of course judges can't rule on cases that are not presented to them.

Anyway, that is not what you said originally. What you said originally was, "The judge must rule on the cases brought before them."

>>>>>Get your head out of your ass long enough to see that Irreducible Complexity is not required for, nor does it require Intelligent Design. Intelligent design does require a designer. <<<<<

Good -- so you agree that religious connotations can be avoided by just using the term "irreducible complexity" instead of "intelligent design."

Thursday, September 21, 2006 8:40:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

You clueless cretin --

> a judge's ruling is never called an "observation," regardless of how obvious it is. <

There is not a different language required for the actions of a judge. If he is eating, we call it eating. If he is breathing, we call it breathing. In this case he was stating the obvious.

> This abstract was for a lecture by a legal scholar on a legal subject. <

And you showed what was in the abstract by putting it in italics. What I was talking about was your own words. I was saying what a more accurate description would be.

You can't be as dumb as you are making yourself look on this blog. Nobody could be. Do you actually take care of yourself without a keeper or attendant?

> Well, duh. Of course judges can't rule on cases that are not presented to them. <

We all knew that. Now even you know it.

>>>>>Get your head out of your ass long enough to see that Irreducible Complexity is not required for, nor does it require Intelligent Design. Intelligent design does require a designer. <<<<<

> so you agree that religious connotations can be avoided by just using the term "irreducible complexity" instead of "intelligent design." <

Again you show your inability to read. Would any sane person get that out of my statement?

The point is that Irreducible Complexity and Intelligent Design are two different things. Why do you bother to talk about things you seem to know nothing about? It appears that you know even less about either than you do about law. In other words you know less than nothing since most of what you think you know is wrong.

Friday, September 22, 2006 7:18:00 AM  
Anonymous Intuit said...

Well, isn't this a pleasant exchange...

Larry, here is something for you to really sink your legal bicuspids into. You may have noticed it on Panda's Thumb, but in case you don't read anything on that site these days, I'll draw your attention to it here.

An award-winning (peer-reviewed!) publication in the Columbia Journal of Law And Social Problems re the Establishment clause and creationism/ID.

Enjoy!

Friday, September 22, 2006 9:54:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Stupid fathead VIW said,

>>>>>> a judge's ruling is never called an "observation," regardless of how obvious it is. <

There is not a different language required for the actions of a judge. <<<<<<

On the contrary, the legal meanings of terms are often quite different from their common meanings, but that does not happen to be the case with "observation." The use of "observation" is quite inappropriate here -- it means remark, casual mention, comment, taking notice, etc.. It implies detachment and relative unimportance. In fact, my printed dictionary defines "dictum" as a kind of "remark" or "observation" ("observation" is not in legal dictionaries that I checked, though "finding" is).

>>>>> And you showed what was in the abstract by putting it in italics. What I was talking about was your own words. I was saying what a more accurate description would be. <<<<<<

Nope -- you did not quote my own words, you quoted the abstract's words. And it is not a more accurate description -- it is an incorrect description.

>>>>>The point is that Irreducible Complexity and Intelligent Design are two different things. <<<<<<

As I said, I am glad you agree that religious connotations can be avoided by using the term "irreducible complexity" instead of "intelligent design."

Friday, September 22, 2006 10:27:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Intuit said...
>>>>>Larry, here is something for you to really sink your legal bicuspids into. You may have noticed it on Panda's Thumb, but in case you don't read anything on that site these days, I'll draw your attention to it here. <<<<<<

I constantly check all of the websites in my link list in the left sidebar of the main (home) page, except for Talk.origins and the two prescribed evolution blogs. Talk.origins is not a blog and the prescribed evolution blogs are disorganized (I added these two blogs because their owner was a very frequent commenter on this blog).

>>>> An award-winning (peer-reviewed!) publication in the Columbia Journal of Law And Social Problems re the Establishment clause and creationism/ID. <<<<<

Thanks -- I've already read this article. Most of the facts in the article are not new to me because I am already very familiar with the court cases that the article discusses.

Friday, September 22, 2006 11:47:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

>>>>>> There is not a different language required for the actions of a judge. <<<<<<

To which the dumbshit responds...

> On the contrary, the legal meanings of terms are often quite different from their common meanings, <

The idiot doesn't seem to realize that the common meaning is the one that counts here.

After this the lunatic says...

> The use of "observation" is quite inappropriate here -- it means remark, casual mention, comment, taking notice, etc.. It implies detachment and relative unimportance. <

I'm talking about what the term means in English, not your secret code. None of the dictionaries that I can find say anything like what you are posting. The idea that it "implies detachment and relative unimportance" can be found nowhere and must have come directly out of your ass. (As is much of what you say.)

> And it is not a more accurate description -- it is an incorrect description. <

It is a more accurate description. Judge Jones only stated the obvious.

> As I said, I am glad you agree that religious connotations can be avoided by using the term "irreducible complexity" instead of "intelligent design." <

You still don't realize that repeating a falsehood only makes you look even more the fool (as if such was possible. As usual, you prove that you cannot read. Calling an apple an orange does not avoid anything. It only shows ignorance of the two concepts. Of course you have already shown that you know little about either of these two concepts which seem to be at the heart of your blog.

> I constantly check all of the websites in my link list in the left sidebar of the main (home) page, <

I am sure that you word search through them. It is a shame that you understand none of it.

Friday, September 22, 2006 12:53:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

VIW said,

>>>>> The idiot doesn't seem to realize that the common meaning is the one that counts here. <<<<<

You feeble-minded birdbrain, I said that there is no difference here between the legal meaning and the common meaning.

Since the words in question were not mine to begin with, maybe you should complain to the author, Jay Wexler, whose email address is jaywex@bu.edu , and who has a website at
http://www.jaywex.com/ . Tell him that he should have said "the judge's observation that ID is not science" instead of "the judge's finding that ID is not science."

Friday, September 22, 2006 3:24:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

You pathetic unbalanced halfwit

> I said that there is no difference here between the legal meaning and the common meaning. <

And, as usual, you were wrong. Get yourself a dictionary or learn how to use the Internet and look up "observation".

"Finding" would mean that the judge had to make a decision. "Observation" meant that the judge just stated the obvious. If the judge just stated that the sun rose in the east (which you might also dispute) would that be a finding?

If you want to post things for support, you must be willing to support them yourself. I don't want to bother to contact your fellow inmate but if you will bring him onto this blog, I will reply to him.

Friday, September 22, 2006 4:31:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

VIW said --

>>>>>"Finding" would mean that the judge had to make a decision. "Observation" meant that the judge just stated the obvious. <<<<<<

Give it up already, VIW. You've already lost this argument. You are only making yourself look more and more foolish.

I checked several online legal dictionaries. Almost all had "finding" -- none had "observation." Your distinctions between "finding" and "observation" are just too vague and ambiguous to be meaningful in legal terms. As for your statement that "finding" means that the judge had to make a decision, there are often reasonable differences of opinion as to when a decision is necessary. As for "observation" meaning stating the obvious, there are often reasonable differences of opinion as to what is obvious. Also, according to your definitions, a court ruling could be both a a "finding" and an "observation" or could be neither.

>>>>> If the judge just stated that the sun rose in the east (which you might also dispute) would that be a finding? <<<<<<

If he reaches that conclusion after hearing about three weeks of expert testimony -- as Judge Jones heard in the Kitzmiller case -- then it would definitely be a "finding."

Friday, September 22, 2006 8:46:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

Give it up already you pathetic cretin. You've already lost this argument. You are only making yourself look more and more foolish.

> I checked several online legal dictionaries. <

Idiot. Are you the only one on the planet not to understand that in this case the answer is to be found in a regular dictionary. All of them have "observation".

> there are often reasonable differences of opinion as to when a decision is necessary. <

There is no "reasonable" difference of opinion as to whether the earth is flat. It is not. There is no reasonable difference of opinion as to whether Intelligent Design is science. It is not.

Why don't you face it? You have lost as always.

Friday, September 22, 2006 9:07:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

VIW said --
>>>>>Idiot. Are you the only one on the planet not to understand that in this case the answer is to be found in a regular dictionary. All of them have "observation". <<<<<<

You stupid, feeble-minded oaf -- words that are commonly used and accepted in the field of law are listed in legal dictionaries even when the legal meaning is the same as or similar to the common meaning. "Finding" is such a word -- "observation" is not. Furthermore, your definition of "observation" -- a statement of something obvious -- is not found anywhere.

>>>>>> there are often reasonable differences of opinion as to when a decision is necessary. <

There is no "reasonable" difference of opinion as to whether the earth is flat. It is not. There is no reasonable difference of opinion as to whether Intelligent Design is science. It is not. <<<<<<

What does your response have to do with the issue of whether a decision is necessary?

Anyway, you stupid beetle-brain, your definitions of "finding" and "observation" were general and do not apply to any specific situation. The reasons why your definitions are not used in courts of law are that they are wrong and vague.

You accuse me of making up my own definitions, but look at you!

Friday, September 22, 2006 10:07:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

You hopeless idiot

> words that are commonly used and accepted in the field of law are listed in legal dictionaries even when the legal meaning is the same as or similar to the common meaning. <

Yet you have said that ...

> "Finding" is such a word -- "observation" is not. <

Don't you get it yet, dimwit? The meaning (or lack of one) in a law dictionary is not at issue.

> Furthermore, your definition of "observation" -- a statement of something obvious -- is not found anywhere. <

It isn't even found in any of my posts. Just because I use two words in the same sentence does not mean that I consider them to be equivalent. For example I referred to you as a pathetic unbalanced halfwit. I am not implying that these three qualities are equivalent or I would not have used them all Not all unbalanced people are halfwits. Not all halfwits are unbalanced. To properly describe your main qualities the two adjectives and one noun seem to fit very well.

YouYour being pathetic

> What does your response have to do with the issue of whether a decision is necessary? <

Translation "Why doesn't this key fit the front door? Nobody told me that it wouldn't fit the front door."

Look you ridiculous clown, your drivel about definitions does not address this issue either.

> your definitions of "finding" and "observation" were general and do not apply to any specific situation. <

> The reasons why your definitions are not used in courts of law are that they are wrong and vague. <

Imbecile, this is not a court of law. That is why I am using the common definitons. Incidentally, I never defined either of these words. I only disputed your mistaken definitions and suggested you try a dictionary.

> You accuse me of making up my own definitions, but look at you! <

Yes. I don't. Thanks for pointing out your idiocy.

Fake Larry(?), before you waste any more time on this, learn to read.

Saturday, September 23, 2006 6:58:00 AM  
Anonymous Intuit said...

We interrupt this program to bring you this special announcement. There is an interesting thread at Thoughts from Kansas, where Larry displays all of his logical and debating skills in multiple posts in the comment thread. See how he can move goalposts, conjure up red herrings, avoid answering direct questions, and, best of all, make up stuff that no sane person would ever believe, but which allows Larry to feel comfortable in his own little world.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.

Saturday, September 23, 2006 8:11:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

More crap from VIW --
>>>>>> "Finding" is such a word -- "observation" is not.<

Don't you get it yet, dimwit? The meaning (or lack of one) in a law dictionary is not at issue. <<<<<<

You stupid idiot, your little definitions of "finding" and "observation" are not in regular dictionaries either.

>>>>>>> Furthermore, your definition of "observation" -- a statement of something obvious -- is not found anywhere. <

It isn't even found in any of my posts. Just because I use two words in the same sentence does not mean that I consider them to be equivalent. <<<<<<

Here is what you said, you bumble-brained crackpot --

"Observation" meant that the judge just stated the obvious.

>>>>>>Imbecile, this is not a court of law. <<<<<<

You were "correcting" a statement in an abstract for a lecture by a legal scholar on a legal subject. He used the correct legal term -- "finding" -- for what he was describing.

>>>>> That is why I am using the common definitons. Incidentally, I never defined either of these words. <<<<<<<

You say that you never defined these words? Then what do you call this --

"Finding" would mean that the judge had to make a decision. "Observation" meant that the judge just stated the obvious.

I don't think that even you are dumb enough to think that you never defined these words. So maybe you are a dishonest liar in addition to being a stupid fathead.

Anyway, since you are saying that (1)"finding" means that a judge had to make a decision and (2) Judge Jones decision on whether ID is science was not a "finding," then you are saying that Judge Jones did not have to make a decision on whether ID is science. At least we agree on that point.

Saturday, September 23, 2006 8:25:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

Let's try once more to get this through your neutron star brain.

> your little definitions of "finding" and "observation" are not in regular dictionaries either. <

I did not give definitions. What I said about observation was what meaning, obvious to the sane, I had intended in this particular case.

"Observation" meant that the judge just stated the obvious."

Is this so hard for you to understand.

>>>>>>Imbecile, this is not a court of law. <<<<<<

> You were "correcting" a statement in an abstract for a lecture by a legal scholar on a legal subject. <

I was simply pointing that the judge did not have to make a decision of any kind. He only had to point out the obvious. Intelligent Design is not science by any stretch of the imagination.

> You say that you never defined these words? Then what do you call this --

"Finding" would mean that the judge had to make a decision. "Observation" meant that the judge just stated the obvious. <

I would call that clarification. It explains the difference in the meaning in this particular case. That is not a definition. Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of the word "definition".

> More mindless babble <

So at least you agree that ID has nothing to do with science. We are making progress.

Saturday, September 23, 2006 10:46:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Stupid fathead VIW said --

>>>>>> your little definitions of "finding" and "observation" are not in regular dictionaries either. <

I did not give definitions. <<<<<<

Yes you did.

>>>>> "Observation" meant that the judge just stated the obvious.

Is this so hard for you to understand.<<<<

It is hard for me to understand because I am sane.

>>>>>> You were "correcting" a statement in an abstract for a lecture by a legal scholar on a legal subject. <

I was simply pointing that the judge did not have to make a decision of any kind. <<<<<

Exactly -- so he should have said nothing on the question of whether ID is science. We are in agreement.

>>>>> I would call that clarification. It explains the difference in the meaning in this particular case. That is not a definition. <<<<<

You were defining "observation" for your particular usage -- but your definition is not a normally accepted one.

You lousy hypocrite, here is what you said in response to my own definition of "judicial activism," which unlike "observation" is not well-defined in regular or legal dictionaries:

Your own definitions are meaningless. You have shown a tendency to try to redefine language. It is the work of a madman (as to be expected from you).

Saturday, September 23, 2006 8:08:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice In The Urbanness said...

ViW,

You are wasting your time. Your post is aimed at someone with the intellectual level of a twelve year old. Therefore it is going over Larry(?)'s head.

A few examples:

>>>>> I was simply pointing that the judge did not have to make a decision of any kind. <<<<<

Of course the sane could see that meant that no decision was required to say that ID was not science. It was just stating the obvious.

> Exactly -- so he should have said nothing on the question of whether ID is science. We are in agreement. <

So you agree that there is no question that ID is not science so it need not be mentioned?

> You were defining "observation" for your particular usage <

No. He was explaining what he meant by the term. This was not necessary for rational people but since it was aimed at you, he shouldn't have expected you to understand.

> but your definition is not a normally accepted one. <

I would agree with ViW. It is a stretch to call this a definition.

> You lousy hypocrite, here is what you said in response to my own definition of "judicial activism,"

> Your own definitions are meaningless. You have shown a tendency to try to redefine language. It is the work of a madman (as to be expected from you). <

I can't see what is hypocritical about this. Perhaps you could explain.

> (judicial activism) which unlike "observation" is not well-defined in regular or legal dictionaries: <

Quite irrelevant.

I would agree with almost all of the posters on this blog. You don't appear to have ever read the posts to which you respond. You should try harder and then you might not look like as much of a fool.

Saturday, September 23, 2006 11:33:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Voice In the Urbanness said --

>>>>>> Exactly -- so he should have said nothing on the question of whether ID is science. We are in agreement. <

So you agree that there is no question that ID is not science so it need not be mentioned?<<<<<<

No -- my position is that the question of whether ID is science should not have been answered, period, whether or not ID is science. So we agree in thinking that Judge Jones did not have to answer the question of whether ID is science, but we have different reasons for thinking that.

>>>>> I can't see what is hypocritical about this. Perhaps you could explain. <<<<<

If you have to ask the question, you couldn't understand the answer (like that old jingle, "if you have to ask the price, you can't afford it").

I would agree with almost all of the posters on this blog.

I wouldn't say "almost all," but I am greatly disappointed by the large proportion of trolls among the commenters on this blog.

Sunday, September 24, 2006 12:18:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

> No -- my position is that the question of whether ID is science should not have been answered, <

You have repeated this enlessly without ever giving a good reason.

> So we agree in thinking that Judge Jones did not have to answer the question of whether ID is science <

Who are "we"? You are alone in this as usual.

> If you have to ask the question, you couldn't understand the answer <

In other words, you have no rational support for your position.

> I wouldn't say "almost all," but I am greatly disappointed by the large proportion of trolls among the commenters on this blog. <

There only seems to be one troll. Sometimes you are joined by one of your fellow inmates but I haven't seen him around for a while.

Sunday, September 24, 2006 4:35:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home