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.

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.

Saturday, June 09, 2007

An additional response to Sandefur

This post is a follow-up to Sandefur wrong about Judge Jones' "judicial activism".

Sandefur also said,

Now, I’m putting aside the fact that the Defendants in Kitzmiller invited the court to determine whether ID is science — note, for instance, their pretrial memorandum, when they contended that “the evidence will show that IDT [ID theory] is a scientific argument, advanced by scientist [sic] relying on evidence and technical knowledge proper to their specialties,” and that ID’s reliance on supernatural explanations “does not place [it] beyond the bounds of ‘science.’ Quite the contrary, IDT’s refusal to rule out this possibility represents the essence of scientific inquiry.” (Def. Pretrial Mem. at 10-11.) This is a fact that those trying to smear Judge Jones really enjoy forgetting.

I am one of those "trying to smear Judge Jones" (and we are succeeding), and I certainly do not "really enjoy forgetting" this -- in fact, I enjoy discussing this. Jones was under no obligation to rule on the ID-as-science question just because both sides asked him to. There are many reasons why judges should try to avoid ruling on scientific questions whenever possible. Jones himself argued "both sides made me do it" in trying to dodge his accountability for deciding to rule on the ID-as-science question -- a Lutheran magazine article about an interview of Jones said,

Some critics thought Jones went too far in ruling on whether intelligent design is science or not. “Both sides asked me to render a decision on that precise issue,” he said.

BTW, trying to make more phony excuses, Jones also said,

“Had I not done so, there was every chance that this same issue would have arisen before another tribunal."

-- and --

“I didn’t think a school district somewhere else should be exposed to the costs and fees that the Dover School District ended up paying (more than $1 million) as a result of my ducking that issue.”




Anonymous Voice in the Wilderness said...

> I am one of those "trying to smear Judge Jones" (and we are succeeding)<

In making fools of yourselves.

> trying to make more phony excuses, Jones also said, <

Jones made perfectly valid observations which went over the heads of some fools.

Saturday, June 09, 2007 12:37:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home