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.

Sunday, January 11, 2009

The phony "they made me do it" defense of ID-as-science ruling

A Biochem. Journal article by Kevin Padian and Nicholas Matzke says (pages 10-11 of pdf file, pages 38-39 of original document),

Should judges decide what science is?

DI [Discovery Institute] spokesmen and other political supporters of ID criticized the judge for overstepping his intellectual and legal bounds by ruling on whether or not ID was science. But Judge Jones literally had no choice but to rule on whether or not ID was science. The plaintiffs asked him to rule on exactly this, and so did the defence. The TMLC's chief counsel for the defence, Richard Thompson, acknowledged that, like the attorneys for the plaintiffs, the defence had asked the judge to rule on the question of whether ID was science. They staked their whole case on the notion that ID was legitimate science, and that therefore teaching it had a legitimate secular purpose and secular effect, and this outweighed any religious goals that individual board members might have had. The judge did exactly what both sides asked him to do. It is unfortunate for ID supporters that they did not take that brief more seriously. And it is important to understand that the judge did not decide what is science and what is not. Nobody inside or outside the legal profession wants judges to do that. What the judge did was to rule on what the scientific community considers science, which is quite a different thing. His path was easy in that respect, because the DI and other ID proponents had no support whatsoever from the scientific community, whereas evolution received nothing but the strongest support.

The criticism has been made by more than just "DI [Discovery Institute] spokesmen and other political supporters of ID" -- neutral people and even anti-ID people have also made the criticism [1] [2]. No one has ever cited any legal authority (a constitutional provision, law, court rule, or court opinion) in support of this cockamamie idea that judges are obligated to rule on questions whenever both sides ask them to -- and the reason for that is that the very notion is absurd. Should a judge rule on the question of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin just because both sides ask him to do it? The Kitzmiller v. Dover opinion itself does not give this as one of the reasons for the judge's decision to rule on the ID-as-science question -- here are the reasons given by the opinion (pages 63-64) --
.
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. To be sure, our answer to this question can likely be predicted based upon the foregoing analysis. While answering this question compels us to revisit evidence that is entirely complex, if not obtuse, after a six week trial that spanned twenty-one days and included countless hours of detailed expert witness presentations, the Court is confident that no other tribunal in the United States is in a better position than are we to traipse into this controversial area. Finally, we will offer our conclusion on whether ID is science not just because it is essential to our holding that an Establishment Clause violation has occurred in this case, but also in the hope that it may prevent the obvious waste of judicial and other resources which would be occasioned by a subsequent trial involving the precise question which is before us.

It was only after release of the opinion that Judge Jones started claiming that one of his reasons for ruling on the ID as science question was that both sides asked him to do it [3].
.
Also, Judge Jones noted above that the plaintiffs raised the "additional issue" of whether "ID is science" but made no statement about the defendants raising the issue.

Also, regarding the following statement from the above quote from the Biochem Jounral:

They [the defendants] staked their whole case on the notion that ID was legitimate science, and that therefore teaching it had a legitimate secular purpose and secular effect . . . .

No, the defendants also claimed that ID encouraged critical thinking, but Judge Jones dodged that question.[4].

And the following statement:

. . . it is important to understand that the judge did not decide what is science and what is not. Nobody inside or outside the legal profession wants judges to do that.

In some lawsuits -- e.g., in product liability lawsuits -- it is necessary for judges to decide what is science in order to decide the case. Kitzmiller v. Dover was not such a lawsuit.

And the following:

What the judge did was to rule on what the scientific community considers science, which is quite a different thing.

Wrong -- Judge Jones ruled on more than that. And what the scientific community considers science is only one of the factors judges are supposed to consider in judging scientific questions -- see Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals.
.

Labels: ,

5 Comments:

Blogger Olorin said...

The Lemon terst has several prongs. Judge Jones could have rested his decision on the one dealing with the School Board’s actions. However, if this holding had been reversed, the others would never have been decided, and thus could not have been considered by an appellate court. Since the question was relevant, and both parties had requested it, he made it.

As to whether Judge Jones “made no statement about the defendants raising the issue,” why should he have to? You can (probably) read their brief---it’s right there in the summary.

“In some lawsuits -- e.g., in product liability lawsuits -- it is necessary for judges to decide what is science in order to decide the case.” Larry, you should also buy a clue about this statement. Wrong. Wrong wrong. Wrong wrong wrong. Read Daubert again.

Monday, January 12, 2009 8:49:00 PM  
Blogger Olorin said...

Here's the deal, Larry.

In Kizmiller, the relevant question was what "science is."

In product liability and similar cases, the judge decides what "is science."

If this difference escapes you, then you should not be practicing law.

Monday, January 12, 2009 9:38:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>>> The Lemon terst has several prongs. Judge Jones could have rested his decision on the one dealing with the School Board’s actions. However, if this holding had been reversed, the others would never have been decided, and thus could not have been considered by an appellate court. <<<<<<

The other prongs could be decided by remanding the case.

>>>>>> As to whether Judge Jones “made no statement about the defendants raising the issue,” why should he have to? You can (probably) read their brief---it’s right there in the summary. <<<<<<

The briefs are not published along with the opinion, and people should not be expected to read Judge Jones' mind.

>>>>>> “In some lawsuits -- e.g., in product liability lawsuits -- it is necessary for judges to decide what is science in order to decide the case.” Larry, you should also buy a clue about this statement. Wrong. Wrong wrong. Wrong wrong wrong. Read Daubert again. <<<<<<

Asking someone to read a long judicial opinion is not an argument, idiot.

>>>>>>Here's the deal, Larry.

In Kizmiller, the relevant question was what "science is."

In product liability and similar cases, the judge decides what "is science."

If this difference escapes you, then you should not be practicing law. <<<<<<

I have never practiced law, dummox.

Why don't you tell us what you think the difference is?

What a stupid fathead.

Wednesday, January 14, 2009 12:45:00 AM  
Blogger Joshua said...

So Larry your strategy now is to complain that Jones didn't anticipate that you wouldn't bother reading the briefs?

Give it up already. Kitzmiller was years ago. ID got smashed flat. It got smashed so badly that even people like me who had some residual sympathy for ID decided they were completely full of junk.

It's over. ID lost.

Monday, April 13, 2009 6:07:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>>>> So Larry your strategy now is to complain that Jones didn't anticipate that you wouldn't bother reading the briefs? <<<<<<

You stupid dunghill, what does this have to do with reading the briefs? Who reads the briefs? The briefs in this case run to hundreds of pages.

>>>>>> Give it up already. Kitzmiller was years ago. <<<<<<

What do you mean, "give it up already," you stupid sack of %$*#@? I was responding to a recent article written by Darwinists for Biochemical magazine. They are the ones who won't give it up!

>>>>> It's over. ID lost. <<<<<<

What do you mean, "it's over," bozo? It was just a decision by a single judge (who also happens to be a crackpot).

Joshua, you are just a lousy, disgusting troll. You are making no worthwhile contributions to the discussions here.

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 9:38:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home