Discovery Institute falsely charged with inconsistency
An article on Panda's Thumb falsely charges that the Discovery Institute was being inconsistent by filing an amicus brief urging Judge Jones to rule that Intelligent Design is good science and then condemning him as an "activist judge"for ruling on the scientific merits of ID. However, a co-author of the DI amicus brief, DI Center for Science and Culture senior fellow David DeWolf, was also a co-author of an amicus brief from 85 scientists urging Judge Jones to not rule on the scientific merits of ID. So what the DI was essentially telling Jones was, "we urge you not to rule on the scientific merits of ID, but if you do, we urge you to rule that ID is good science or at least not bad science, non-science, or religion." The DI was just trying to cover all of the bases -- there is nothing wrong with that. And it doesn't bar the DI from criticizing Judge Jones for ruling on the scientific merits of ID.
Fatheaded Ed Brayton made the same kind of argument about the Lemon test that is used in deciding establishment clause cases. He made the absurd argument that it is inconsistent to both oppose use of the Lemon test and also argue that the test's second ("effect") prong should not be applied if the first ("purpose") prong is sufficient to decide the case. As the saying goes, if life gives you lemons, make lemonade -- in other words, if you can't stop the courts from using the Lemon test, try to make the best of it.
Fatheaded Ed Brayton made the same kind of argument about the Lemon test that is used in deciding establishment clause cases. He made the absurd argument that it is inconsistent to both oppose use of the Lemon test and also argue that the test's second ("effect") prong should not be applied if the first ("purpose") prong is sufficient to decide the case. As the saying goes, if life gives you lemons, make lemonade -- in other words, if you can't stop the courts from using the Lemon test, try to make the best of it.
posted by Larry Fafarman | 11/23/2007 07:10:00 AM
20 Comments:
> what the DI was essentially telling Jones was ... <
As usual, when you try to interpret things, you get it wrong. Based on what they actually said, they were inconsistent.
Almost accurate, Anonymous. The only exception is "BYBLE4LYFE". Larry doesn't believe in the bible or a conventional god. He believes in little green men.
>>>>>> Based on what they actually said, they were inconsistent. <<<<<<<
In the same way that a baseball team is inconsistent by having 2nd and 3rd basemen in addition to the 1st baseman (CJ John "Ump" Roberts loves baseball analogies). If a runner can be put out at 1st, what is the point of having 2nd and 3rd basemen? Let's go over this again --
. . . a co-author of the DI amicus brief, DI Center for Science and Culture senior fellow David DeWolf, was also a co-author of an amicus brief from 85 scientists urging Judge Jones to not rule on the scientific merits of ID. So what the DI was essentially telling Jones was, "we urge you not to rule on the scientific merits of ID, but if you do, we urge you to rule that ID is good science or at least not bad science, non-science, or religion."
There is no inconsistency there.
If Judge Jones had ruled that ID is good science, Darwinists would be complaining that he should not have ruled on the scientific merits of ID.
Also, trolls are continuing to clutter up this blog with their garbage while ridiculing my no-censorship policy. They are beneath contempt.
> In the same way that a baseball team is inconsistent by having 2nd and 3rd basemen in addition to the 1st baseman <
Another one of Larry's absurd false analogies.
> So what the DI was essentially telling Jones was... <
What they said, not your mistaken interpretation of what they could have meant.
> Also, trolls are continuing to clutter up this blog with their garbage while ridiculing my no-censorship policy. They are beneath contempt. <
As it is, while you do not practice a no-censorship policy, you remain beneath contempt.
>>>>>> while you do not practice a no-censorship policy <<<<<<
Dunghill, if I don't practice a no-censorship policy, then why are those stupid comments -- including yours -- still here?
Here's a challenge to the trolls here -- try posting appropriate links to this blog on Panda's Thumb, Wickedpedia, and the blogs of Fatheaded Ed, Sleazy PZ, and Ding Elsberry, and see how far you get.
> Dunghill, if I don't practice a no-censorship policy, then why are those stupid comments -- including yours -- still here? <
I don't see any stupid comments except your own but the answer is simple. Unlike other blogs, your censorship is arbitrary?
What happened to ViW? Why don't you lift your ban?
> try posting appropriate links to this blog on Panda's Thumb, Wickedpedia, and the blogs of Fatheaded Ed, Sleazy PZ, and Ding Elsberry, and see how far you get.<
They would be dropped because you were banned for cause
What did ViW do to cause you to ban him? What was in the posts that have disappeared in the last several days?
>>>>>> They would be dropped because you were banned for cause <<<<<<
I know, I was banned for "cause": disagreeing with them.
And they didn't ban you, you crock of shit -- so why should they censor your comment just because it links to my blog? I know -- because I disagree with them.
>>>>>> They would be dropped because you were banned for cause <<<<<<
> I know, I was banned for "cause": disagreeing with them. <
We all know why you were banned and it wasn't for disagreeing with them. There is no use in repeating the causes.
> And they didn't ban you, you crock of shit <
Perhaps they didn't ban me because I have never posted there?
>>>>> Perhaps they didn't ban me because I have never posted there? <<<<<
In any case, you have not been banned there. So why won't you accept my challenge? Chicken?
> So why won't you accept my challenge? Chicken? <
It would serve no purpose. Why would people on his blog want to be redirected here?
Why did you dodge my challenge to prove you weren't a liar? You falsely said that I had admitted posting as "anonymous" and now everyone knows it. Chicken.
>>>>>> So why won't you accept my challenge? Chicken? <<<<<<
It would serve no purpose. Why would people on his blog want to be redirected here? <<<<<<<
Interesting -- Buckingham gave a similar answer when asked why he didn't want to know where the donation of the "Of Pandas and People" books came from: "what purpose would it serve"?
So you chickened out.
>>>>>> You falsely said that I had admitted posting as "anonymous" <<<<<<
You said that several people posted as "Anonymous." The only way you would know that even two people posted as Anonymous would be if one of them was you.
> You said that several people posted as "Anonymous." The only way you would know that even two people posted as Anonymous would be if one of them was you. <
Another great leap of illogic. The differences between the various "anonymous" posters was obvious from their different writing styles (something invisible to you but visible to the rest of the world). The difference is as obvious as the similar styles of you and your sock puppets. That is why everyone has always been able to see through your attempts.
You lose, Larry. You made a false statement and are unable to back it up. Your only defense is one of the wild misinterpretations for which you are so well known.
Here we see Larry in one of his usual positions: at the bottom of a hole and digging furiously.
>>>>>> The differences between the various "anonymous" posters was obvious from their different writing styles <<<<<<
All right, bozo. Find several comments under "Anonymous" here and show us how their "writing styles" unmistakably differ.
>>>>> The difference is as obvious as the similar styles of you and your sock puppets. <<<<<
And show how my "writing style" is unmistakably similar to Joe Blow's.
You are in no position to make challenges since you walked away from mine.
> All right, bozo. Find several comments under "Anonymous" here and show us how their "writing styles" unmistakably differ. <
Is there anyone here besides Larry who can't see the difference? Of course Larry wouldn't recognize these if they were put in front of him.
> And show how my "writing style" is unmistakably similar to Joe Blow's. <
Is there anyone here besides Larry and Joe Blow who can't see this? Perhaps Larry will come up with another sock puppet to agree with him.
Thank you "Joe Blow" for proving my point.
I could even tell when one of the anonymouses (anonymice?) a while back was the Australian biology professor. Combination of style, context, and interests.
> Voice in Suburbanness said... <
The cretin is so thick he can't even figure out who you are.
Post a Comment
<< Home