Judge "Jackass" Jones contradicted by Darwinist experts
(The above statement is actually a quotation of creationist Texas state board of education member -- and former chairman -- Don McLeroy)
======================================
In his Kitzmiller v. Dover opinion (page 136), Judge "Jackass" Jones said, "ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and therefore religious, antecedents."
Darwinist scholars Ronald Numbers and Francis Collins, who are experts about the relationship between intelligent design and creationism, disagree with Judge Jones' above statement. The Discovery Institute says,
.
Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text. Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." In other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case.
There is another big reason why Darwinists conflate ID and creationism: so that they can misuse the establishment clause to attack ID.
And Francis Collins' BioLogos website says,
Intelligent Design
Contrary to some interpretations, Intelligent Design, or ID, makes no specific theological claims.
ID is based on scientific observations and scientific reasoning whereas creationism is based on religious sources.
Judge "Jackass" Jones strikes out again.
.
Labels: Judge Jones (new #3)
posted by Larry Fafarman | 6/06/2009 04:45:00 AM
19 Comments:
The problem, Larry, is that there is NO theory of ID. None. Even the folks at the DI admit that. ID is an interesting concept that long predates the recent crop of moronic creationists who staff the DI. Is has been hijacked by them to sell their religious bill of goods without running afoul of the Constitution. Unfortunately, not one of them has published ANY scientific work to establish that ID is anything more than an amusing concept.
You really need to educate yourself on these issues before blogging. Your ignorance makes you look foolish.
>>>>>> The problem, Larry, is that there is NO theory of ID. <<<<<<
If "theory" is partly defined as being a complete scientific explanation for some natural phenomena, then I agree that ID is not a theory. It is just a criticism of evolution.
>>>>>> You really need to educate yourself on these issues before blogging. <<<<<<
You stupid dunghill, I am a hell of a lot better informed about the issues here than you are -- that's obvious.
You used a quote from the DI claiming that a scientific theory of ID exists.
And yet you just know agree that there is no theory of ID.
Cognitive dissonance, much?
And profanity and obscenity and bad manners merely makes you look adolescent and foolish - it does not help advance your arguments...which are based on ignorance and an inability to reason.
Edward barfed,
>>>>>> You used a quote from the DI claiming that a scientific theory of ID exists.
And yet you just know agree that there is no theory of ID. <<<<<<
You stupid fathead, I am not responsible for the DI's calling ID a "theory."
You fail to make clear to your readers (presuming you have any besides myself) that Judge Jones refers to the ID specified in the Pandas and People text, and pushed by folks like Dembski (and the very DI you cite) as a mere stalking horse for their Christian faith.
Unfortunately, Larry, what you are doing is failing to respond to actual criticism of your posts and your articles. This is one of the things that diminishes traffic to your site. Actual discussion and response to questions would show that a) you actually had some understanding of the issues involved, and b) were willing to actually discuss your opinions and have them challenged by relevant authorities.
Your proclivity towards censoring any comments you don't care for, and refusal to actual engage in discussion is a telling reminder that you're not here to actually create a meaningful dialog on any topic of law or science.
You just want to spout.
But here's the rub - you want to be taken seriously on other sites, yet you leave this monument to your refusal to deal with argument and discussion.
Don't you see how damaging this is to your case - whatever that may be?
Let's take this current post as an example: you claim that Jones is contradicted by 'Darwin experts'. Yet the very first citation you make is to an ANTI-DARWIN website, known to be populated by religious nutbags who are trying to show religious education down the throats of American school children UNDER THE GUISE OF ID.
That's what Jones was responding to; not the generic concept of ID.
This is the kind of subtle distinction that you need to address in order to appear even remotely well-educated on the topic. Apparently you haven't studied much law or science. I can recommend some excellent web-sites for your perusal.
Edward moans,
>>>>>> Your proclivity towards censoring any comments you don't care for, and refusal to actual engage in discussion is a telling reminder that you're not here to actually create a meaningful dialog on any topic of law or science. <<<<<
I am publishing your comment and even responding to it, aren't I? Accusing me of arbitrarily censoring comments and not engaging in discussion is lying about objective facts, which is a violation of the commenting rules.
>>>>>> Yet the very first citation you make is to an ANTI-DARWIN website <<<<<<
I cited the DI website to present the views of Ron Numbers, a Darwinist, and not to present the views of the DI. That's why I said Judge "Jackass" Jones was contradicted by Darwinist experts. Duh.
>>>>>>. . .known to be populated by religious nutbags who are trying to show religious education down the throats of American school children UNDER THE GUISE OF ID.
That's what Jones was responding to; not the generic concept of ID. <<<<<<
It is possible to come up with a negative interpretation of almost anything. For example, some Darwinists -- e.g., Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers -- are using evolution to push atheistic agendas. For example, Dawkins said that evolution makes it possible to be an "intellectually fulfilled atheist." Should evolution be banned as a violation of the establishment clause just because evolution is used to push atheism, which the courts have ruled is a religious concept? Judge Jones was obliged to base his ruling on the most favorable interpretation of ID, and he failed to do so.
>>>>> This is the kind of subtle distinction that you need to address in order to appear even remotely well-educated on the topic. <<<<<<
This is my blog, doofus, and I saw no reason to address your stupid distinction.
>>>>>>> Apparently you haven't studied much law or science. <<<<<<<
I know a hell of a lot more about law and science than you do, you stupid ignoramus.
>>>>>> I can recommend some excellent web-sites for your perusal. <<<<<<
Well, then recommend them, bozo, I could use a few laughs.
"I'm always kicking their butts -- that's why they don't like me."
-- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger
Larry, Larry, Larry. Let's deal with your confusion again, shall we?
Note the following citation of an article co-authored by Numbers: ""ID is just an evolved version of creationism where creationists got smart and took out the word "God" to avoid a legal decision, but in reality it's just an untestable appeal to the supernatural, which says that if evolution cannot explain some things, then therefore it must have been created by miracles from a supernatural or divine being: that claim isn't testable, and therefore isn't science, and that's why ID has never published any peer-reviewed work supporting its ideas. ID is nothing but religion, and cannot contribute anything to science other than stopping otherwise fruitful research. ID proponents should stop trying to push it into the classroom because ID threatens science education, science, and the security of our future."
Who cited this? The DI. Numbers isn't agreeing with you. He's not agreeing with the DI.
Facts, Larry, facts. You cannot rely on the DI to provide you with any facts - just lies and spin that serve their theistic agenda.
And you have censored comments of mine that do not violate any of your rules - what else can one make of that than that you do, in fact, practise censorship of comments? And note that I never claimed that you practised arbitrary censorship. To accuse me of that would be to lie on your part.
>>>>> Larry, Larry, Larry. Let's deal with your confusion again, shall we?
Note the following citation of an article co-authored by Numbers: <<<<<<
Edward, Edward, Edward, what is your source for that citation? And instead of accusing me of dishonesty or ignorance for citing the DI's quotations of Ron Numbers, bozo, why didn't you just say that you have a quotation of Numbers that is not consistent with the DI's quotations?
This interview of Numbers sheds some light on his beliefs and provides further evidence that Judge Jones was wrong.
Anyway, I don't need any "experts" to tell me that intelligent design is different from creationism. Intelligent design uses scientific evidence and reasoning whereas creationism uses religious sources.
>>>>>> And you have censored comments of mine that do not violate any of your rules . . . . And note that I never claimed that you practised arbitrary censorship. <<<<<<
Claiming that I censored comments that do not violate any of my rules is claiming that I practice arbitrary censorship.
Larry, your claim, "Anyway, I don't need any "experts" to tell me that intelligent design is different from creationism. Intelligent design uses scientific evidence and reasoning whereas creationism uses religious sources." is factually incorrect. Apparently you've read too many DI and creationist websites. The DI folks have admitted they have no theory; Dembski has never shown that his "filter" works; and Behe's entire argument is "I don't believe it. Lookie how complicated it is."
That doesn't constitute science - that's why I'm concerned that you don't seem to know much about science (or law, but we can get into that later.)
The entire 'argument' for intelligent design as it is currently being used is an argument from incredulity in the form of an unverified analogy.
Learn some science, Larry. Then you can identify why the ID argument is nonsense and hot air.
And the fact is that it's being pushed by folks with a religious agenda. They admit that. Dembski admits it; Johnson admits it; the wedge document clarifies it.
These are the people Jones was referring to; these are the folks who are using the concept of ID as a stalking horse for the introduction of religion into science classrooms.
This is all well-documented material; available all over the web. You should be able to find this out on your own. Unless you're google-challenged. I can help you with that, too, if you need it.
>>>>>> Larry, your claim, "Anyway, I don't need any "experts" to tell me that intelligent design is different from creationism. Intelligent design uses scientific evidence and reasoning whereas creationism uses religious sources." is factually incorrect. <<<<<<
Wrong. Whether or not something is a theory has nothing to do with whether or not it is scientific. Not everything in science is a theory. If "theory" is defined as a complete scientific explanation for something, then yes, ID is not a theory. ID is more a criticism of evolution theory. I consider ID to be the study of the probability that random mutations and natural selection can account for the complexity and diversity of living things. I think that the name "ID" is unfortunate because it implies the existence of a designer, but we are pretty much stuck with that name for historical reasons.
>>>>>>> Apparently you've read too many DI and creationist websites. <<<<<<<
I can think for myself, bozo.
>>>>>>> Behe's entire argument is "I don't believe it. Lookie how complicated it is." <<<<<<<
No, you stupid fathead, that is not his entire argument.
Behe did not define irreducible complexity but said, "I know it when I see it." But ID has contributed to science by raising important issues. It is ridiculous for Darwinists to claim that ID is not science when they devote so much effort to debating ID on scientific grounds.
>>>>>> That doesn't constitute science - that's why I'm concerned that you don't seem to know much about science (or law, but we can get into that later.) <<<<<<<<
No you cannot "get into that later," you despicable dunghill. I will no longer tolerate scoffing about my general knowledge of science, law, or anything else. That scoffing contributes nothing to the discussion. If you think I am being unreasonable here, bozo, then name another blogger who would tolerate that kind of crap.
>>>>>> The entire 'argument' for intelligent design as it is currently being used is an argument from incredulity in the form of an unverified analogy. <<<<<<<
"Argument from incredulity" is often another name for common sense.
>>>>>> And the fact is that it's being pushed by folks with a religious agenda. <<<<<<
That's just guilt by association. And evolution is being pushed by folks with an atheistic agenda.
>>>>>> These are the people Jones was referring to; <<<<<<
Judge "Jackass" Jones is a crackpot activist judge.
Most of the things you have said here I have heard many times before. You Darwinists have no originality.
I'm sorry Larry, but this point is semantically incoherent. First you claim
Intelligent design uses scientific evidence and reasoning whereas creationism uses religious sources then you claim
Wrong. Whether or not something is a theory has nothing to do with whether or not it is scientific.
Who cares? You weren't talking about 'theory', you were claiming that ID uses scientific evidence and reasoning.
That is completely incorrect. ID uses NOTHING except unproven assertions and analogies. For example, find me the precise, calculated specified complexity of anything. You can't. Find me the scientific reasoning used. You can't.
There's nothing to ID; it's a shell-game created by religious con-artists like Dembski and Behe and Johnson.
Not everything in science is a theory. If "theory" is defined as a complete scientific explanation for something, then yes, ID is not a theory. ID is more a criticism of evolution theory. I consider ID to be the study of the probability that random mutations and natural selection can account for the complexity and diversity of living things. I think that the name "ID" is unfortunate because it implies the existence of a designer, but we are pretty much stuck with that name for historical reasons.
But you weren't talking about theory. You claimed that ID used scientific evidence and reasoning. It doesn't. That's what's incorrect.
Larry said, "Argument from incredulity" is often another name for common sense. No, actually it's not. The ID folks are arguing: "evolution is wrong 'cause I don't believe it." That's all they've got. Nothing else. Show me the math. Show me the actual calculations. Show me the research. Show me this vaunted scientific reasoning.
You won't be able to.
Larry said, hat's just guilt by association. And evolution is being pushed by folks with an atheistic agenda.
And this, Larry, is simply a lie. I know you are smart enough to recognize the existence of folks like Glenn Morton and Ken Miller.
They push evolution like crazy, and they are strong, devout Christians.
You're making a fundamental error in conflating evolution with atheism. The theory of evolution has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with religion of any kind.
Read more, Larry. Educate yourself. Then you'll be able to hold your own in intelligent discussions.
Edward moaned,
>>>>>> find me the precise, calculated specified complexity of anything. <<<<<<
I can't answer the question -- I am not very familiar with specified complexity.
Evolution theory is far from perfect -- it has more holes than Swiss cheese. And a lot of wild assumptions are made in evolution theory.
>>>>>> But you weren't talking about theory. You claimed that ID used scientific evidence and reasoning <<<<<
YOU were the one who introduced "theory," bozo.
>>>>>> Show me the math. Show me the actual calculations. Show me the research. Show me this vaunted scientific reasoning. <<<<<<
Whole books have been written about ID and I obviously cannot even begin to cover that material here.
>>>>> I know you are smart enough to recognize the existence of folks like Glenn Morton and Ken Miller. <<<<<<
And certainly you have heard of PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins, doofus.
You are just a lousy troll who is cluttering up this blog with garbage, you despicable dunghill.
Larry, >>>>> I know you are smart enough to recognize the existence of folks like Glenn Morton and Ken Miller. <<<<<<
And certainly you have heard of PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins, doofus.
You are just a lousy troll who is cluttering up this blog with garbage, you despicable dunghill.
You claimed evolution was being pushed by folks with an atheist agenda. I showed you that you were lying. And P.Z. Myers doesn't push evolution because he has an atheist agenda to do so - he pushes evolution because it's the best theory in biology. To claim otherwise is to LIE, Larry. I'm sorry, but there's no other way to put it. The scientists who promote evolution over pseudo-science like ID do so because it's good science. Evolutionary theory has nothing to do with atheism. Nothing.
Why resort to childish profanity when you can't answer a point, Larry? It's like your ignorance of law - it just makes you look stupid.
Edward moaned,
>>>>>> You claimed evolution was being pushed by folks with an atheist agenda. I showed you that you were lying. <<<<<<
No, you did not.
>>>>>> And P.Z. Myers doesn't push evolution because he has an atheist agenda to do so - he pushes evolution because it's the best theory in biology. <<<<<<
What evidence do you have that pushing an atheist agenda is not at least one of the reasons why Sleazy PZ is pushing evolution?
Richard Dawkins' and PZ Myers' beliefs in evolution have strong ties to their atheism. Dawkins said that "evolution has made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." PZ Myers said,
What I really object to is the goofy “if you don’t be nice to god belief, the churchy scientists will take their ball home”. I metaphorically puke on the shoes of anyone who tries to make that argument.
>>>>>> To claim otherwise is to LIE, Larry. I'm sorry, but there's no other way to put it.<<<<<<<
You will be sorrier -- much sorrier -- if you use that word or similar words here again. When a public commenter at the Texas state board of education hearings said that those who did not agree that religion was the only issue were lying, then-chairman Don McLeroy interrupted her, saying "you can't use that word here."
>>>>> It's like your ignorance of law <<<<<<
This is your final warning, bozo -- in the future, comments saying I am ignorant of anything will not be posted.
Larry, You will be sorrier -- much sorrier -- if you use that word or similar words here again. When a public commenter at the Texas state board of education hearings said that those who did not agree that religion was the only issue were lying, then-chairman Don McLeroy interrupted her, saying "you can't use that word here."
I'm curious - in what POSSIBLE way can you make me sorry? Aside from the fact that I feel sorry FOR you, I don't see that you can do anything - anything in the slightest at all, to make me feel sorry.
>>>>>> I'm curious - in what POSSIBLE way can you make me sorry? <<<<<<
Obviously, I mean that your comment will not be posted, doofus. If that doesn't bother you, then go ahead, piss me off again.
And why do you feel sorry for me? There is no reason to feel sorry for me.
Post a Comment
<< Home