Judge Jones' doubletalk about Intelligent Design
Because I thought for various reasons that Judge Jones should not have ruled on the scientific merits of intelligent design or irreducible complexity, I have not paid much attention to the Dover opinion's section dealing with his rulings on those issues. However, an article in Evolution News & Views prompted me to have a closer look.
Judge Jones' Kitzmiller v. Dover opinion says,
.
So Judge Jones said that irreducible complexity is an argument that is "central to ID" and that he "takes no position" on whether "ID arguments may be true," and then he contradicts himself by taking the position that "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large." And while he said that irreducible complexity is "central to ID," he also said that irreducible complexity "does not support ID as it is merely a test for evolution." Sheeeesh -- give me a break.
Believe it or not, the Darwinists are still crowing about the Dover decision. The decision was extensively cited by a letter that biology professors sent to Texas Education Commissioner Robert Scott and in an editorial in the St. Petersburg (Fla.) Times.
.
Judge Jones' Kitzmiller v. Dover opinion says,
.
After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. . . . (page 64 of opinion, emphasis added)
. . . . We therefore find that Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large . . . . Additionally, even if irreducible complexity had not been rejected, it still does not support ID as it is merely a test for evolution, not design. (page 79, emphasis added))
So Judge Jones said that irreducible complexity is an argument that is "central to ID" and that he "takes no position" on whether "ID arguments may be true," and then he contradicts himself by taking the position that "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large." And while he said that irreducible complexity is "central to ID," he also said that irreducible complexity "does not support ID as it is merely a test for evolution." Sheeeesh -- give me a break.
Believe it or not, the Darwinists are still crowing about the Dover decision. The decision was extensively cited by a letter that biology professors sent to Texas Education Commissioner Robert Scott and in an editorial in the St. Petersburg (Fla.) Times.
.
posted by Larry Fafarman | 12/24/2007 02:50:00 AM
28 Comments:
There is no inconsistency. ID is not science.
> Believe it or not, the Darwinists are still crowing about the Dover decision. <
Perhaps because the won?
Anonymous said...
>>>>> There is no inconsistency. ID is not science. <<<<<<
What? The inconsistency here is that Jones first said that he took no position on whether ID arguments may be true, then went ahead and took a position on that question.
>>>>> Believe it or not, the Darwinists are still crowing about the Dover decision. <
Perhaps because the won? <<<<<<
That doesn't change the fact that it is a worthless piece of crap. They would have been better off losing.
> What? The inconsistency here is that Jones first said that he took no position on whether ID arguments may be true, then went ahead and took a position on that question. <
Come on Larry. You are only pretending not to be able to read in order to play Devil's advocate and make the creationists look stupid. They don't need any help in this.
He does not take a position on the truth or falsity of ID. His points are whether it is science, which obviously is not. There is no inconsistency here.
>>>>> He does not take a position on the truth or falsity of ID. His points are whether it is science, which obviously is not. <<<<<<
Sheeesh, what is the matter with you? Saying that ID is not science is taking a position on the truth or falsity of ID.
Your problem is that you think that Judge Jones is perfect.
> Sheeesh, what is the matter with you? Saying that ID is not science is taking a position on the truth or falsity of ID. <
What a completely irrational statement! What is the matter with you?
> Sheeesh, what is the matter with you? Saying that ID is not science is taking a position on the truth or falsity of ID. <
No Larry, Not taking a position on whether ID is true or false has nothing to do with taking a position on whether it is science.
You seem to have a problem in this area. I urge you to get help. This sort of irrationality can be treated.
> saying that ID is not true is definitely saying that ID is not science. <
You pathetic Jackass, the fact that ID is not true was not an issue here. Something could be true and still not science.
> Furthermore, Judge Jones said that he "takes no position" on whether "ID arguments may be true," <
He doesn't in what you quoted. You are using your strained illogic again to try to read in something that isn't there.
> and then took a position regarding the truth of irreducible complexity <
No. He took a position regarding the arguments for irreducible complexity. This is not the same.
Perhaps it would be good for you to take a class in formal logic. If you understood anything from it, you may be less likely to continue to show yourself to be a dimwit.
Stop digging, dunghill.
>>>>> Something could be true and still not science. <<<<<<
And something could be false and still be science. But saying that something is false definitely implies or suggests that it is not science. Saying that ID is false is definitely taking a position on the question of whether ID is science.
>>>>>> Furthermore, Judge Jones said that he "takes no position" on whether "ID arguments may be true," <
He doesn't in what you quoted. <<<<<
He said that the argument of irreducible complexity is "central to ID" and then says that IC "employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's" and "We therefore find that Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large." That is definitely "taking a position" on whether "ID arguments may be true."
>>>>>> and then took a position regarding the truth of irreducible complexity <
No. He took a position regarding the arguments for irreducible complexity. This is not the same. <<<<<
Sheeesh, you stupid fathead, taking a position on the arguments for irreducible complexity is taking a position on irreducible complexity!
Yes, and I know that "Of Pandas and People" is not a banned book and Judge Jones did not say that the Founders believed that organized religions are not "true" religions.
Sheeesh. Under the Social Darwinism that you love so much, you would be euthanized as a mental defective.
< You are full of crap, Sherry D. and you other stupid fatheads. >
Everyone but you, right? (You need to eat more vegetables!)
< Judge Jones said that he "takes no position" on whether "ID arguments may be true," and then took a position regarding the truth of irreducible complexity >
It is clear that the Deity (if he did it) went to enormous lengths to conceal his tracks. But that does not prove that he didn't do it -- he could be exceedingly clever, which we were supposed to believe anyway.
Individual arguments, like "irreducible complexity", can be disproved and have been. That is what is "wrong" with science -- a statement that is falsifiable is vulnerable to being falsified.
< something could be false and still be science >
Indeed.
It is unwise and unnecessary to hitch your connection to the Divine to that sort of argument. To borrow a question from yesterday's holiday: Was Jesus divine? That is not a "scientific" question, and it is not one that I would want to argue against. Merry Christmas! (As Jack Wheeler points out, the holiday actually only started yesterday and runs for twelve days.)
>>>>> Something could be true and still not science. <<<<<<
> And something could be false and still be science. <
Possibly, but it doesn't necessarily follow.
> But saying that something is false definitely implies or suggests that it is not science. <
So now you are reversing your previous statement?
> Saying that ID is false is definitely taking a position on the question of whether ID is science. <
From what you posted, Judge Jones did not say that ID was false or not. He showed that it is not science.
>>>>>> Furthermore, Judge Jones said that he "takes no position" on whether "ID arguments may be true," <
He doesn't in what you quoted. <<<<<
> He said that the argument of irreducible complexity is "central to ID" and then says that IC "employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism ... <
He discussed the irreducible complexity flaws and did not take a position on whether ID is false or not.
> That is definitely "taking a position" on whether "ID arguments may be true." <
No. That is taking a position on whether irreducible complexity arguments are valid.
> taking a position on the arguments for irreducible complexity is taking a position on irreducible complexity! <
Sheesh, you stupid fathead, taking a position on the arguments for irreducibly complexity is not taking a position on whether ID is true or not.
> Yes, and I know that "Of Pandas and People" is not a banned book and Judge Jones did not say that the Founders believed that organized religions are not "true" religions. <
Good. You are starting to face reality at last, nevertheless, we are planning to euthaniz you as a mental defective.
>>>>>> Individual arguments, like "irreducible complexity", can be disproved and have been. That is what is "wrong" with science -- a statement that is falsifiable is vulnerable to being falsified. <<<<<<
What in the hell are you talking about now? My only point was that Judge Jones lied when he said that he took no position on whether ID arguments are true.
< Jones lied when he said that he took no position on whether ID arguments are true. >
Jones took no official position regarding the attributes and achievements of the Divine Spirit. As a government official, he is not supposed to. He is entitled to his own public religious expression. This is a fine line, but it is possible to preserve it.
Yesterday I was reminded of Ronald Reagan's Christmas address (12/23/81) --
http://youtube.com/watch?v=UU0tuah-x7M
It was rather overtly religious, but I do not have a problem with it. Indeed, I think it was better than the current PCified pablum.
> My only point was that Judge Jones lied when he said that he took no position on whether ID arguments are true. <
It seems that you lied when you misrepresented the whole situation.
Judge Jones said that he took no position on whether ID is true. You have construed this to mean everything short of the ball scores. Nothing you have quoted gives any evidence that he has taken any other position on this, you fatheaded cretin.
>>>>>> Judge Jones said that he took no position on whether ID is true. <<<<<<
Look, dunghill, he stated that he took no position on whether ID arguments, e.g., irreducible complexity, are true, but by implication that statement also said that he took no position on whether ID itself is true. Here again is what he said,
. . we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the court takes no position, ID is not science.
What is so hard to understand about plain simple English? Why are you so fanatically dedicated to defending everything that Jones said and did that you pretend that you don't understand plain simple English?
You mindless cretin,
Here again is what he said,
. . we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the court takes no position, ID is not science.
That is all that he said. When you say what something implies, you are nearly always wrong. Perhaps I am being charitable when I say "nearly".
Why are you so fanatically dedicated to attacking everything that Jones said and did that you pretend that you don't understand plain simple English?
>>>>> . . we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the court takes no position, ID is not science.
That is all that he said. <<<<<<<
That is not all he said on the matter, dunderhead. As I show in my opening post, he said and did things which contradict his above statement. Sheeesh.
I get a fair number of visitors from all over the world but it is usually just you and a few other trolls who find fault with my posts. How do you explain that?
< dunderhead >
Creeping politeness?
> As I show in my opening post, he said and did things which contradict his above statement. <
No, you did not. You claimed that those implied things that they did not. He said only what he said, not what you can misinterpret from it. Sheeesh.
> I get a fair number of visitors from all over the world <
Many of which are indexing robots.
> but it is usually just you and a few other trolls who find fault with my posts. <
I am sure that there are many others who find fault with your posts but realize that it is a waste of time to get through your neutron star dense skull.
Out of those who post, virtually all except one derelict who posts from a public library in San Francisco, point out the lunacy of you positions. How do you explain that?
>>>>> You claimed that those implied things that they did not. <<<<<
So you are saying that Judge Jones did not imply or intend to imply that he was taking a position on the truth of irreducible complexity when he said, "We therefore find that Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large," and "the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's"?
>>>>>> I am sure that there are many others who find fault with your posts but realize that it is a waste of time to get through your neutron star dense skull. <<<<<<
I would greatly appreciate it if you would also realize that it is a waste of time and stop bugging me.
>>>>> Out of those who post, virtually all except one derelict who posts from a public library in San Francisco, point out the lunacy of you positions. How do you explain that? <<<<<
Blog visitors usually don't comment if they agree with a post and have nothing to add.
> So you are saying that Judge Jones did not imply or intend to imply that he was taking a position on the truth of irreducible complexity <
You hopeless moron. That is not what I said. I said that he did not take a position of the truth of ID. Pointing out the absurdity of something which has been tied to ID but is certainly not “central to ID” is not taking a position on the truth of ID.
>>>>>> I am sure that there are many others who find fault with your posts but realize that it is a waste of time to get through your neutron star dense skull. <<<<<<
> I would greatly appreciate it if you would also realize that it is a waste of time and stop bugging me.<
But it isn’t a waste of time for me. I am enjoying it immensely
>>>>> Out of those who post, virtually all except one derelict who posts from a public library in San Francisco, point out the lunacy of you positions. How do you explain that? <<<<<
> Blog visitors usually don't comment if they agree with a post and have nothing to add. <
If you believe that people aren’t commenting because they agree with you, you are as delusional as you were when you claimed that the moon landings were staged, meteors were from inside the atmosphere, and the Los Angeles Times, as well as most consumer goods, were produced and distributed with supernatural aid.
>>>>> Pointing out the absurdity of something which has been tied to ID but is certainly not “central to ID” is not taking a position on the truth of ID. <<<<<<
Bozo, he said that irreducible complexity is "central to ID" -- I highlighted that in my opening post.
>>>>>> But it isn’t a waste of time for me. I am enjoying it immensely <<<<<<
Yes, it is obvious that you enjoy sabotaging someone else's hard work by cluttering it up with your worthless crap, dunghill.
>>>>>> If you believe that people aren’t commenting because they agree with you, <<<<<<
If a lot of people disagree with me, then I should be getting comments from more people.
Larry,
as a some-time commenter (usually just visit, see what insanity I've missed), I must second the statements made above -- namely, I usually don't bother commenting since it makes no difference; your insanity continues unabated despite the help of many who comment on your drivel.
To try to explain what others have tried numerous times already: there is no contradiction in what Jones says. He states 1) "We find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which..." This means that ID may say something that is true (goddidit).
Your issue seems to be with the following statment: "the argument of irreducible complexity... employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism..." In defense of your detractors, he does not say that ic is false; he states that it "employs the same flawed and illogical dualism." This means: 1) that statement may make a true claim; 2) and that that same claim does not follow the rules of science -- making it not scientific (yet potentially true, though not in a scientific sense).
I doubt it will do you much good, but while you're at the library you may want to look at Michel Foucault's book, The Archaeology (sp) of Knowledge. It was the book that established Foucault as France's premier intellectual -- supplanting Sartre. Anyway, the book includes an essay, "The Discourse on Knowledge" (the title is misleading --) the topic is truth claims. To give an example: I may achieve (produce?) cold fusion in my kitchen tomorrow. Should I do this, that would be true. But it would not be scientific -- at least until it was verified through proper experimentation, which I understand to include duplication (as a non-scientist, I'll let your other commenters note the issues of the scientific method that you are sure to butcher in your reply to my post (assuming you let it stand).
Larry -- this has already been stated (in other words) by the previous respondents here. I was merely appalled by your continued thick-headedness, though I must admit that I am not at all surprised.
Merry Winter Solstice Celebration of your choice,
Manuel
>>>>>> To try to explain what others have tried numerous times already: there is no contradiction in what Jones says. He states 1) "We find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which..." This means that ID may say something that is true (goddidit). <<<<<<
No, bozo, Judge Jones said nothing about "goddidit" -- you are putting words in his mouth.
>>>>> Your issue seems to be with the following statment: "the argument of irreducible complexity... employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism..." In defense of your detractors, he does not say that ic is false; he states that it "employs the same flawed and illogical dualism." <<<<<<
That is not my only issue, but it is one of them.
For the umpteenth time: Judge Jones first said that he took no position on whether the arguments for ID may be true and then he did take positions on whether a "central" argument for ID, irreducible complexity, may be true, e.g., he said, " . . . . We therefore find that Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large . . ."
I make direct, plain-English interpretations of Jones' statements whereas you Darwinists' interpretations of Jones' statements use misrepresentations, quote mining and convoluted sophistry.
Also, as I noted in my opening post, the Dover opinion said,
Additionally, even if irreducible complexity had not been rejected, it still does not support ID as it is merely a test for evolution, not design.
First of all, his statement here that IC is not a test for ID contradicts his previous statement that IC is "central to ID." And if irreducible complexity is merely a test for evolution and not a test for ID, then what did Judge Jones show about ID by "refuting" irreducible complexity? Absolutely nothing!
And I am completely mystified as to why you Darwinists are now arguing that Judge Jones said nothing about whether IC and ID may be true, after you have been crowing for two years that he said that they are false.
>>>>> I doubt it will do you much good, but while you're at the library you may want to look at Michel Foucault's book, The Archaeology (sp) of Knowledge. <<<<<<
That is irrelevant to the issue here, which is whether Jones' statements were consistent.
>>>>> I was merely appalled by your continued thick-headedness, though I must admit that I am not at all surprised. <<<<<
You and your fellow trolls are the thick-headed ones, bozo.
You Darwinists can crow until you are blue in the face that Judge Jones' Dover opinion is a masterpiece, but that does not mean that other judges are going to accept it.
Larry wrote, >>>>>>"We find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which..." This means that ID may say something that is true (goddidit). <<<<<<
No, bozo, Judge Jones said nothing about "goddidit" -- you are putting words in his mouth.
Larry, did you notice the quotation marks that I used? The statement you use in referring to as "puttin
g words in his mouth" (your words) was clearly outside the quotation marks. I never said that Jones said "goddidit." (By the way, learn to read, moron!)
And, the part of Jones' decision that you claim to have most problems with (i.e., he said, " . . . . We therefore find that Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large . . .", as you wrote, does not contradict in any way my point. First, Behe's claim has been contradicted by scientific research (part of the point I made in my post) --this means that as far as science is concerned, ic is not a valid claim. That does not mean, however, that it may not be true, though it is, following Foucault's wording, in the true (a verifiable scientific statement). A different example: I can say that you are crazy, but this observation, while potentially true, is not in the true since I have no training in psychology and have no basis (other than comments posted on this blog and elsewhere) from which to determine whether you are crazy (a non-scientific term) or not.
The point about IC not being a test for ID (as you wrote above: Additionally, even if irreducible complexity had not been rejected, it still does not support ID as it is merely a test for evolution, not design) merely shows the lack of scientific standing for ID -- again, not a reference to its truth claims. What you miss here (among other things) is that ID supporters use IC as a test for the validity of ID, while they fail to realize or recognize that it is not a test for the validity of ID (no such test exists, but this is another subject) but of the failure of evolutionary theory (or theories) -- in scientific terms. This means that while ID may be true, there is no scientific way (in Foucauldian terms, there is no way in the true, that is, there is no way for this to produce a statement that would ultimately be accepted as true) for its proposition(s) to be accepted.
Manuel
It depends on what the meaning of IS is.
My point being, that when arguments from "Irreducible Complexity" fail, there's always "Irreducible Simplicity" available.
Or, at least, the proof of Satan's existence: "Irreducible Mediocrity". >:->
>>>>> Larry, did you notice the quotation marks that I used? The statement you use in referring to as "putting words in his mouth" (your words) was clearly outside the quotation marks. I never said that Jones said "goddidit." <<<<<<
And did you notice the words "This means," you stupid fathead? Jones didn't actually say "godditit," but you attributed that idea to him. And quote marks do not belong around words that are put in someone's mouth.
>>>>>>>First, Behe's claim has been contradicted by scientific research (part of the point I made in my post) --this means that as far as science is concerned, ic is not a valid claim. That does not mean, however, that it may not be true. blah, blah, blah, etc. <<<<<
My interpretations of Jones' statements are brief, straightforward, and objective -- your interpretations are long-winded, circumlocutory, arbitrary, and specious.
Larry wrote: My interpretations of Jones' statements are brief, straightforward, and objective
But they are nonetheless wrong. Get a clue,
Manuel
Post a Comment
<< Home