Puny school district may step up to monkey-trial plate
That reminds me -- Chief Justice John "Ump" Roberts just loves baseball analogies.
A news article said,
It is a rural school district with just one elementary school with only 152 students in grades K-8 and just 9 full-time classroom teachers.
As the saying goes, if you have to ask the price, you can't afford it, but the school district is not even asking the price of a monkey trial, because school funds could not be used to fund legal counsel:
.
Of course, the school district could probably get pro bono legal representation, but there would also be the risk of an award of attorney fees to the plaintiffs. Maybe being so poor is an advantage -- the school district may be too poor to be worth a lawsuit by the ACLU et al.. You can't squeeze blood out of a turnip.
The article says,
Here are some options for the school district:
(1) Make the curriculum addition "lawsuit-proof" by calling it "strengths and weaknesses" or "teach the controversy" instead of "intelligent design."
(2) Just add an evolution disclaimer, which is much easier to defend than actually teaching criticisms of Darwinism. Two decisions against evolution disclaimers, Selman v. Cobb County and Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish, came close to being overturned.
A lot of people are hungry for another public school monkey trial that would hopefully overturn or counteract the infamous Kitzmiller v. Dover decision, which has been used for more than 2½ years to browbeat critics of Darwinism, even though it is just an unappealed decision of a single crackpot judge who said in a commencement speech that organized religions are not "true" religions and who copied the opinion's ~ 6000-word ID-as-science section nearly verbatim from the ACLU's opening post-trial brief. IMO the reason why no new monkey-trial lawsuits have been filed in the 2½+ years since the Dover decision is that school districts and legislatures have learned how to "lawsuit-proof" criticisms of evolution in the public schools.
One of my posts here has recommendations for monkey-trial defendants. This blog also has lots of other posts with information and ideas that could be useful to monkey-trial defendants -- just see appropriate post labels in the sidebar.
BTW, there are some errors in the news article. The article said,
There was only one lawsuit, Hurst v. Newman, which had 11 plaintiffs (that's probably where the number "11' came from). Lebec and Frazier Mountain High School are both in the El Tejon Unified School District just north of Los Angeles County, in the southern end of Kern County.
Also, it's Edwards v. Aguillard, not Aguillar.
.
A news article said,
Weed, Calif. --
Butteville Union Elementary School District trustees, as well as school administrators, are considering adding “intelligent design” to the school’s seventh-grade science curriculum.
In a discussion on an information/action agenda item, “Evolution versus Intelligent Design Taught in the Classroom,” during the district’s board meeting last Wednesday, trustees agreed to seek legal counsel regarding the issue.
“I think this will be a big issue in the Supreme Court before long,” said board president Stephen Darger, a practicing attorney and former police officer. “Maybe it will be with this school.”
It is a rural school district with just one elementary school with only 152 students in grades K-8 and just 9 full-time classroom teachers.
As the saying goes, if you have to ask the price, you can't afford it, but the school district is not even asking the price of a monkey trial, because school funds could not be used to fund legal counsel:
.
Hart also reported that he has been in contact with an attorney from Redding and suggested that board members seek advise (sic) as to legal ramifications. It was also reported that school funds could not fund either legal counsel or the proposed program.
Of course, the school district could probably get pro bono legal representation, but there would also be the risk of an award of attorney fees to the plaintiffs. Maybe being so poor is an advantage -- the school district may be too poor to be worth a lawsuit by the ACLU et al.. You can't squeeze blood out of a turnip.
The article says,
School principal and superintendent Cynthia McConnell reported that teachers would not be legally required to teach intelligent design, or anything other than state education requirements.
Here are some options for the school district:
(1) Make the curriculum addition "lawsuit-proof" by calling it "strengths and weaknesses" or "teach the controversy" instead of "intelligent design."
(2) Just add an evolution disclaimer, which is much easier to defend than actually teaching criticisms of Darwinism. Two decisions against evolution disclaimers, Selman v. Cobb County and Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish, came close to being overturned.
A lot of people are hungry for another public school monkey trial that would hopefully overturn or counteract the infamous Kitzmiller v. Dover decision, which has been used for more than 2½ years to browbeat critics of Darwinism, even though it is just an unappealed decision of a single crackpot judge who said in a commencement speech that organized religions are not "true" religions and who copied the opinion's ~ 6000-word ID-as-science section nearly verbatim from the ACLU's opening post-trial brief. IMO the reason why no new monkey-trial lawsuits have been filed in the 2½+ years since the Dover decision is that school districts and legislatures have learned how to "lawsuit-proof" criticisms of evolution in the public schools.
One of my posts here has recommendations for monkey-trial defendants. This blog also has lots of other posts with information and ideas that could be useful to monkey-trial defendants -- just see appropriate post labels in the sidebar.
BTW, there are some errors in the news article. The article said,
. . .two rural California public high schools contended that the Pennsylvania ruling by Judge John E. Jones, an appointee of President Bush, opened the door to the possibility of teaching intelligent design in philosophy or religion classes.
But the new strategy was immediately struck down when a high school in Lebec, Calif., a rural town north of Los Angeles, terminated one such course as part of a court settlement involving 11 law suits. As a result, a hearing scheduled before a federal judge in upcoming days was cancelled.
In a similar case just days later Frazier Mountain High, a rural school district outside of Fresno, with pressure from lawsuits and Americans United, settled the issue with the agreement to halt its intelligent design course and to never again offer a class that promotes creationism.
There was only one lawsuit, Hurst v. Newman, which had 11 plaintiffs (that's probably where the number "11' came from). Lebec and Frazier Mountain High School are both in the El Tejon Unified School District just north of Los Angeles County, in the southern end of Kern County.
Also, it's Edwards v. Aguillard, not Aguillar.
.
Labels: Evolution education (new #3), Kitzmiller v. Dover (new #1)
posted by Larry Fafarman | 8/24/2008 05:10:00 PM
34 Comments:
Larry wrote, "Maybe being so poor is an advantage -- the school district may be too poor to be worth a lawsuit by the ACLU et al.. You can't squeeze blood out of a turnip."
It's called higher property taxes.
Larry wrote, "One of my posts here has recommendations for monkey-trial defendants"
Interestingly enough, one of them was 'don't mention intelligent design.' Why is that? Are you admitting that ID is a religious viewpoint?
Larry wrote:
Larry wrote, "Maybe being so poor is an advantage -- the school district may be too poor to be worth a lawsuit by the ACLU et al.. You can't squeeze blood out of a turnip."
_________________________
As though the ACLU is out for the money. Add the ACLU to the list of things Larry knows nothing about.
If they go ahead, a parent will call the ACLU, and there will be a lawsuit, and the ID creationists will lose yet again, and Larry will have a new judge to call childish names for years on end.
Larry wrote:
(1) Make the curriculum addition "lawsuit-proof" by calling it "strengths and weaknesses" or "teach the controversy" instead of "intelligent design."
(2) Just add an evolution disclaimer, which is much easier to defend than actually teaching criticisms of Darwinism. Two decisions against evolution disclaimers, Selman v. Cobb County and Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish, came close to being overturned.
___________________________
1. There is no scientific controversy. What controversy there is is not scientific, but entirely based on propaganda efforts by a well-funded right wing fringe movement motivated by religious goals. See the "Wedge Document". "Teach the Controversy" would lose in trial because the plaintiffs would have a large number of biologists who could testify with enormous support from the field that there is no scientific controversy, and thus no scientific merit to such an approach.
2. They weren't overturned, and would provide precedent to rule against a disclaimer. A disclaimer against evolution would not be justifiable, and could be ruled against for exactly the reasons outlined in those two decisions. Given the history of religious opposition to the teaching of evolution and the singling out of evolution for a disclaimer among all well-established and supported theories would make it an open and shut case.
Deny it all you want, but you are on the losing side, Larry, and all your delusions of grandeur won't help you avoid seeing your side lose again. I really wish the ID people would learn to stop putting communities through stuff like this. Of course, given how prone they are to lying, ignorance, and incivility (no wonder you like them), the IDiots will continue to ruin lives and hurt communities.
>>>>> It's called higher property taxes. <<<<<<
They couldn't raise the property taxes high enough to make a lawsuit worth the while of the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
>>>>>> Larry wrote, "One of my posts here has recommendations for monkey-trial defendants"
Interestingly enough, one of them was 'don't mention intelligent design.' Why is that? Are you admitting that ID is a religious viewpoint? <<<<<<<
How is that an admission that ID is a religious viewpoint, idiot?
>>>>>> As though the ACLU is out for the money <<<<<<
Of course the ACLU is out for the money -- attorney fee awards are one of the ACLU's (and Americans United's) main sources of income. The ACLU recruits outside pro bono attorneys who then donate the loot to the ACLU. -
>>>>>> "Teach the Controversy" would lose in trial because the plaintiffs would have a large number of biologists who could testify with enormous support from the field that there is no scientific controversy, and thus no scientific merit to such an approach. <<<<<<
There is no constitutional principle of separation of bad science and state.
>>>>>>> They weren't overturned, and would provide precedent to rule against a disclaimer. <<<<<<
Non-binding precedents go only so far, and a close shave means that you Darwinists can lose next time. The ways that these two decisions came close to reversal would encourage courts to ignore them. Freiler came within single votes of getting an en banc (full court) appeals court rehearing and review by the Supreme Court, and the dissenting appeals court judges and Supreme Court justices in those denials wrote long dissenting opinions (it is very unusual for the Supreme Court to comment on denial of certiorari). You probably would have lost in Selman v. Cobb County had the school board not taken a dive by settling out of court. The appeals court judges indicated that they were leaning strongly towards reversing Selman but then vacated and remanded the decision because of missing evidence.
Close decisions are a big reason why there are big fights over judicial nominations.
>>>>>> Deny it all you want, but you are on the losing side, <<<<<<
I think we're doing pretty good.
>>>>> I really wish the ID people would learn to stop putting communities through stuff like this. <<<<<<
Why stop just when we've learned how to get away with it?
> There is no constitutional principle of separation of bad science and state. <
ID is not bad science. It is not science at all.
Larry said:
There is no constitutional principle of separation of bad science and state.
___________________
As the point of education standards is educational, demonstration that a "teach the controversy" approach has no educational value because there is no scientific controversy is a big red flag to judges regarding the religious intent of such an approach given the judicial and legislative history of this issue.
Larry also said:
Non-binding precedents go only so far, and a close shave means that you Darwinists can lose next time.
__________________
Keep telling yourself that, Larry. If it keeps you from crying yourself to sleep, great. You sound like Hitler in his last days, always convinced that some miracle would happen to allow him to win. He was wrong then, and you are as well (as usual).
Larry said:
I think we're doing pretty good.
__________________________
"It is just a scratch!" Doing Monty Python now, huh, Larry? Losing on all fronts? No decisions in your favor, no actual scientific research to back your side up, no plans for research, no peer-reviewed publications (see lack of actual research findings), no respect from the scientific community...yeah, you're doing gangbusters.
"Larry wrote, "One of my posts here has recommendations for monkey-trial defendants"
Interestingly enough, one of them was 'don't mention intelligent design.'"
So you're comfortable with intellectual dishonesty, Larry, as long as it scores points for your side?
"There is no constitutional principle of separation of bad science and state."
No, but there is a common sense separation of bad science and state.
"I think we're doing pretty good."
Is that using the standard definition of good, or your own personal definition? Knowing what I know about the "debate," you must think good means "getting our asses handed to us on every turn.
<<< "Larry wrote, "One of my posts here has recommendations for monkey-trial defendants"
Interestingly enough, one of them was 'don't mention intelligent design.'"
... and ...
"getting our asses handed to us on every turn. >>>
Please be more careful about spraying around quotation marks -- makes stuff painful to read.
Larry said:
I think we're doing pretty good.
__________________________
"It is just a scratch!" Doing Monty Python now, huh, Larry?
More like seppuku, if you ask me. LOL!
I am happy to have respect for religious people and concepts, provided they're able to keep it from spilling over where it doesn't belong. Otherwise, I tend to see them as a menace.
Please be more careful about spraying around quotation marks -- "makes stuff painful to read."
"My apologies.
The ignorant Darwin-addicts really love to comment on this one. In their world-view, they will "win" if they can suppress the rights of the people, censor, or interfere with free flow of information; because they suppose that untutored Darwin-fan judges will hand them whatever they want.
But the problem is that humans have a strong tendency to think freely (to the horror of all Darwin-fans), and thus to form their own opinions. It is what people think that will eventually decide the issue. And the authoritarian antics of the Darwin-punks, based upon getting the "authorities" to try to tell the people what to think, or to assert control over the schools, aren't going to work in the long run.
Voice in the Urbanness driveled,
>>>>>> There is no constitutional principle of separation of bad science and state. <
ID is not bad science. It is not science at all. <<<<<<
OK -- there is no constitutional principle of the separation of non-science and state.
Anonymous said,
>>>>>> As the point of education standards is educational, demonstration that a "teach the controversy" approach has no educational value because there is no scientific controversy is a big red flag to judges regarding the religious intent of such an approach given the judicial and legislative history of this issue. <<<<<<
But it does have educational value because it encourages critical thinking. Practically all of the scientific or pseudoscientific criticisms of evolution encourage critical thinking -- ID, Cambrian explosion, co-evolution, Second Law of Thermodynamics, propagation of beneficial mutations in sexual reproduction, etc.. Also, many of the scientific criticisms of evolution fall under my "intrinsic non-justiciability" and "prudential non-justiciability" categories:
(2) "Intrinsic" (or "inherent" or "absolute") non-justiciability -- this is non-justiciability that is due to unavoidable factors that are intrinsic in the question itself. This category includes the following factors: unanswerable, imponderable, unfathomable, unprovable, unfalsifiable, supernatural, occult, contentious, a matter of opinion, beyond the expertise of judges, insufficient evidence, too much evidence for the court to review, a need to rely on the opinions of biased experts, and -- in general -- arbitrary and subjective decisions are required. The classic example of an intrinsically non-justiciable question is the question of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. IMO the following questions are also intrinsically non-justiciable: evolution theory, global warming theory, and string theory.
(3) "Prudential" non-justiciability -- this concerns questions where there are no "legal" or "intrinsic" barriers to decisions but where issuing a decision may be unwise because of potential harmful effects. The concept of "prudential" non-justiciability is similar to the idea that freedom of speech does not give anyone the right to shout "fire" in a crowded theatre. Prudential non-justiciability requires the weighing of different costs and benefits. Here is a purely hypothetical example of "prudential" non-justiciability: Suppose that a large majority of the public perceives all criticisms of Darwinism to be religious in nature, and hence banning a particular evolution disclaimer in public schools is justified under the establishment clause (I am ignoring the fact that even religious evolution disclaimers are arguably constitutional under the endorsement test). However, a decision to ban the disclaimer could adversely affect the reputations, careers, and research funding of scientists who are critical of Darwinism. Hence, banning the disclaimer would be the scientific equivalent of shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre.
Larry wrote:
Also, many of the scientific criticisms of evolution fall under my "intrinsic non-justiciability" and "prudential non-justiciability" categories:
______________________
And these categories of yours are unrecognized by the legal community, and exist only in your mind. Citing them when only you recognize them does not constitute a valid legal argument.
Larry also said:
OK -- there is no constitutional principle of the separation of non-science and state.
_________________________
But the problem is that the ID movement is a pseudoscientific sham specifically created and maintained with the intent of injecting a particular religious view point into school. That violates the first amendment. It is sad you don't know the history of the ID movement you so dearly love.
Peter Irons is reportedly getting worked up over this one:
Said Peter the Lawyer, "I'll sue
All dissident school boards in view!
For the kids have no notion
Of Darwinist devotion:
They see there's no sign that it's true.
Since thinkers are losing belief
In Darwin, I'll sneak like a thief
To rob the taxpayers,
Those Darwin naysayers,
With my suits! And give 'em some grief,
For I hold in my hands a writ:
'UN-DARWIN SCIENTISTS, GIT!'
It's signed by Judge Jones,
Our Caesar, whose throne's
Almighty. He's RULER. That's it!"
He's in constant communication with John the Fascist, as they work on their strategy to suppress freedom of thought in the schools. Says John:
"I'm John Jones, His Ruling Grace,
Who keeps all the 'low' in their place:
Should they doubt any word
From a Darwinist nerd,
My riding-crop snaps in their face!"
I wonder if Jim Sherwood realizes that really bad poetry doesn't constitute a valid, well-supported argument. Typical ID creationist blather (yes, Jim, I know, I know, you are some sort of bizarre non-theistic idealist or dualist or something, but you are still a creationist).
In many ways I'm sympathetic to the creationists and the Christian fundamentalists, even though I don't share either their religious views or their creationism. They deserve great credit for helping to obstruct the injection of the ludicrous and harmful Darwinist pseudoscience into the public schools, in the 20th century. In Europe and elsewhere, Darwinism played a major role in fostering senseless and bloody totalitarian dictatorships,i.e., Communist and fascist or Nazi. The efforts of the creationists and fundamentalists have thus been helpful on the whole, at least up to this point. And we don't know what further devastation Darwinist dogmas might help to spawn in the future, if enough people are deluded enough to put their faith in Darwinism as alleged "science."
So Darwinism is a real menace, insofar as it may work its way into the public schools, and be taught in them as more than one very dubious hypothesis that has sometimes been popular among biologists. Small-scale changes can be shown to occur by random mutations and natural selection; although that fact was basically known long before Darwin, and thus isn't really Darwinist at all.
There are thus a few "parts" of Darwinist doctrine that are properly scientific, and could be taught in the public schools. But the conventional "evolutionary biologists" have utterly bungled by relying on mere speculation and dogma, which has virtually nothing in common with experimentally verifiable science. Hence the overall Darwinist doctrine, i.e., the alleged evolution of all life by purely mechanistic processes, simply undermines and destroys true education in science.
Anonymous driveled (Monday, August 25, 2008 1:39:00 PM) --
>>>>>>> Also, many of the scientific criticisms of evolution fall under my "intrinsic non-justiciability" and "prudential non-justiciability" categories:
And these categories of yours are unrecognized by the legal community <<<<<<
I never claimed that they are recognized by the legal community, bozo, I called them "my" categories. But the concepts have been recognized by the legal community -- it's just that so far as I know, names have not been given to these concepts. I think that legal arguments are more persuasive if they are attached to legal concepts that have names. And you have made no arguments against these names that I have proposed.
>>>>>>> Citing them when only you recognize them does not constitute a valid legal argument. <<<<<<
Lots of cases have been won using novel arguments. And law journal articles make novel legal arguments all the time. Furthermore, law journal articles are normally not peer-reviewed or even faculty-reviewed -- they are normally just student-reviewed -- and therefore they are often not subjected to expert criticism before publication. And yet the courts have cited these law journal articles thousands of times -- the Harvard Law Review alone was cited 4410 times in federal court opinions alone in the decade 1970-79 alone. You really are ignorant about the law.
>>>>>> But the problem is that the ID movement is a pseudoscientific sham specifically created and maintained with the intent of injecting a particular religious view point into school. That violates the first amendment. <<<<<<<
ID serves the secular purpose of encouraging critical thinking. Even overtly religious ideas are constitutional if they encourage critical thinking.
Many of those who have faith is the doctrines of the conventional "evolutionary biologists" may be wondering who I am, to tell them that those doctrines are pseudoscientific bunk?
Well, I am "nobody" to tell you anything at all, guys. And in my view, that's not the point.
"Use your own heads," is all that I really want to say. I don't believe that I must be right; or that any person or group of persons, (such as the National Academy of Sciences, or such as "most evolutionary biologists")must be right; or must be an "authority" on anything. That's my humble opinion.
The great astrophysicist Fred Hoyle was the chief father of the contemporary wave of intelligent design thinking, IMHO, in the late '70's and early '80's.
Hoyle's nickname was The Maverick. Get it?
jim sherwood said:
There are thus a few "parts" of Darwinist doctrine that are properly scientific, and could be taught in the public schools. But the conventional "evolutionary biologists" have utterly bungled by relying on mere speculation and dogma, which has virtually nothing in common with experimentally verifiable science.
________________________
Ah yes, jim's typical condescending argument of assertion. Tell me jim, how many journals do you go through a week? How many actual evolutionary biology papers have you read? How much of the 150 years of data have you sifted through to make your assessment?
A typical ID creationist: If he can assert it, he believes it to be true no matter the evidence. No wonder you like Larry so much.
It looks as if Larry has said much the same thing that I was trying to say, and with far greater economy of language:
"ID serves the secular purpose of encouraging critical thinking."
Congratulations, Larry. That's it.
Larry said:
I think that legal arguments are more persuasive if they are attached to legal concepts that have names. And you have made no arguments against these names that I have proposed.
_______________________________
You have no legal education, you have no legal reputation, you have no power, you have no respect, and your ideas have no reach. It doesn't matter if you give them names. It doesn't make them persuasive, right, or any sort of valid argument about the law. You cited your categories to support an argument, meaning that you were supporting your argument with only your ideas. That is silly to say the least. Face it Larry, no cares what you think about what is and is not judiciable, and thus your arguments regarding the concept are without weight.
And while, yes, novel arguments can be made in court and win, they are usually better-thought out, and are consistent with the common law. You filed suit without any standing over a fee you didn't have to pay, and were laughed out of court. Your novel ideas are to ill-informed to be likely to gain traction, even if they were to go further than your little backwater blog.
Larry also said;
ID serves the secular purpose of encouraging critical thinking. Even overtly religious ideas are constitutional if they encourage critical thinking.
____________________
Personally, I do think a good idea would be to have ID brought up in classes about evolution with the intent of showing the many ways in which ID gets the facts wrong, and how evolutionary theory is not threatened by ID. Many ID arguments are based on very old, false arguments, and it is instructive when these arguments are picked apart and revealed for for how poor they are. This would allow effective instruction that would provoke critical thinking and get at misconceptions regarding evolutionary theory. That I would have no problem. The way in which ID has been pushed however, is clearly religiously motivated, and seeks only to undermine evolution education for purely religious reasons. The whole "critical reasoning" argument made by ID advocates is a canard, and this is shown by how poorly they do when made to demonstrate critical thinking (see Behe's testimony in the Dover trial). Face it Larry, ID and the movement that pushes it is religious, has been recognized as such, and has no future in the American education system, just as it has no future in scientific research (oh, wait, they never even attempted research, did they?).
Jim Sherwood said:
Use your own heads," is all that I really want to say. I don't believe that I must be right; or that any person or group of persons, (such as the National Academy of Sciences, or such as "most evolutionary biologists")must be right; or must be an "authority" on anything. That's my humble opinion.
__________________
The thing is jim that science itself is fundamentally anti-authority. The NAS is not what is compelling acceptance of evolution. There is a mountain of evidence contained in the hundreds of thousands of papers covering the research done over the last 150 years since Darwin. If it were merely a matter of an argument from authority, that would be one thing, but it isn't. Yes, by all means use your head, but look at the actual research while doing so. There is mountain of it supporting and informing evolutionary theory, and the ID movement has yet to even produce one study with empirical research. Jim, you are failing your own urging to use your own head!
Jim Sherwood also said:
The great astrophysicist Fred Hoyle was the chief father of the contemporary wave of intelligent design thinking, IMHO, in the late '70's and early '80's.
_____________________
And Hoyle's airplane from a junkyard tornado argument showed he did not grasp the actual idea of natural selection. Hoyle, while a great astrophysicist, was not a biologist, and his ignorance of the field and its findings (and natural lack of knowledge of the breath-taking findings of the last twenty-years of work) showed in his poor arguments. Really, Jim, you need to go to the research papers before deciding such flawed arguments are figures are correct.
Oh, and what were you saying about authority? Just because his nickname was "the maverick", that doesn't make an appeal to him less of an argument from authority. Don't you realize that?
If the Anonymice are getting worked up over something that Larry said, or even over something that I said, let them. That may be a sign that they are thinking. And that may be good.
>>>>> You have no legal education, you have no legal reputation, you have no power, you have no respect, and your ideas have no reach. <<<<<<
I have something you don't have, you stupid, despicable dunghill: brains. All of your comments here about non-justiciability have been ad-hominem. You have shown no capacity for original thought or critical thinking.
>>>>> Personally, I do think a good idea would be to have ID brought up in classes about evolution with the intent of showing the many ways in which ID gets the facts wrong, and how evolutionary theory is not threatened by ID. Many ID arguments are based on very old, false arguments, and it is instructive when these arguments are picked apart and revealed for for how poor they are. <<<<<<
So it's OK to ban ID in public schools because it is a "religious" idea, but it is OK to bring it up in public schools just for the purpose of showing its weaknesses. Showing its strengths is unconstitutional, but showing its weaknesses is just fine because that's "critical thinking." You are so full of living crap that it is coming out your ears.
"I'm always kicking their butts -- that's why they don't like me."
-- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger
Jim Sherwood said...
>>>>>> It looks as if Larry has said much the same thing that I was trying to say, and with far greater economy of language:
"ID serves the secular purpose of encouraging critical thinking." <<<<<<
Actually, that was one of the defense's arguments in Kitzmiller v. Dover. I intend to go more into that later.
"Oh, and what were you saying about authority? Just because his nickname was "the maverick", that doesn't make an appeal to him less of an argument from authority."
It's not quite as bad as JS's appeal to the Great Authority Mohrhoff, who AFAICT is a G.A. because he is a "quantum physicist" (those being people whom JS expects to be experts outside their field, when it is yet to be shown that they're experts within it).
Larry said:
Showing its strengths
_______________________
ID has no strengths aside from the millions of propaganda dollars behind it.
That is why it has failed in the areas of both science and the law.
Oh Jim, you have resorted the "anonymice" jibe. That means I must have scored a point or two. You still haven't answered me: how much of the peer-reviewed scientific literature have you read before coming to your conclusion that evolution was not supported by the facts? How much of that 150 years of work did you examine?
Or were you too lazy to do so like Larry. You shouldn't be scared of science papers, as Larry is. They are dense, but they get easier to get through over time. You might learn something. You have nothing to lose but your ignorance. Besides, you don't want to be like Larry, do you? To make it to old age a bitter, ignorant crank listened to by no one.
I'm bearing a lance for that Larry,
Who smashes the "Darwins". It's merry!
He has to have guts,
To kick all the butts
Of those fascists, whose rule would be scary.
(Sancho, from Spain, is a bullfighter who fights all forms of bull, such as Darwinism. He is eager to be Larry's squire. -Jim Sherwood.)
Yep, jimmy doesn't grasp that bad poetry does not a valid argument make.
And Larry, there is no need to address your categories of non-justiciability because they have no legal recognition, and are unlikely to ever receive it. They are moot. Referring to you as an idiot because you think they carry weight because they occurred to you is simply making an assessment of you on the basis of a valid observation that your argument was irrelevant.
Jim Sherwood wrote, "..." another bad poem, this time as Sancho Panza.
Anonymous wrote, "Yep, jimmy doesn't grasp that bad poetry does not a valid argument make."
Not only that, Jim Sherwood knows nothing about Sancho Panza: character from Don Quijote de la Mancha (Quijote can also be spelled with an 'x' instead of the 'j'), Sancho was the voice of reason vis-a-vis Quijote's absurd notions. He was the one who told Quijote that he was about to attack windmills when Quijote thought they were giants.
He wasn't a bullfighter either, the book (the first one) was published in 1605, well before there was a theory of evolution and well before there was fascism (or anything like it in Spain).
Jim gets one things right: Larry is Quijote. A crazy man with a crazy (unwinnable) fight. Hmmmm. I might have more on this later.
>>>>>> And Larry, there is no need to address your categories of non-justiciability because they have no legal recognition, <<<<<<
O, reason not the need: our basest beggars
Are in the poorest thing superfluous:
Allow not nature more than nature needs,
Man's life's as cheap as beast's:
-- King Lear
Look, you lousy piece of crap, this is my blog and I will say what I want here. If I like the names I have given different kinds of non-justiciability, that is my right. And you have not presented any arguments as to why those names are wrong.
You lousy trolls ridicule my no-censorship policy while you take advantage of it by posting crap here that you wouldn't dare post on other blogs.
Jim Sherwood, the poet laureate of the ID movement, strikes again.
Larry said:
Look, you lousy piece of crap, this is my blog and I will say what I want here.
___________________________
Oh, and how you do! No matter what reality might be, you just say what you do, and my oh my, how we laugh out here in the world!
_____________________________
If I like the names I have given different kinds of non-justiciability, that is my right. And you have not presented any arguments as to why those names are wrong.
___________________________
I don't care about your names. The problem is that you present arbitrary reasons for declaring a case non-justiciable. You arguing that an issue is non-justiciable on the basis that you have declared it to be non-justiciable, which is how this topic came up, is not a valid argument because you have no authority to declare anything non-justiciable. Of course, you are the guy who changes the definition of "goal" so that non-goals are included with goals so that you can disregard an explicit answer you did not like.
________________________
Hey Jimmy-boy, I notice you never answered my question about how many research papers you have gone through to form you opinion of evolutionary theory. I will take that as an admission that, like Larry, you are arguing from a position of abject ignorance. Just as I accept your admission that you really think doggerel constitutes an argument.
Jim Sherwood said (Monday, August 25, 2008 2:57:00 PM) --
>>>>>> In many ways I'm sympathetic to the creationists and the Christian fundamentalists, even though I don't share either their religious views or their creationism. <<<<<<<
The Darwinists haven't given the IDers any Brownie points for shunning creationists -- the Darwinists still call ID "ID creationism" -- so the IDers might as well be friendly towards creationists. Some superfundies oppose ID because they see ID as implying doubt of the bible by suggesting that the bible needs scientific support.
the Darwinists still call ID "ID creationism" -- so the IDers might as well be friendly towards creationists.
Yeah, and the ID movement was founded by creationists, and use exactly the same false and discredited arguments as the creationists. If if quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, and has a duck's DNA, it's a duck - even if it put on a mustache to try to fool people like Larry into thinking it is something else.
> You lousy trolls ridicule my no-censorship policy <
Because you don't practice it.
> dunghill. All of your comments here about non-justiciability have been ad-hominem. <
Is Larry talking to himself?
Larry, you have shown no capacity for original thought or critical thinking.
Post a Comment
<< Home