Judge Jones and Plagiarism at the Dover Trial.?

[R. Dean]

Does this color the results of the Dover Trial in 2006?
If not why not?

"When the Jones decision was first published I read every word. I was
very impressed. Here was a man who seemed to have learned a lot of
sophisticated science in a very short period of time. His grasp of
complexities like the evolution of bacteria flagella and blood clotting
was impressive. His understanding of the meaning of science rivaled that
of many advisors on the ACLU side. Frankly, I was jealous, and humbled
..

"The Discovery Institute is reporting that the "Masterful" Federal
Ruling on Intelligent Design Was Copied from ACLU and Timothy Sandefur
acknowledges that this is true [Weekend at Behe's].

Apparently Judge Jones copied the most "scientific" parts of his
decision from the ACLU ‘Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law’ that
was submitted a month before the decision was published. I'm told that
this is standard practice. Judges often rely heavily on written
submissions from the side they support. I'm told that it's common for
judges to copy from those submissions.

That may be true—I have no reason to doubt it—but it does make a
difference to me. The legal significance of the decision doesn't change
but my opinion of Judge Jones does. He is no longer the brilliant man
who was able to grasp complex scientific concepts in the blink of an
eye. He's able to discern who's right and who's wrong, but that's all.

Now, the question is, who really wrote the ACLU "Finding of Fact?" Did
they know from the beginning that the Jones decision had incorporated a
lot of their material? If so, why did they leave us with the impression
that Judge Jones "has taken the time to really understand not just the
legal issues, but the scientific ones as well?"

[R. Dean]

> sandwalk.blogspot.com/2006/12/judge-jones-dover-trial.html

[Ron O]

People plagerize the truth all the time. It doesn't change the truth.

The real question is why you think that ID is any more than what it was found to be when the ID perps have never put forward their ID science when they need it and the bait and switch has been going down for over 15 years on creationist rubes like you.

You just got the 6 best evidences for intelligent design creationism and what should it tell you about Judge Jones' decision? The same junk was found not to be convincing in the creationist court cases of the 1980s.

That is what you are up- against. The ID perps have just admitted that they have made zero progress in decades. It turns out that there never was any ID science worth teaching in the public schools. Demonstrate otherwise.

Ron Okimoto

[Burkhard]

In common law systems, judges are deemed to be "ignorant of the law and
ignorant of the facts" - that is they are strictly bound by what the
parties submit (with some limited exceptions such as judical notice)
So it was not just permissible for Jones to rely on the submission, it
is the common law ideal. And being able to discern between two
contradictory submissions which one is right and which one isn't is of
course a key skill. That your course did not know that shows how
important teaching civics would be.

As to "who really wrote the ACLU finding of facts", that is of course
the type of ad hominem that you so vocally protest against all the time.
It does not matter. It only matters if its content is correct.

[jillery]

On Tue, 6 Feb 2018 00:51:14 -0500, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 2/5/2018 8:46 PM, R. Dean wrote:
>
>Does this color the results of the Dover Trial in 2006?
>If not why not?

Not sure what you mean by "results". If you mean the legal standing
of that trial, then no it doesn't, because AIUI that's not how the law
works. If you mean how one should feel about the trial, then no
again, because one's opinions shouldn't be swayed by who wrote what.

What results do you think the following should change?

Since you included this link, you might want to read the comments,
especially the ones from Larry Moran, where he admits his
misunderstanding about how legal decisions are written.

--
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[T Pagano]

On Mon, 05 Feb 2018 20:46:24 -0500, R. Dean wrote:

> Does this color the results of the Dover Trial in 2006?
> If not why not?
>
> "When the Jones decision was first published I read every word. I was
> very impressed. Here was a man who seemed to have learned a lot of
> sophisticated science in a very short period of time. His grasp of
> complexities like the evolution of bacteria flagella and blood clotting
> was impressive. His understanding of the meaning of science rivaled that
> of many advisors on the ACLU side. Frankly, I was jealous, and humbled

I'm not really sure this true. It is doubtful that the judge would have
been competent enough (in such a short period of time) to appreciate the
import of the differences between the two positions (neoDarwinism and
intelligent design). However, it's not clear that the judge's job
involved deciding whether neoDarwinism was more truthlike than
intelligent design (or vice versa).

> ..
>
> "The Discovery Institute is reporting that the "Masterful" Federal
> Ruling on Intelligent Design Was Copied from ACLU and Timothy Sandefur
> acknowledges that this is true [Weekend at Behe's].
>
> Apparently Judge Jones copied the most "scientific" parts of his
> decision from the ACLU ‘Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law’ that
> was submitted a month before the decision was published. I'm told that
> this is standard practice. Judges often rely heavily on written
> submissions from the side they support. I'm told that it's common for
> judges to copy from those submissions.

In the Scopes Trial, Scopes was charged with violating the state law
prohibiting the teaching of human evolution. The court also accepted
submissions from eminent scientists of the day into the Scopes Trial
record attempting to show the truth of human evolution (none testified as
far as I know). The court still convicted Scopes (later overturned) and
the Tennessee Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the state
law.

This would tend to demonstrate that metaphysical preconceptions held the
day. Things are no different in the Dover case. It has less to do with
the verisimilitude of present day secular conclusions about evolution.

>
> That may be true—I have no reason to doubt it—but it does make a
> difference to me. The legal significance of the decision doesn't change
> but my opinion of Judge Jones does. He is no longer the brilliant man
> who was able to grasp complex scientific concepts in the blink of an
> eye. He's able to discern who's right and who's wrong, but that's all.
>
> Now, the question is, who really wrote the ACLU "Finding of Fact?" Did
> they know from the beginning that the Jones decision had incorporated a
> lot of their material? If so, why did they leave us with the impression
> that Judge Jones "has taken the time to really understand not just the
> legal issues, but the scientific ones as well?"

I'm wondering if any of this is relevant.

If my understanding is correct the plaintiff challenged the Dover School
District for, more or less, "teaching the controversy." It was the
court's job to determine if the Dover School District's curricular policy
violated the Supreme Court's 1971 Lemon Test; which included three tests:
1. the governmental policy must have a secular purpose;
2. the principal or primary effect of the government policy must be one
that neither advances nor inhibits religion; and finally,
3. the governmental policy must not foster an excessive government
entanglement with religion.


The plaintiff's burden was low; it only needed to convince the judge that
the Dover School District's policy violated one of the tests. Under
*today's* metaphysical preconceptions; I doubt the Discovery Institute
was under any illusions about winning.

[R. Dean]

I can understand a judge using the information he learns from both sides
then rendering a judgement in his own words, but plagiarizing the words
of one side, then advancing these words as his own? IOW this judge's
pronouncement was given from his own ignorance to make an honest and
fair judgement between conflicting points of view.

[Burkhard]

Writing judgements is not the same as writing an exam at high school.
The judge uses his knowledge and analytical skills to determine which
party submission is more convincing, and will use the oral part where
questions are asked of the parties to identify weak spots. That is the
intellectual side. S/he is bound however by the party submissions,
neither encouraged or indeed permitted to add to this, so reusing the
material indicates particularly rigid adherence to the rules.

Same as in say soccer, the referee is not supposed to score a goal. They
only keep track of which side is better.

[jillery]

On Tue, 6 Feb 2018 10:42:17 -0500, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>
wrote:

Of course, plagiarized means to advance the words of others as one's
own. And Judge Jones didn't do that. Read the comments from your own
cite.

[R. Dean]

I was just surprised that a judge would plagiarize the words of one
side. It makes one wonder whether or not he even bothered to hear
the other side.

[Mark Isaak]

It means Judge Jones should not be allowed to collect royalties from
selling copies of his decision. Which, as you know, was never an issue.

Do you honestly expect it should mean more than that? Or are you just
trying to smear a good man with invidious innuendo?

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Ignorance, allied with power, is the most ferocious enemy justice can
have." - James Baldwin

[R. Dean]

On 2/6/2018 9:28 AM, T Pagano wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Feb 2018 20:46:24 -0500, R. Dean wrote:
>
>> Does this color the results of the Dover Trial in 2006?
>> If not why not?
>>
>> "When the Jones decision was first published I read every word. I was
>> very impressed. Here was a man who seemed to have learned a lot of
>> sophisticated science in a very short period of time. His grasp of
>> complexities like the evolution of bacteria flagella and blood clotting
>> was impressive. His understanding of the meaning of science rivaled that
>> of many advisors on the ACLU side. Frankly, I was jealous, and humbled
>
>
> I'm not really sure this true. It is doubtful that the judge would have
> been competent enough (in such a short period of time) to appreciate the
> import of the differences between the two positions (neoDarwinism and
> intelligent design). However, it's not clear that the judge's job
> involved deciding whether neoDarwinism was more truthlike than
> intelligent design (or vice versa).
>

I was surprised to learn that Judge Jones plagiarized the words
of the ACLU. In at least one reference, I note that 90.9% of
Judge Jones words came from ACLU lawyers. I quote:
"Since the decision was issued, Jones’ 139-page judicial opinion has
been lavished with praise as a“masterful decision” based on careful and
independent analysis of the evidence. However, a new analysis of the
text of the
Kitzmiller decision reveals that nearly all of Judge Jones’ lengthy
examination of “whether ID is science” came not from his own efforts or
analysis but from wording supplied by ACLU attorneys.
In fact, 90.9% (or 5,458 words) of Judge Jones’ 6,004-word section on
intelligent design as science was taken virtually verbatim from the
ACLU’s proposed “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law” submitted to
Judge Jones nearly a
month before his ruling. Judge Jones even copied several clearly
erroneous factual claims made by the ACLU."
https://www.scribd.com/document/182813690/Comparing-Jones-and-ACLU
>
Can one argue that AClU lawyers are not subject to the negative
and secular views of the neo-Darwinist? Lawyers as a rule,
will invariably take the side of their client, regardless of the
merit of the case. There's no reason to suppose these ACLU lawyers
any different.

And if indeed Judge Jones did in fact copy 90.9% OF the words of the
ACLU lawyers, should he have given credit due? As I understand
it, HE DID NOT!

The Discovery Institute was not originally part of this fiasco.
Both William Buckley and Alan Bonsell were young earth creationist,
which is not aN intelligent design position. However, the Discovery
Institute was drug into the Dover trial against the advice of their
staff attorney Seth Cooper. I quote:
>
"From 2002, William (Bill) Buckingham and Alan Bonsell, members of the
Dover Area School District Board of Education who were young earth
creationists, had made various statements supporting teaching
creationism alongside evolution. At a board meeting on June 7, 2004,
Buckingham mentioned creationism and raised objections to the proposed
use of the textbook Biology written by Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S.
Levine, describing it as "laced with Darwinism" and saying it was
"inexcusable to have a book that says man descended from apes with
nothing to counterbalance it."[11]

This story made the York newspapers, and Buckingham was telephoned by
Discovery Institute staff attorney Seth Cooper, whose tasks included
"communicating with legislators, school board members, teachers, parents
and students" to "address the topic of ID in a scientifically and
educationally responsible way" in public schools. He later stated that
he made the call to "steer the Dover Board away from trying to include
intelligent design in the classroom or from trying to insert creationism
into its cirriculum [sic]", an account Buckingham has disputed. Cooper
sent the book and DVD of Icons of Evolution to Buckingham, who required
the Dover High School science teachers to watch the DVD. They did not
take up the opportunity to use it in their classes.

Cooper advised that the Discovery Institute was not offering legal
advice, and soon afterwards Buckingham contacted Richard Thompson of the
Thomas More Law Center, who agreed to represent the Dover Board, and
recommended the book Of Pandas and People.[12] On October 18, 2004, the
school board voted 6–3 resolving that there were to be lectures on the
subject, with Pandas as a reference book, and that the following
statement was to be added to their biology curriculum: "Students will be
made aware of the gaps/problems in Darwin's theory and of other theories
of evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent design. Note:
Origins of life is not taught."
:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

[Ron O]

It is old news. Did you find out that it is a common practice? Do you realize that it doesn't make any difference as to whether IDiocy is science or not? You were just given the best that the ID perps have come up with in over 22 years of effort and even they could not bring themselves to call it "scientific" evidence. Really, read what they wrote about this "evidence" and considering how they have lied about doing ID science for years, it is pretty obvious that they purposely did not claim that any of their 6 best was scientific eficence for IDiocy. That just reenforces the judges decision over 12 years ago. No progress since then and nothing that the scientific creationists made claims about decades before.

Ron Okimoto

[Burkhard]

R. Dean wrote:
> On 2/6/2018 9:28 AM, T Pagano wrote:
>> On Mon, 05 Feb 2018 20:46:24 -0500, R. Dean wrote:
>>
>>> Does this color the results of the Dover Trial in 2006?
>>> If not why not?
>>>
>>> "When the Jones decision was first published I read every word. I was
>>> very impressed. Here was a man who seemed to have learned a lot of
>>> sophisticated science in a very short period of time. His grasp of
>>> complexities like the evolution of bacteria flagella and blood clotting
>>> was impressive. His understanding of the meaning of science rivaled that
>>> of many advisors on the ACLU side. Frankly, I was jealous, and humbled
>>
>>
>> I'm not really sure this true. It is doubtful that the judge would have
>> been competent enough (in such a short period of time) to appreciate the
>> import of the differences between the two positions (neoDarwinism and
>> intelligent design). However, it's not clear that the judge's job
>> involved deciding whether neoDarwinism was more truthlike than
>> intelligent design (or vice versa).
>>
> I was surprised to learn that Judge Jones plagiarized the words
> of the ACLU.

You keep using this words. I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means

In at least one reference, I note that 90.9% of
> Judge Jones words came from ACLU lawyers. I quote:
> "Since the decision was issued, Jones’ 139-page judicial opinion has
> been lavished with praise as a“masterful decision” based on careful and
> independent analysis of the evidence. However, a new analysis of the
> text of the
> Kitzmiller decision reveals that nearly all of Judge Jones’ lengthy
> examination of “whether ID is science” came not from his own efforts or
> analysis but from wording supplied by ACLU attorneys.
> In fact, 90.9% (or 5,458 words) of Judge Jones’ 6,004-word section on
> intelligent design as science was taken virtually verbatim from the
> ACLU’s proposed “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law” submitted to
> Judge Jones nearly a
> month before his ruling. Judge Jones even copied several clearly
> erroneous factual claims made by the ACLU."
> https://www.scribd.com/document/182813690/Comparing-Jones-and-ACLU
>>
> Can one argue that AClU lawyers are not subject to the negative
> and secular views of the neo-Darwinist?

So your usual attack on the person, when your arguments on the substance
of their argument run out? The behavior you always so loudly complaint
about?

Lawyers as a rule,
> will invariably take the side of their client, regardless of the
> merit of the case. There's no reason to suppose these ACLU lawyers
> any different.

Indeed not. And it would have been quite wrong of them to do so either.
It is the role of the lawyer for the party to make the strongest
possible argument on their behalf.

The role of the judge is then t decide if it was strong enough, and in
particular stronger than that of the opposition. Unlike the
inquisitorial trials typical for civil law jurisdictions, that is their
only role, they are not supposed to add their own research.

>
> And if indeed Judge Jones did in fact copy 90.9% OF the words of the
> ACLU lawyers, should he have given credit due? As I understand
> it, HE DID NOT!

Indeed not. and it would have been utterly inappropriate to do so, and a
violation of the rules of procedure. You keep confusing a court
judgement with a high school essay.

<snip>

[Burkhard]

The oral hearings of the trial extended over 21 days. For 20 of these
days the court probed and questioned the arguments of both sides (day
21 is for the closing arguments where the judge is not supposed to
intervene) - it is on that basis that a court decides which submission
is stronger.

It only takes minimal knowledge of the US legal system, or 30 sec with
google to find the transcript, to realize that and see how much work by
the court goes into the decision making.

Yet you, obviously as ignorant of the the US legal system as you are of
biology, don't even go to that much effort and rather impugn the
professionalism of a judge on the basis of stuff you made up in your own
mind. And then you accuse the judge of "arguments from ignorance". Just
brilliant, one could not make it up.

[jillery]

On Tue, 6 Feb 2018 16:31:37 -0500, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>

Do yourself a favor and read the comments from you own cited article.
Nobody plagiarized anything. Judge Jones identified his sources in
his decision. Your repetitive rant using facts trivially proved false
just makes you look even more stupid than you already do.

[Ernest Major]

On 07/02/2018 09:21, Burkhard wrote:
>
> Yet you, obviously as ignorant of the the US legal system as you are of
> biology, don't even go to that much effort and rather impugn the
> professionalism of a judge on the basis of stuff you made up in your own
> mind. And then you accuse the judge of "arguments from ignorance". Just
> brilliant, one could not make it up.

I think you're giving him too much credit. Given the similarity of his
claims to those of intelligent design spin artists there's no reason to
conclude that his impugnations are the product of his mind.

--
alias Ernest Major

[T Pagano]

On Tue, 06 Feb 2018 22:00:26 -0500, R. Dean wrote:

> On 2/6/2018 9:28 AM, T Pagano wrote:
>> On Mon, 05 Feb 2018 20:46:24 -0500, R. Dean wrote:
>>
>>> Does this color the results of the Dover Trial in 2006?
>>> If not why not?
>>>
>>> "When the Jones decision was first published I read every word. I was
>>> very impressed. Here was a man who seemed to have learned a lot of
>>> sophisticated science in a very short period of time. His grasp of
>>> complexities like the evolution of bacteria flagella and blood
>>> clotting was impressive. His understanding of the meaning of science
>>> rivaled that of many advisors on the ACLU side. Frankly, I was
>>> jealous, and humbled
>>
>>
>> I'm not really sure this true. It is doubtful that the judge would
>> have been competent enough (in such a short period of time) to
>> appreciate the import of the differences between the two positions
>> (neoDarwinism and intelligent design). However, it's not clear that
>> the judge's job involved deciding whether neoDarwinism was more
>> truthlike than intelligent design (or vice versa).
>>
> I was surprised to learn that Judge Jones plagiarized the words of the
> ACLU. In at least one reference, I note that 90.9% of Judge Jones words
> came from ACLU lawyers. I quote:
> "Since the decision was issued, Jones’ 139-page judicial opinion has
> been lavished with praise as a“masterful decision” based on careful and
> independent analysis of the evidence.

I'm a creationist and accept ID Theory as worthy pursuit. And you "are"
barking up the wrong tree.

You presented some premises:

1. The judge received praise for his decision.
2. The praise characterized his written decision as "masterful."
3. The Discovery Institute discovered that the judge plagiarized from an
ACLU written work without citation.
However, you never draw a conclusion. And so I say, "so what."

The "praise," "its quality," and "its source" are irrelevant to the
judge's decision. The decision can be explained completely by

(1) the fact that evolutionary dogma has been taught since shortly after
the Scopes Trial (1925), and
(2) the long standing US jurisprudence that any mention (or whiff) of
religion violates the First Amendment.

(1) and (2) are uncontroversial.

> However, a new analysis of the text of the
> Kitzmiller decision reveals that nearly all of Judge Jones’ lengthy
> examination of “whether ID is science” came not from his own efforts or
> analysis but from wording supplied by ACLU attorneys.
> In fact, 90.9% (or 5,458 words) of Judge Jones’ 6,004-word section on
> intelligent design as science was taken virtually verbatim from the
> ACLU’s proposed “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law” submitted to
> Judge Jones nearly a
> month before his ruling. Judge Jones even copied several clearly
> erroneous factual claims made by the ACLU."
> https://www.scribd.com/document/182813690/Comparing-Jones-and-ACLU

Plagiarism is an "intellectual property" issue unrelated to the judge's
legal decision concerning the First Amendment issue at Dover. And in
that scope only (intellectual property rights) relevant if the judge
didn't obtain permission and/or the ACLU complains. ACLU never
complained and/or the judge did obtain permission.

>>
> Can one argue that AClU lawyers are not subject to the negative and
> secular views of the neo-Darwinist? Lawyers as a rule,
> will invariably take the side of their client, regardless of the merit
> of the case. There's no reason to suppose these ACLU lawyers any
> different.

By using the ACLU work the judge obviously accepted it as his own legal
position. And so the judge and (most of the populace in the US) hold
these secular views because
(1) evolutionary dogma has been taught since shortly after the Scopes
Trial (1925); it is ingrained, and
(2) the long standing US jurisprudence that any mention (or whiff) of
religion violates the First Amendment.

Are you so naive that you think judges can leave their preconceived
notions in their ante-chamber when they put on their robes?

> And if indeed Judge Jones did in fact copy 90.9% OF the words of the
> ACLU lawyers, should he have given credit due? As I understand it, HE
> DID NOT!

Granted, but for the purposes of the truth/falsity of evolutionism this
is irrelevant.

>>>
>>> "The Discovery Institute is reporting that the "Masterful" Federal
>>> Ruling on Intelligent Design Was Copied from ACLU and Timothy Sandefur
>>> acknowledges that this is true [Weekend at Behe's].

The Discovery Institute should know better than to waste time on this
irrelevancy.

>>>
>>> Apparently Judge Jones copied the most "scientific" parts of his
>>> decision from the ACLU ‘Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law’ that
>>> was submitted a month before the decision was published. I'm told that
>>> this is standard practice. Judges often rely heavily on written
>>> submissions from the side they support. I'm told that it's common for
>>> judges to copy from those submissions.
>>
>>
>>
>> In the Scopes Trial, Scopes was charged with violating the state law
>> prohibiting the teaching of human evolution. The court also accepted
>> submissions from eminent scientists of the day into the Scopes Trial
>> record attempting to show the truth of human evolution (none testified
>> as far as I know). The court still convicted Scopes (later overturned)
>> and the Tennessee Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the
>> state law.
>>
>> This would tend to demonstrate that metaphysical preconceptions held
>> the day. Things are no different in the Dover case. It has less to do
>> with the verisimilitude of present day secular conclusions about
>> evolution.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> That may be true—I have no reason to doubt it—but it does make a
>>> difference to me. The legal significance of the decision doesn't
>>> change but my opinion of Judge Jones does. He is no longer the
>>> brilliant man who was able to grasp complex scientific concepts in the
>>> blink of an eye. He's able to discern who's right and who's wrong, but
>>> that's all.

Okay so you conclude that the judge is a plagiarist and not brilliant.
Would anything have changed if the judge "had" cited the ACLU work? The
answer is no.

Again, you focus on an irrelevant bit. The Discovery Institute's level
of involvement with or degree of agreement with the Dover defendants is
irrelevant to the low burden of proof necessary for the plaintiffs to
stop the Dover policy.


snip.

[jillery]

On Wed, 07 Feb 2018 10:17:56 -0600, T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com>
wrote:

Three important corrections of fact:

1) Larry Moran raised the issue of plagiarism.

2) Any involvement with the Discotut on this point has not been
established here.

3) There was no discovery of plagiarism because there was no
plagiarism. Larry Moran acknowledged his error.

Hasn't anybody besides me actually read the article?

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 6 Feb 2018 16:31:37 -0500, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>:

<snip>

>I was just surprised that a judge would plagiarize the words of one
>side. It makes one wonder whether or not he even bothered to hear
>the other side.

A couple of questions can probably settle this:

If you find one side's arguments to be conclusive, why would
you bother to quote the other's, except to further demolish
it? IOW, if you want to emphasize that one side has all the
valid arguments, don't waste your time paraphrasing those
arguments; simply list them.

Do you quote Satanists whenever you quote the Bible?
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[R. Dean]

Maybe so. I had no illusions that plagiarism by the Judge would falsify
evolution. I didn't expect plagiarism from a judge especially when the
credit due is missing. Obviously, I was wrong.

Do you not think there is a difference between Biblical creationism and
Intelligent design? Why?

>
> You presented some premises:
>
> 1. The judge received praise for his decision.
> 2. The praise characterized his written decision as "masterful."
> 3. The Discovery Institute discovered that the judge plagiarized from an
> ACLU written work without citation.
> However, you never draw a conclusion. And so I say, "so what."
>
> The "praise," "its quality," and "its source" are irrelevant to the
> judge's decision. The decision can be explained completely by
>
> (1) the fact that evolutionary dogma has been taught since shortly after
> the Scopes Trial (1925), and
> (2) the long standing US jurisprudence that any mention (or whiff) of
> religion violates the First Amendment.
>
> (1) and (2) are uncontroversial.
>

OK, but I saw this as little more than a variation on a kangaroo court.

No, but I would hope that the judge would have been objective enough
to weigh the evidence from both sides.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>> And if indeed Judge Jones did in fact copy 90.9% OF the words of the
>> ACLU lawyers, should he have given credit due? As I understand it, HE
>> DID NOT!
>
>
>
>
> Granted, but for the purposes of the truth/falsity of evolutionism this
> is irrelevant.
>

I knew from the beginning that this would _not_ e the final nail in the
coffin of evolution, but I presented this as one example of secular
inability to cope with actual ID positions.

My point was that based upon the advice of the attorney for the
Discovery Institute was not to become in this trial where young earth
creationist were the plaintiffs.
ut the ID people were drug in by the Thomas Moore law firm which
volunteered to represent the plaintiffs.

I'm not a young earth creationist so I felt the need to defend
against being associated with them.

> snip.
>
>
>
>

[T Pagano]

On Wed, 07 Feb 2018 16:53:13 -0500, R. Dean wrote:

> On 2/7/2018 11:17 AM, T Pagano wrote:
>> On Tue, 06 Feb 2018 22:00:26 -0500, R. Dean wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/6/2018 9:28 AM, T Pagano wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 05 Feb 2018 20:46:24 -0500, R. Dean wrote:

snip

>>>>
>>> I was surprised to learn that Judge Jones plagiarized the words of the
>>> ACLU. In at least one reference, I note that 90.9% of Judge Jones
>>> words came from ACLU lawyers. I quote:
>>> "Since the decision was issued, Jones’ 139-page judicial opinion has
>>> been lavished with praise as a“masterful decision” based on careful
>>> and independent analysis of the evidence.
>>
>>
>> I'm a creationist and accept ID Theory as worthy pursuit. And you
>> "are" barking up the wrong tree.
> >
> Maybe so. I had no illusions that plagiarism by the Judge would falsify
> evolution. I didn't expect plagiarism from a judge especially when the
> credit due is missing. Obviously, I was wrong.

I get that the plagiarism bothers you but it is misplaced energy. At
least the judge was following legal precedents. There are plenty
miscarriages of justice overseen by judges in the US. This wasn't one of
those incidents.

This case was about nothing more than whether the Dover policy about
teaching the controversy could be linked---even peripherally---with
religion. My opinion was that is was a terrible mistake not to have
chosen a jury trial if one was allowed. Anyone who forgoes a jury is
almost always making a mistake.

>
> Do you not think there is a difference between Biblical creationism and
> Intelligent design? Why?

A test?

Intelligent Design Theory (as espoused by Dembski) is *not* a theory
about a history of causes and effects. On the other hand Biblical
Creationism (and evolutionism) *is* about a history of causes and
effects. ID Theory generalizes about the limits of material causes. ID
theory does not tell us what happened over the course of time, but may
shed some light on whether the causes we offer to explain effects are up
to the task.

>>
>> You presented some premises:
>>
>> 1. The judge received praise for his decision.
>> 2. The praise characterized his written decision as "masterful."
>> 3. The Discovery Institute discovered that the judge plagiarized from
>> an ACLU written work without citation.
>> However, you never draw a conclusion. And so I say, "so what."
>>
>> The "praise," "its quality," and "its source" are irrelevant to the
>> judge's decision. The decision can be explained completely by
>>
>> (1) the fact that evolutionary dogma has been taught since shortly
>> after the Scopes Trial (1925), and (2) the long standing US
>> jurisprudence that any mention (or whiff) of religion violates the
>> First Amendment.
>>
>> (1) and (2) are uncontroversial.
>>
> OK, but I saw this as little more than a variation on a kangaroo court.

It might have been a better use of time explaining this position then
wasting time on plagiarism------a plagiarism which was undoubtedly
welcomed by the ACLU authors.





snip

>> By using the ACLU work the judge obviously accepted it as his own legal
>> position. And so the judge and (most of the populace in the US) hold
>> these secular views because (1) evolutionary dogma has been taught
>> since shortly after the Scopes Trial (1925); it is ingrained, and (2)
>> the long standing US jurisprudence that any mention (or whiff) of
>> religion violates the First Amendment.
>>
>> Are you so naive that you think judges can leave their preconceived
>> notions in their ante-chamber when they put on their robes?
>>
> No, but I would hope that the judge would have been objective enough to
> weigh the evidence from both sides.

Your disappointment is misguided. The problem is this: ID Theory is
purely a scientific theory and rightly concludes that material causes
lack the power to explain the existence of irreducibly complex biological
structures (like the bacterial flaggellum). However, if material causes
lack the power we are left with the supernatural. The 1971 Supreme Court
Lemon Law test has been applied to practically preclude any government
policy/practice/law which aids/abets even a whiff of the supernatural.

So even if the judge agreed with the defendants legal precedent would
dictate he strike down the Dover policy. And its why the defendants
wouldn't waste a dime or minute appealing the decision.

Some have rightly argued that the Supreme Court's Lemon Test goes well
beyond what was advocated by the framers of the US Constitution.

>>> And if indeed Judge Jones did in fact copy 90.9% OF the words of the
>>> ACLU lawyers, should he have given credit due? As I understand it, HE
>>> DID NOT!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Granted, but for the purposes of the truth/falsity of evolutionism this
>> is irrelevant.
>>
> I knew from the beginning that this would _not_ e the final nail in the
> coffin of evolution, but I presented this as one example of secular
> inability to cope with actual ID positions.

Darwin's theory stagnated shortly after it was published in 1859. In the
1930s it enjoyed a 50 year resurrection with the use of Mendel's work
(genetics) and has been experiencing a long term disenchantment period
since the 1980s. There appears to be a growing number of secular
scientists who are not creationists but recognize that neoDarwinism is
inadequate.

ID theory has been vilified and misrepresented not falsified. Secular
atheists know all too well its import.



snip

>> Again, you focus on an irrelevant bit. The Discovery Institute's level
>> of involvement with or degree of agreement with the Dover defendants is
>> irrelevant to the low burden of proof necessary for the plaintiffs to
>> stop the Dover policy.
>>
> My point was that based upon the advice of the attorney for the
> Discovery Institute was not to become in this trial where young earth
> creationist were the plaintiffs.
> ut the ID people were drug in by the Thomas Moore law firm which
> volunteered to represent the plaintiffs.

So you think the ID Theorists were somehow tarnished by associating
themselves with the Dover School District?

>
> I'm not a young earth creationist so I felt the need to defend against
> being associated with them.

If ID Theory concludes that material causes lack the power to bring about
the bacterial flagellum then how do you explain the existence of the
flagellum outside of Biblical Creationism? If you don't mind me asking.

[R. Dean]

I absolutely agree that Intelligent Design is not religious, in that it
does not turn to any religious materials such as the Bible, religious
publications or religious doctrine for support. Rather it turns to
science for conformation such as:
1)the anthropic principle 2)the observations
(Punctuation Equalirium) of the late Stephen J. Gould and Niles Eldridge
3)And lately the more recently discovered Homeobox Genes (master control
genes)

>

>>
>> Do you not think there is a difference between Biblical creationism and
>> Intelligent design? Why?
>
> A test?
>

I just wanted your opinion. BTW I'm an MsEE I once met and consulted
with an electrical engineer named Thomas Pagano: any relations?
Over the years I've observed that as a profession engineers see design
in nature more so than members of other profession.

>
> Intelligent Design Theory (as espoused by Dembski) is *not* a theory
> about a history of causes and effects. On the other hand Biblical
> Creationism (and evolutionism) *is* about a history of causes and
> effects. ID Theory generalizes about the limits of material causes. ID
> theory does not tell us what happened over the course of time, but may
> shed some light on whether the causes we offer to explain effects are up
> to the task.
>

Ok

>
>
>
>
>
>
>>>
>>> You presented some premises:
>>>
>>> 1. The judge received praise for his decision.
>>> 2. The praise characterized his written decision as "masterful."
>>> 3. The Discovery Institute discovered that the judge plagiarized from
>>> an ACLU written work without citation.
>>> However, you never draw a conclusion. And so I say, "so what."
>>>
>>> The "praise," "its quality," and "its source" are irrelevant to the
>>> judge's decision. The decision can be explained completely by
>>>
>>> (1) the fact that evolutionary dogma has been taught since shortly
>>> after the Scopes Trial (1925), and (2) the long standing US
>>> jurisprudence that any mention (or whiff) of religion violates the
>>> First Amendment.
>>>
>>> (1) and (2) are uncontroversial.
>>>
>> OK, but I saw this as little more than a variation on a kangaroo court.
>
>
>
>
> It might have been a better use of time explaining this position then
> wasting time on plagiarism------a plagiarism which was undoubtedly
> welcomed by the ACLU authors.
>

Ok you are right of course. Years ago I might have had the energy to
study and go into the details of the Dover trial searching out
inconsistencs, mistakes etc. But there's is no point at this late
date.

>
>
>
>
> snip
>
>
>
>
>>> By using the ACLU work the judge obviously accepted it as his own legal
>>> position. And so the judge and (most of the populace in the US) hold
>>> these secular views because (1) evolutionary dogma has been taught
>>> since shortly after the Scopes Trial (1925); it is ingrained, and (2)
>>> the long standing US jurisprudence that any mention (or whiff) of
>>> religion violates the First Amendment.
>>>
>>> Are you so naive that you think judges can leave their preconceived
>>> notions in their ante-chamber when they put on their robes?
>>>
>> No, but I would hope that the judge would have been objective enough to
>> weigh the evidence from both sides.
>
>
>
>
> Your disappointment is misguided. The problem is this: ID Theory is
> purely a scientific theory and rightly concludes that material causes
> lack the power to explain the existence of irreducibly complex biological
> structures (like the bacterial flaggellum). However, if material causes
> lack the power we are left with the supernatural. The 1971 Supreme Court
> Lemon Law test has been applied to practically preclude any government
> policy/practice/law which aids/abets even a whiff of the supernatural.
>
> So even if the judge agreed with the defendants legal precedent would
> dictate he strike down the Dover policy. And its why the defendants
> wouldn't waste a dime or minute appealing the decision.
>
> Some have rightly argued that the Supreme Court's Lemon Test goes well
> beyond what was advocated by the framers of the US Constitution.
>

And I would agree. In my view the courts have gone too far in their
interpretation of the First Amendment of the Constitution. The second
part; "prohibiting the free exercise of religion" should not deny people
the right to worship wherever and whenever they desire. I do not
believe the framers meant anything else. The "wall of separation between
church and state is not in the constitution, as I'm sure you know. >

Not at all, I think their attorney realized this was a loosing battle
as you so eloquently and categorically pointed pointed out.

>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> I'm not a young earth creationist so I felt the need to defend against
>> being associated with them.
>
>
>
> If ID Theory concludes that material causes lack the power to bring about
> the bacterial flagellum then how do you explain the existence of the
> flagellum outside of Biblical Creationism? If you don't mind me asking.
>

I certainly believe this is among the list of evidences which provides
supports the existence of an intelligent designer. I am a member of the
Methodist Church, but I believe it is essential to keep religion out
of any scientific discourse. IOW Religion and science, in my opinion,
needs to be separate and independent.
>
>
>
>

[jillery]

On Wed, 07 Feb 2018 18:05:46 -0600, T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com>
wrote:

>It might have been a better use of time explaining this position then
>wasting time on plagiarism------a plagiarism which was undoubtedly
>welcomed by the ACLU authors.

Ok, I'll just assume nobody can see my posts to this topic, or knows
how to read a cited article. Carry on, loons.

[jillery]

On Thu, 8 Feb 2018 00:52:45 -0500, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>
wrote:

In previous posts, you acknowledged that ID's creative agent is
necessarily supernatural. How does that not qualify ID as religious?

>>> Do you not think there is a difference between Biblical creationism and
>>> Intelligent design? Why?
>>
>> A test?
> >
>I just wanted your opinion. BTW I'm an MsEE I once met and consulted
>with an electrical engineer named Thomas Pagano: any relations?
>Over the years I've observed that as a profession engineers see design
>in nature more so than members of other profession.
>>
>> Intelligent Design Theory (as espoused by Dembski) is *not* a theory
>> about a history of causes and effects. On the other hand Biblical
>> Creationism (and evolutionism) *is* about a history of causes and
>> effects. ID Theory generalizes about the limits of material causes. ID
>> theory does not tell us what happened over the course of time, but may
>> shed some light on whether the causes we offer to explain effects are up
>> to the task.
>>
>Ok

[Burkhard]

since none of these three lead in a scientifically sound way to ID and
horribly distort and misrepresent the science, the religious motivation
seems rather clear.

>>
>
>>>
>>> Do you not think there is a difference between Biblical creationism and
>>> Intelligent design? Why?
>>
>> A test?
>>
> I just wanted your opinion. BTW I'm an MsEE I once met and consulted
> with an electrical engineer named Thomas Pagano: any relations?
> Over the years I've observed that as a profession engineers see design
> in nature more so than members of other profession.
>>
>> Intelligent Design Theory (as espoused by Dembski) is *not* a theory
>> about a history of causes and effects. On the other hand Biblical
>> Creationism (and evolutionism) *is* about a history of causes and
>> effects. ID Theory generalizes about the limits of material causes. ID
>> theory does not tell us what happened over the course of time, but may
>> shed some light on whether the causes we offer to explain effects are up
>> to the task.
>>
> Ok
>>

<snip>

>>
>> It might have been a better use of time explaining this position then
>> wasting time on plagiarism------a plagiarism which was undoubtedly
>> welcomed by the ACLU authors.
>>
> Ok you are right of course. Years ago I might have had the energy to
> study and go into the details of the Dover trial searching out
> inconsistencs, mistakes etc. But there's is no point at this late
> date.

Yah, who needs facts when innuendo and baseless speculation will do

>>
>>
>>
>>
>> snip
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> By using the ACLU work the judge obviously accepted it as his own legal
>>>> position. And so the judge and (most of the populace in the US) hold
>>>> these secular views because (1) evolutionary dogma has been taught
>>>> since shortly after the Scopes Trial (1925); it is ingrained, and (2)
>>>> the long standing US jurisprudence that any mention (or whiff) of
>>>> religion violates the First Amendment.
>>>>
>>>> Are you so naive that you think judges can leave their preconceived
>>>> notions in their ante-chamber when they put on their robes?
>>>>
>>> No, but I would hope that the judge would have been objective enough to

> weigh the evidence from both sides.
>>

And there is no reason to believe otherwise - your ignorance of the
legal system of the US and what it requires of a judge is not evidence.

>>
>>
>>
>> Your disappointment is misguided. The problem is this: ID Theory is
>> purely a scientific theory and rightly concludes that material causes
>> lack the power to explain the existence of irreducibly complex biological
>> structures (like the bacterial flaggellum). However, if material causes
>> lack the power we are left with the supernatural. The 1971 Supreme Court
>> Lemon Law test has been applied to practically preclude any government
>> policy/practice/law which aids/abets even a whiff of the supernatural.
>>
>> So even if the judge agreed with the defendants legal precedent would
>> dictate he strike down the Dover policy. And its why the defendants
>> wouldn't waste a dime or minute appealing the decision.
>>
>> Some have rightly argued that the Supreme Court's Lemon Test goes well
>> beyond what was advocated by the framers of the US Constitution.
>>
> And I would agree. In my view the courts have gone too far in their
> interpretation of the First Amendment of the Constitution. The second
> part; "prohibiting the free exercise of religion" should not deny people
> the right to worship wherever and whenever they desire.

Really? If I were to come at midnight to your bedroom to hold a satanic
mass, you are fine with that and you think my actions ought to be
constitutionally protected?

I do not
> believe the framers meant anything else. The "wall of separation between
> church and state is not in the constitution, as I'm sure you know. >
>>
>>

<snip>

[T Pagano]

On Thu, 08 Feb 2018 00:52:45 -0500, R. Dean wrote:

> On 2/7/2018 7:05 PM, T Pagano wrote:
>> On Wed, 07 Feb 2018 16:53:13 -0500, R. Dean wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/7/2018 11:17 AM, T Pagano wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 06 Feb 2018 22:00:26 -0500, R. Dean wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2/6/2018 9:28 AM, T Pagano wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 05 Feb 2018 20:46:24 -0500, R. Dean wrote:
>>
>>
>> snip

snip

>> I get that the plagiarism bothers you but it is misplaced energy. At
>> least the judge was following legal precedents. There are plenty
>> miscarriages of justice overseen by judges in the US. This wasn't one
>> of those incidents.
>>
>> This case was about nothing more than whether the Dover policy about
>> teaching the controversy could be linked---even peripherally---with
>> religion. My opinion was that is was a terrible mistake not to have
>> chosen a jury trial if one was allowed. Anyone who forgoes a jury is
>> almost always making a mistake.
>>
> I absolutely agree that Intelligent Design is not religious, in that it
> does not turn to any religious materials such as the Bible, religious
> publications or religious doctrine for support. Rather it turns to
> science for conformation such as:
> 1)the anthropic principle 2)the observations (Punctuation Equalirium) of
> the late Stephen J. Gould and Niles Eldridge 3)And lately the more
> recently discovered Homeobox Genes (master control genes)

ID Theory only presupposes the existence of intelligent agency and
nothing more. It's theory is probablistic.

Since ID Theory is not about common descent in particular or history in
general I doubt you'll find Dembski or any of his proponents looking to
disconfirmations of evolutionism (which is about the history of causes
and effects) as a means of supporting itself. ID theory looks instead at
the sufficiency of the resources available to neoDarwinian causes to
generate effects such as the bacterial flagellum.

>>
>>
>
>>> Do you not think there is a difference between Biblical creationism
>>> and Intelligent design? Why?
>>
>> A test?
> >
> I just wanted your opinion. BTW I'm an MsEE I once met and consulted
> with an electrical engineer named Thomas Pagano: any relations?
> Over the years I've observed that as a profession engineers see design
> in nature more so than members of other profession.

I agree that it is more likely for engineers to see evolutionism as
seriously wanting. I hold a BSEE but never practiced in the field. No
relation to Thomas that I'm aware of.



snip

>> Some have rightly argued that the Supreme Court's Lemon Test goes well
>> beyond what was advocated by the framers of the US Constitution.
>>
> And I would agree. In my view the courts have gone too far in their
> interpretation of the First Amendment of the Constitution. The second
> part; "prohibiting the free exercise of religion" should not deny people
> the right to worship wherever and whenever they desire. I do not believe
> the framers meant anything else. The "wall of separation between church
> and state is not in the constitution, as I'm sure you know. >

Agreed.


snip

>> So you think the ID Theorists were somehow tarnished by associating
>> themselves with the Dover School District?
>>
> Not at all, I think their attorney realized this was a loosing battle as
> you so eloquently and categorically pointed pointed out.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> I'm not a young earth creationist so I felt the need to defend against
>>> being associated with them.
>>
>>
>>
>> If ID Theory concludes that material causes lack the power to bring
>> about the bacterial flagellum then how do you explain the existence of
>> the flagellum outside of Biblical Creationism? If you don't mind me
>> asking.
>>
> I certainly believe this is among the list of evidences which provides
> supports the existence of an intelligent designer. I am a member of the
> Methodist Church, but I believe it is essential to keep religion out of
> any scientific discourse. IOW Religion and science, in my opinion, needs
> to be separate and independent.

This was Gould's mistaken position which he espoused in his popular
science work, "Rock of Ages." He labeled this position, "Non-
Overlapping Magisterium." Gould suggested that Science and Religion have
domains which don't overlap and never the twain should meet. The first
problem is that Gould (and you with him) wrongly conflate "Science" with
a "theory about the material world." They are separate things.

1. Science is little more than a collection of methods used to connect
theories about the material world to the material world.
2. Science has no method whatsoever for pointing directly to which
theories about the material world are true.
3. Science is both silent and agnostic about what theories may be
proposed or the metaphysical presuppositions underpinning any theory
about the world. Science's only requirement is that any theory must say
something about material cause and effect.

Gould blindly failed to recognize that his unstated metaphysical
position----that material causes and effects are sufficient to explain
everything----is no less metaphysical than that of the creationist (and
ID Theorist) who presuppose that material causes are not sufficient in
all cases. Science----properly understood as nothing more than a
collection of methods------is silent about both of these
presuppositions.

How does Gould rationalize his gross inconsistency? He implicitly argues
that "his" metaphysical underpinning (read: his religion) is part of the
definition of Science. Unfortunately the claim that material causes are
sufficient to explain all effects is NOT a first order claim of Science
but a metaphysical claim about Nature.

Since atheist and Christian metaphysical presuppositions both have
implications for the same material world the claim that "science" and
"religion" never overlap is nonsense. Put your metaphysical positions
from your religious education to good use.

[Mark Isaak]

ID theory is not a theory. It is a mishmash of different ideas, few of
them consistently held among people who claim to accept an ID theory.
The one universal idea of "ID theory" is: Evolution is wrong. But
disbelief of another theory does not make the idea a theory of its own.
The other idea of ID theory, held close enough to universally that the
couple of outliers don't matter, is: God did it, but we won't talk about
that. Again, not even close to a theory.

>>> [snip]

> Your disappointment is misguided. The problem is this: ID Theory is
> purely a scientific theory and rightly concludes that material causes
> lack the power to explain the existence of irreducibly complex biological
> structures (like the bacterial flaggellum). However, if material causes
> lack the power we are left with the supernatural. The 1971 Supreme Court
> Lemon Law test has been applied to practically preclude any government
> policy/practice/law which aids/abets even a whiff of the supernatural.

False on many points.

First, as applies to the Dover case, the "ID theory" under consideration
clearly and blatantly *was* religious.

Second, as noted above, there is no scientific theory of ID.

Third, material causes can easily explain irreducible complexity. In
fact, the concept of irreducible complexity was *predicted* to arise
from normal and natural material causes.

Fourth, a lack of explanation in terms of material causes does not point
to the supernatural. When police have no suspects for a crime, they do
not (as you would have them do) immediately go out and arrest God.

[Burkhard]

But see Ernie Chambers v God (dismissed due the defendant nowt having a
known address to which papers could be served)

[T Pagano]

On Thu, 08 Feb 2018 10:21:57 +0000, Burkhard wrote:

> R. Dean wrote:
>> On 2/7/2018 7:05 PM, T Pagano wrote:
>>> On Wed, 07 Feb 2018 16:53:13 -0500, R. Dean wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/7/2018 11:17 AM, T Pagano wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 06 Feb 2018 22:00:26 -0500, R. Dean wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/6/2018 9:28 AM, T Pagano wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 05 Feb 2018 20:46:24 -0500, R. Dean wrote:


snip

>>> This case was about nothing more than whether the Dover policy about
>>> teaching the controversy could be linked---even peripherally---with
>>> religion. My opinion was that is was a terrible mistake not to have
>>> chosen a jury trial if one was allowed. Anyone who forgoes a jury is
>>> almost always making a mistake.
>>>
>> I absolutely agree that Intelligent Design is not religious, in that it
>> does not turn to any religious materials such as the Bible, religious
>> publications or religious doctrine for support. Rather it turns to
>> science for conformation such as:
>> 1)the anthropic principle 2)the observations (Punctuation Equalirium)
>> of the late Stephen J. Gould and Niles Eldridge 3)And lately the more
>> recently discovered Homeobox Genes (master control genes)


>
> since none of these three lead in a scientifically sound way to ID and
> horribly distort and misrepresent the science, the religious motivation
> seems rather clear.

1. Actually I think part of Dean's error is making the mistake of
gathering his information about ID Theory from the strawmen erected
here. The rest is on him for failing to crack open any of Dembski's
works.

2. I've always found the *religious motivation* accusation from secular-
atheists to be both dishonest and nonsensical. Secular-atheists
presuppose that "every" event can be attributed to material causes and
Creationists presuppose that some events cannot. At its core, this is
all that separates the two groups (evolutionists and creationists).

3. The Creationist recognizes that his presupposition is a metaphysical
claim "about" nature but that the methods of science are both silent and
agnostic about such claims. So long as one produces a theory/model
describing some event in the material world the scientific method can be
applied.

4. The secular-atheist rarely denies the metaphysical character of his
presupposition but opines that "science" can't be done without it. When
you ask which scientific method requires it one is left with silence.
Perhaps Burkhard can produce a scientific methodology (there are likely
thousands from all the scientific disciplines) which requires his
metaphysical guide? Perhaps Carlip can quote from the manual of the
spectrum analyzer in his physics lab stating the need for such a
presupposition?

5. The ID Theorist is in a somewhat different position. He presupposes
the existence of intelligent agents. The ID theorist is NOT interested
in reconstructing the causal history of some event (as a creationist or
evolutionist might be). He is interested in examining the condition or
state of some object (some "thing") at some time t and attempts to
determine if that state can be explained by necessity (laws of nature),
chance, a combination of necessity/chance, or by design.

>>>
>> Ok you are right of course. Years ago I might have had the energy to
>> study and go into the details of the Dover trial searching out
>> inconsistencs, mistakes etc. But there's is no point at this late date.
>
> Yah, who needs facts when innuendo and baseless speculation will do

Gotta agree here. What's the point in forming an opinion if you don't
understand what was at stake.

>>>>> By using the ACLU work the judge obviously accepted it as his own
>>>>> legal position. And so the judge and (most of the populace in the
>>>>> US) hold these secular views because (1) evolutionary dogma has
>>>>> been taught since shortly after the Scopes Trial (1925); it is
>>>>> ingrained, and (2) the long standing US jurisprudence that any
>>>>> mention (or whiff) of religion violates the First Amendment.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you so naive that you think judges can leave their preconceived
>>>>> notions in their ante-chamber when they put on their robes?
>>>>>
>>>> No, but I would hope that the judge would have been objective enough
>>>> to
>
>> weigh the evidence from both sides.
>>>
>>>
> And there is no reason to believe otherwise - your ignorance of the
> legal system of the US and what it requires of a judge is not evidence.

Dean's problem was that he was apparently ignorant of the plaintiff's
allegation and so he misunderstood the purpose of the legal proceeding.
In this legal proceeding the judge's job wasn't to determine whether ID
Theory was true or even whether it was a better explanation for the
bacterial flagellum (for example).

>> And I would agree. In my view the courts have gone too far in their
>> interpretation of the First Amendment of the Constitution. The second
>> part; "prohibiting the free exercise of religion" should not deny
>> people the right to worship wherever and whenever they desire.
>
> Really? If I were to come at midnight to your bedroom to hold a satanic
> mass, you are fine with that and you think my actions ought to be
> constitutionally protected?

That's obviously not what Dean meant.




snip.

[Robert Camp]

On 2/6/18 6:28 AM, T Pagano wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Feb 2018 20:46:24 -0500, R. Dean wrote:

<snip>

> The plaintiff's burden was low; it only needed to convince the judge that
> the Dover School District's policy violated one of the tests. Under
> *today's* metaphysical preconceptions; I doubt the Discovery Institute
> was under any illusions about winning.

Well, considering Dembski turned-tail and ran when he saw the writing on
the wall, you could say that at least *he* (if not, say, the more
gullible Behe) understood. However, it's hard to give him any credit
here, considering how this intellectual cowardice was brought into sharp
relief by his earlier (2002) boast that,

"I’ll wager a bottle of single-malt scotch, should it ever go to trial
whether ID may legitimately be taught in public school science
curricula, that ID will pass all constitutional hurdles."

If you think the DI was not expecting a favorable outcome (just look up
Luskin's writings on the subject) then you are as naive as Behe.

[jillery]

On Fri, 09 Feb 2018 15:34:13 -0600, T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 08 Feb 2018 10:21:57 +0000, Burkhard wrote:
>
>> R. Dean wrote:

[...]

>>> And I would agree. In my view the courts have gone too far in their
>>> interpretation of the First Amendment of the Constitution. The second
>>> part; "prohibiting the free exercise of religion" should not deny
>>> people the right to worship wherever and whenever they desire.
>>
>> Really? If I were to come at midnight to your bedroom to hold a satanic
>> mass, you are fine with that and you think my actions ought to be
>> constitutionally protected?
>
>
>That's obviously not what Dean meant.

It may be obvious to you what Dean didn't mean, but you can't say with
any confidence what Dean *did* mean. And until Dean takes the time to
say what he did mean, one must go with what he did *say* To
substitute something never said justifies claims of quotemining and
misrepresentation.

[Burkhard]

I'm not a mind reader, I have no idea what he "meant". This is what he
said. His thinking about law is probably just as confused and fact free
as his thinking about biology or physics, this is just one data point in
support.

[T Pagano]

On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 08:47:00 +0000, Burkhard wrote:

> T Pagano wrote:
>> On Thu, 08 Feb 2018 10:21:57 +0000, Burkhard wrote:
>>
>>> R. Dean wrote:
>>>> On 2/7/2018 7:05 PM, T Pagano wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 07 Feb 2018 16:53:13 -0500, R. Dean wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/7/2018 11:17 AM, T Pagano wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 06 Feb 2018 22:00:26 -0500, R. Dean wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2/6/2018 9:28 AM, T Pagano wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 05 Feb 2018 20:46:24 -0500, R. Dean wrote:



snip

>>>> And I would agree. In my view the courts have gone too far in their
>>>> interpretation of the First Amendment of the Constitution. The
>>>> second part; "prohibiting the free exercise of religion" should not
>>>> deny people the right to worship wherever and whenever they desire.
>>>
>>> Really? If I were to come at midnight to your bedroom to hold a
>>> satanic mass, you are fine with that and you think my actions ought to
>>> be constitutionally protected?
>>
>>
>> That's obviously not what Dean meant.
>>
>>
> I'm not a mind reader, I have no idea what he "meant". This is what he
> said. His thinking about law is probably just as confused and fact free
> as his thinking about biology or physics, this is just one data point in
> support.

1. Then, in this case, I suggest it is "you" that are arguing from
ignorance.

2. The US Constitution, in some cases, was written to prevent the abuses
of the Monarchy in the UK. The Monarchy was the head of the state church
and made life difficult (or sometimes deadly) for its citizens who chose
to worship differently. The First Amendment of the US Constitution was
written specifically to prevent such abuses by taking that authority away
from the government.

3. Dean (along with most US Citizens) knows that the First Amendment
protects them against government intrusion and has NOTHING to do with
intrusion by private citizens. So while Dean left this unsaid it was
clearly implied by an understanding of the First Amendment.

4. Over time US Jurisprudence has interpreted the First Amendment to
mean that there is a wall between religion and government. This still
doesn't save you from gross ignorance. The tremendous weakness of those
in academia is that they feel themselves superior and omnipotent. . .but
they ain't even close.

[Burkhard]

You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means

> 2. The US Constitution, in some cases, was written to prevent the abuses
> of the Monarchy in the UK. The Monarchy was the head of the state church

still is. last time I checked

> and made life difficult (or sometimes deadly) for its citizens who chose
> to worship differently. The First Amendment of the US Constitution was
> written specifically to prevent such abuses by taking that authority away
> from the government.
>
> 3. Dean (along with most US Citizens) knows that the First Amendment
> protects them against government intrusion and has NOTHING to do with
> intrusion by private citizens.

So you can read his mind? Any other supernatural powers you posses?

So while Dean left this unsaid it was
> clearly implied by an understanding of the First Amendment.

He may or may not have. What he said was different. As he's in the habit
not thinking things through, we can only speculate about his mind. But
what we can say with certainty is what I did - that the sentence as
written is a wrong understanding of the US 1. Amendment

>
> 4. Over time US Jurisprudence has interpreted the First Amendment to
> mean that there is a wall between religion and government. This still
> doesn't save you from gross ignorance. The tremendous weakness of those
> in academia is that they feel themselves superior and omnipotent. . .but
> they ain't even close.
>

No idea what that is supposed to mean. I pointed out that Dean's
statement, as written, is obviously absurd. Nothing you said changes this.
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Ron O]

On Monday, February 5, 2018 at 7:50:02 PM UTC-6, R. Dean wrote:
> Does this color the results of the Dover Trial in 2006?
> If not why not?
>
> "When the Jones decision was first published I read every word. I was
> very impressed. Here was a man who seemed to have learned a lot of
> sophisticated science in a very short period of time. His grasp of
> complexities like the evolution of bacteria flagella and blood clotting
> was impressive. His understanding of the meaning of science rivaled that
> of many advisors on the ACLU side. Frankly, I was jealous, and humbled

> ..

>
> "The Discovery Institute is reporting that the "Masterful" Federal
> Ruling on Intelligent Design Was Copied from ACLU and Timothy Sandefur
> acknowledges that this is true [Weekend at Behe's].
>

> Apparently Judge Jones copied the most "scientific" parts of his
> decision from the ACLU ‘Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law’ that
> was submitted a month before the decision was published. I'm told that
> this is standard practice. Judges often rely heavily on written
> submissions from the side they support. I'm told that it's common for
> judges to copy from those submissions.
>

> That may be true—I have no reason to doubt it—but it does make a
> difference to me. The legal significance of the decision doesn't change
> but my opinion of Judge Jones does. He is no longer the brilliant man
> who was able to grasp complex scientific concepts in the blink of an
> eye. He's able to discern who's right and who's wrong, but that's all.
>

> Now, the question is, who really wrote the ACLU "Finding of Fact?" Did
> they know from the beginning that the Jones decision had incorporated a
> lot of their material? If so, why did they leave us with the impression
> that Judge Jones "has taken the time to really understand not just the
> legal issues, but the scientific ones as well?"

So before you run from this topic, what have you learned about the decision? Do the claims of the IDiots hold up?

Was the decision valid?

The ID perps have just put up their best evidence for IDiocy, and what can you conclude from that "evidence". The ID perps, themselves, seem to take pains not to call their evidence scientific evidence. You can read their description of their "best" and science doesn't seem to matter to them. It looks like even the ID perps know that the Judges decision was the correct one. All creationist have are the same arguments that they had when scientific creationism failed as science in the federal courts. Nothing seems to have changed, and all the decisions still stand, so what do you conclude about the IDiot claims about this decision?

The ID perps removed the claim that they had a scientific theory of ID to teach in the public schools from their education policy back in 2013. This was 8 years after the judges decision. They don't put up a scientific theory or even call their "best evidence" scientific. It looks like they understand that the judges decision was the right one, so what is their beef? What is your beef?

This is just another obfuscation argument that isn't supposed to be looked at very closely. All it is supposed to do is get you to the next denial argument so that you can remain as ignorant and dishonest as you want to remain. Just look at their "best evidence" for IDiocy. They are just denial arguments to get you to the next denial argument. You likely don't even want to believe that the Big Bang ever happened so you know how good that "evidence" is.

Ron Okimoto

[Dr. Gary Hurd]

At the conclusion of the trial, opposing counsels were required to submit a written summary and proposed verdicts. This is normal USA Federal Court procedure.

If Canadian biologist Larry Moran has a problem with US laws, he should move to the US, and apply for citizenship, run for office. Or he could shut the fuck up.

Personally my favorite part of the trial was in Mike Behe's cross examination by Eric Rothschild. It was the part starting with "Are you familiar with Dr. Hurd?"

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12pm2.html#day12pm475

[Dr. Gary Hurd]

The false claim dating back to the 1990s that ID creationism was applying the 'same' intellectual criteria as archaeology, and forensics was destroyed by:
Matt Young, Taner Edis (Contributing Editors),
2004 "Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism" Rutgers University Press.

Specifically by my contribution, Chapter 8 “The explanatory filter, Archaeology, and Forensics”

This was carried forward to the Dover Trial Decision;

"Indeed, the assertion that design of biological systems can be inferred from the "purposeful arrangement of parts" is based upon an analogy to human design. Because we are able to recognize design of artifacts and objects, according to Professor Behe, that same reasoning can be employed to determine biological design. (18:116-17, 23:50 (Behe)). Professor Behe testified that the strength of the analogy depends upon the degree of similarity entailed in the two propositions; however, if this is the test, ID completely fails.

Unlike biological systems, human artifacts do not live and reproduce over time. They are non-replicable, they do not undergo genetic recombination, and they are not driven by natural selection. (1:131-33 (Miller); 23:57-59 (Behe)). For human artifacts, we know the designer's identity, human, and the mechanism of design, as we have experience based upon empirical evidence that humans can make such things, as well as many other attributes including the designer's abilities, needs, and desires. (D-251 at 176; 1:131-33 (Miller); 23:63 (Behe); 5:55- 58 (Pennock)). With ID, proponents assert that they refuse to propose hypotheses on the designer's identity, do not propose a mechanism, and the designer, he/she/it/they, has never been seen. In that vein, defense expert Professor Minnich agreed that in the case of human artifacts and objects, we know the identity and capacities of the human designer, but we do not know any of those attributes for the designer of biological life. (38:44-47 (Minnich)). In addition, Professor Behe agreed that for the design of human artifacts, we know the designer and its attributes and we have a baseline for human design that does not exist for design of biological systems. (23:61-73 (Behe)). Professor Behe's only response to these seemingly insurmountable points of disanalogy was that the inference still works in science fiction movies. (23:73 (Behe)).

It is readily apparent to the Court that the only attribute of design that biological systems appear to share with human artifacts is their complex appearance, i.e. if it looks complex or designed, it must have been designed. (23:73 (Behe)). This inference to design based upon the appearance of a "purposeful arrangement of parts" is a completely subjective proposition, determined in the eye of each beholder and his/her viewpoint concerning the complexity of a system. Although both Professors Behe and Minnich assert that there is a quantitative aspect to the inference, on cross-examination they admitted that there is no quantitative criteria for determining the degree of complexity or number of parts that bespeak design, rather than a natural process. (23:50 (Behe); 38:59 (Minnich)). As Plaintiffs aptly submit to the Court, throughout the entire trial only one piece of evidence generated by Defendants addressed the strength of the ID inference: the argument is less plausible to those for whom God's existence is in question, and is much less plausible for those who deny God's existence. (P-718 at 705)."

Maybe people should read more.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision2.html#p121

[jillery]

You're the famous hearsay Dr. Gary Hurd? Neat!

[Martin Harran]

On Wed, 7 Feb 2018 16:53:13 -0500, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>
wrote:


[...]

>No, but I would hope that the judge would have been objective enough
>to weigh the evidence from both sides.

He did and, as judges do when giving their judgments, he quoted the
evidence he found most convincing.

It's hard to understand why you have a problem with that other than
the result being to your pleasing.


[...]

[Martin Harran]

On Thu, 8 Feb 2018 00:52:45 -0500, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>
wrote:

[...]

>I absolutely agree that Intelligent Design is not religious, in that it
>does not turn to any religious materials such as the Bible, religious
>publications or religious doctrine for support.

As I have explained to you elsewhere [1], the problem is that
Intelligent Design requires an Intelligent Designer which means some
sort of entity which is outside of what we know as nature. Effectively
that is a supernatural being which means that it is a god. It may not
be the Christian god which the main proponents of Intelligent Design
support, it may not even be a god to whom you pray, and you may not go
to church to worship it but if it is a supernatural being then it is
*de facto* a god; that is why intelligent design, invoking an
intelligent designer, is *de facto* religious.

I find it rather anomalous that I, who believe in a supernatural
entity, find no need to involve that entity in the detail of evolution
yet you, who claim not to believe in a supernatural entity, do find
the need to invoke such an entity.


[...]


[1] It was during your apparent absence so you may have missed it. You
can find it here along with my response to other things you have
previously brought up:

Message ID: 9uj94d9rv46j8n4kb...@4ax.com

Google Groups:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/talk.origins/F.A.O.$20R.$20Dean$20(

or http://bit.ly/2Bt56PH

[Martin Harran]

On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 14:01:09 +0000, Martin Harran
<martin...@gmail.com> wrote:

[...]

>I find it rather anomalous that I, who believe in a supernatural
>entity, find no need to involve that entity in the detail of evolution
>yet you, who claim not to believe in a supernatural entity, do find
>the need to invoke such an entity.

OK, I see you have now described yourself elsewhere as a Methodist; I
was going by things you said in previous posts where you more or less
said your religiosity was somewhere between zero and the minimum
needed for social/family conformance.

[Glenn]

"Dr. Gary Hurd" <gary...@cox.net> wrote in message news:f0bc2308-c830-4745...@googlegroups.com...

I would. I am unable to find any reference in the transcripts to "human artifacts", which was used five times above. Specifically, I want to find where Behe responded with "the inference still works in science fiction movies" which is supposedly in (23:73 (Behe)).

The "23" hyperlink goes to http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/pf3.html#vol23
There is no "73" on that page; assumedly that is the line number of the transcript for that day, but that is not certain.
However, "human artifacts" does not exist in the transcript for that day, nor can I find any language that may be the reference for the claims in the decision.

I haven't searched the entire trial. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/

You could tell me where to find this reference in the trial:

[Dr. Gary Hurd]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12pm2.html#day12pm475

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 14:01:09 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran
<martin...@gmail.com>:

>On Thu, 8 Feb 2018 00:52:45 -0500, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>I absolutely agree that Intelligent Design is not religious, in that it
>>does not turn to any religious materials such as the Bible, religious
>>publications or religious doctrine for support.
>
>As I have explained to you elsewhere [1], the problem is that
>Intelligent Design requires an Intelligent Designer which means some
>sort of entity which is outside of what we know as nature. Effectively
>that is a supernatural being which means that it is a god. It may not
>be the Christian god which the main proponents of Intelligent Design
>support, it may not even be a god to whom you pray, and you may not go
>to church to worship it but if it is a supernatural being then it is
>*de facto* a god; that is why intelligent design, invoking an
>intelligent designer, is *de facto* religious.

And I'd point out that, even if something like Directed
Panspermia is invoked for the start of life *on Earth*, and
accepting that the universe hasn't always existed, at *some*
point in the past either such a supernatural being (i.e., a
god as we understand the term) who existed prior to the
existence of the universe started things rolling, or
abiogenesis occurred; there are no other possibilities. So
ID, denying abiogenesis, reduces to religious belief in
*all* cases, regardless of the protestations of the IDists.

>I find it rather anomalous that I, who believe in a supernatural
>entity, find no need to involve that entity in the detail of evolution
>yet you, who claim not to believe in a supernatural entity, do find
>the need to invoke such an entity.
>
>
>[...]
>
>
>[1] It was during your apparent absence so you may have missed it. You
>can find it here along with my response to other things you have
>previously brought up:
>
>Message ID: 9uj94d9rv46j8n4kb...@4ax.com
>
>Google Groups:
>https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/talk.origins/F.A.O.$20R.$20Dean$20(
>
>or http://bit.ly/2Bt56PH

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 08:59:32 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "Dr. Gary Hurd"
<gary...@cox.net>:

For Glenn's info, to forestall any quibbling about quoted
material, your comment was a paraphrase. Behe's actual
statement, WRT designs we can't (yet) manufacture, was "Lots
of science fiction movies are based on scenarios like that".
It's down in the transcript a little less than halfway, and
"Edit/Find" (in Firefox; other browsers may vary) pulls it
up just fine.

[scienceci...@gmail.com]

R. Dean wrote,

"Judge Jones and Plagiarism at the Dover Trial.?"

http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2006/12/judge-jones-dover-trial.html?m=1

>Does this color the results of
>the Dover Trial in 2006?
>If not why not?

>I can understand a judge
>using the information he
>learns from both sides
>then rendering a judgement
>in his own words, but
>plagiarizing the words
>of one side, then advancing
>these words as his own?
>IOW this judge's >pronouncement was given
>from his own ignorance to
>make an honest and fair
>judgement between
>conflicting points of view.

No. A *finding of fact* is in the Petition to Show Cause of a petitioner, in this case the ACLU. It alleges certain facts, about names, places, dates, quantities, and statutes of the law and an alleged violation of the cited law that took place.

It is the respondent's job to show that the facts were either, incorrect, or there was a just cause for what took place in the facts, if the facts were correct.

The Rule to Show Cause is an accompanying document asking for a ruling and an order, so by law it must reiterate the finding of facts if the respondent failed to show cause. That is not plagiarism.

You can see by logic that proving a factual designer in court would be needed in the repondent's argument to correct the petitioner's findings of fact.

SC RED

[jillery]

On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 14:01:09 +0000, Martin Harran
<martin...@gmail.com> wrote:

FTR R.Dean has explicitly acknowledged that his understanding of ID
necessarily requires a supernatural Agent. However, apparently R.Dean
does not equate supernatural with religion.

[Glenn]

"Dr. Gary Hurd" <gary...@cox.net> wrote in message news:8a1f91a8-3cf8-4c78...@googlegroups.com...

Thanks. I see that Behe did respond to "points", and certainly the reference to science fiction movies was not his "only response":
Q. So if the strength of an inference depends on the similarities, this is a pretty weak inference, isn't it, Dr. Behe?

A. No, I disagree completely. Again if something showed strong marks of design, and even if a human designer could not have made it, then we nonetheless would think that something else had made it. Lots of science fiction movies are based on scenarios like that, and again the, I think the similarities between what we find in designed objects in our everyday world and the complex molecular machinery of the cell have actually a lot more in common than do explosions we see on earth such as cannon balls and so forth and the explosion of an entire universe, and that induction seems to have been fairly successful in trying to explain some features of the world. So I think it's not at all uncalled for to make a similar induction in this case.

Q. Science fiction movies are not science, are they, Professor Behe?

A. That's correct, they are not. But they certainly try to base themselves on what their audience would consider plausible within the genre, so they can offer useful illustrations at some points, for some points.

MR. ROTHSCHILD: I have no further questions, Your Honor.

Rothschild, Judge Jones, and whoever drafted the Decision, are all dishonest. And perhaps you.

Here's another piece of evidence that demonstrates this dishonesty:

A. Archaeology assumes that whatever designed object they find, whatever object they can distinguish from non-designed objects, had a human designer.

Q. Okay, and intelligent design says nothing about who the designer is?

A. That's correct. It could be a human, it could be whatever.

[Glenn]

"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:03198d578o56vi3rd...@4ax.com...

I don't care what Hurd said, only what he copy and pasted.

A strawman was created and nourished to make ID and Behe's remarks appear to be unscientific.
That ID does not attempt to identify a designer does not make ID unscientific.
The 'baseline' of both archaeology and ID is the ability to distinguish between non-designed objects and a designer.

[Dr. Gary Hurd]

On Friday, February 9, 2018 at 3:50:04 PM UTC-8, Robert Camp wrote:

> Well, considering Dembski turned-tail and ran when he saw the writing on the wall, you could say that at least *he* (if not, say, the more gullible Behe) understood. However, it's hard to give him any credit here, considering how this intellectual cowardice was brought into sharp relief by his earlier (2002) boast that,
>
"I’ll wager a bottle of single-malt scotch, should it ever go to trial whether ID may legitimately be taught in public school science curricula, that ID will pass all constitutional hurdles."
>
If you think the DI was not expecting a favorable outcome (just look up Luskin's writings on the subject) then you are as naive as Behe.

That was so funny. And Dembski pocketed his "expert witness" fee.

[Dr. Gary Hurd]

The ID creationists faked their "sciencish" scam just to avoid the 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard decision where the U.S. Supreme Court held that the state of Louisiana's "Creationism Act" was unconstitutional. They cannot admit either that their "designer" is the same as the YEC creationists. Neither can they admit they have never had any way to have detected that their magical designer existed.

What they did was pass off an easy lie that they were using some "method" of design detection used in archaeology and forensic science. We busted Mike Behe because there is no "design detection" used by ID creationists, and what they do pass off as their "method" has nothing in common with archaeology or forensic science. I was invited to write about this because I am a professional archaeologist, and a certified forensic expert.

[scienceci...@gmail.com]

Dr. Gary Hurd wrote,

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12pm2.html#day12pm475

Thank you Dr Gary Hurd. I will (edit my) comment on one part of the testimony. It starts with Muses re-direct of Dr. Behe about big bang theorists.

"Q. It say, "Archaeology draws upon a vast literature of direct observational studies, ethnography, and established space replications, experimental archaeology," again drawing of the analogy of the Big Bang. Dr. Behe, is it your understanding that those who theorize on the Big Bang drew on direct observational studies and established base of replications of universes exploding?"

"A. No, I think there were no examples of that previously."

This is true. Of course observational studies are the pedigree of the scientific family. Those things are public.

"Q. Do they in fact rely on and reason to explain a natural phenomenon occurrences that were actually created by humans such as explosions by fire crackers and cannon balls and that sort of thing?"

"A. Yes, that's my understanding they extrapolated from things of our common experience to things well beyond our common experience."

This is false. Experience has nothing to do with nature. It should be known as common knowledge that they (big bang theorists) extrapolated from things in nature, to things well without our present time in nature. For example, Big Bang theorists draw from a *model-reality*. See Hawking-Mlodinow's _Grand Design_ (2010). The baseline Dr Behe draws from is not the same as astrophysicists.

This was a mistake by the atty.

"Q. And that was to explain a phenomenon in nature?"

"A. Yes."

False again. Experience is not a schematic for astrophysics.

SC RED

[jillery]

On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 17:38:41 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

Your last statement above asserts a false equivalence. Archaeology
identifies human-manufactured objects only. It's primary concern is
which humans designed said objects. It concerns itself with non-human
design only to the degree necessary to establish an object's nonhuman
origin.

In contrast, ID claims to distinguish between objects designed by
intelligence, and objects formed by unguided natural processes. ID
doesn't care which humans designed said objects, or even if humans
designed them.

And it's a relevant issue whether ID actually tries to make that
distinction, or simply assert design based on subjective appearance.

[Ron O]

Beats me why Dean has to deny that he is religious. It was part of the initial ID scam, but that part of the scam became stupid years ago. Even the ID perps at the Discovery Institute are associating ID with religious views on their new web sites. It can't be denied when they are discussing theological questions like the suitability of theistic evolution. That definitely is not scientifically based.


Ron Okimoto

[Ron O]

Dembski ran right after sitting in on Forrest's deposition where she laid out the evidence based on the Pandas and People drafts. The last version of Pandas was what Dembski was editing and the drafts of that book had also been supoenaed but the supoena was dropped when he left the case. They gave the book another title, but you never hear about it. It was supposed to be another text suitable for public schools, but my guess is that unless they get a group of rubes as stupid as Dover no one is ever going to use it in the public schools.

Ron Okimoto

[Dr. Gary Hurd]

On Monday, February 5, 2018 at 5:50:02 PM UTC-8, R. Dean wrote:
> Does this color the results of the Dover Trial in 2006?
> If not why not?
>

They tried a revised "Pandas" for High School markets;

Meyer, Steven C., Scott Minich, Jonathan Moneymaker, Paul A. Nelson, Ralph Seelke
2008 “Explore Evolution” Melbourne: Hill House Publishers (really The Discovery Institute)

It sucked too.

But Paul Nelson did generously send me a review copy. I thanked him and said I would reserve my review for the next "Dover."

[Glenn]

"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:ugm98dhl86gnkadul...@4ax.com...

What an ignorant and deceptive response.

[Glenn]

"Dr. Gary Hurd" <gary...@cox.net> wrote in message news:7293a65b-342d-4b58...@googlegroups.com...

You're deceptive and a biased liar. Of course others allowed you to help.

[jillery]

On Thu, 15 Feb 2018 08:26:46 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

<stupid and deceptive snip by Glenn restored>

>>Your last statement above asserts a false equivalence. Archaeology

>>identifies human-manufactured objects only. It's primary concern is
>>which humans designed said objects. It concerns itself with non-human
>>design only to the degree necessary to establish an object's nonhuman
>>origin.
>>
>>In contrast, ID claims to distinguish between objects designed by
>>intelligence, and objects formed by unguided natural processes. ID
>>doesn't care which humans designed said objects, or even if humans
>>designed them.
>>
>>And it's a relevant issue whether ID actually tries to make that
>>distinction, or simply assert design based on subjective appearance.
>

>What an ignorant and deceptive response.

Right here would have been a good place for you to have explained what
you think is ignorant and deceptive about my response. That you did
not suggests you cannot, so you just make up crap because you have no
idea what you're talking about.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 19:17:37 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

Well, since logically that Agent either predates the
universe or emerged within it in some way not connected with
life, and isn't subject to natural constraints, I can't
imagine what else we could equate it with.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 17:38:41 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:

That's why I provided the reference.

You're welcome.

>A strawman was created and nourished to make ID and Behe's remarks appear to be unscientific.

Behe's remark *was* unscientific, as my reference shows.

>That ID does not attempt to identify a designer does not make ID unscientific.

No, other characteristics do that quite well.

>The 'baseline' of both archaeology and ID is the ability to distinguish between non-designed objects and a designer.

Archaeology uses known characteristics of *human* design to
identify *human-produced* artifacts. ID uses "Well, it looks
like design to us" to imply designs which *could not* be
produced by humans.

And to "the ability to distinguish between non-designed
objects and a designer" is an ability shared by all who can
tell the difference between an engineer and a rock.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 15 Feb 2018 08:25:05 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:

Translation: "You wrote things I can't refute, so I'll shift
to personal attack mode."

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 15 Feb 2018 08:26:46 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:

So "knowledgeable" equals "ignorant", and "Straightforward
and correct" equals "deceptive" in GlennWorld?

[jillery]

On Thu, 15 Feb 2018 12:05:49 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

Apparently R.Dean has a better imagination about this than either of
us. I have tried to get him to elaborate. The most I got from him is
that ID isn't an expressed dogma of any organized religion, therefore
ID isn't religious. In fairness, I have heard similar from other
IDists.

[Dr. Gary Hurd]

On Thursday, February 15, 2018 at 7:30:05 AM UTC-8, Glenn wrote:
> >
> You're deceptive and a biased liar. Of course others allowed you to help.

So maybe William Dembski was lying when he wrote the 1999 article for the Christian magazine Touchstone? The article was titled “Signs of Intelligence,” and Dembski confirmed the foundation of ID in John 1 when he assured readers that "Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." (“Signs of Intelligence,” 1999, Touchstone magazine).

On March 7, 2004, Dembski gave a talk at the Baptist Fellowship Church in Waco, TX that was taped recorded. Relevant to the current topic, Dembski, in response to an audience member's question said, “When you are attributing the wonders of nature to these mindless material mechanisms, God’s glory is getting robbed.” He further added, “And so there is a cultural war here. Ultimately I want to see God get the credit for what he’s done — and he’s not getting it.”

[Dr. Gary Hurd]

On Thursday, February 15, 2018 at 7:30:05 AM UTC-8, Glenn wrote:
> >

> You're deceptive and a biased liar. Of course others allowed you to help.

Was the ID movement's God Father, Philip Johnson lying?

"The Intelligent Design movement starts with the recognition that 'In the beginning was the Word,' and 'In the beginning God created.' Establishing that point isn't enough, but it is absolutely essential to the rest of the gospel message." Foreword to "Creation, Evolution, & Modern Science" (2000).

"Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools." American Family Radio (10 January 2003)

"I also don't think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that's comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it's doable, but that's for them to prove...No product is ready for competition in the educational world." Berkley Science Review (Spring 2006).

[Glenn]

"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:5mlb8d9l79eetrgsa...@4ax.com...

Instead of supporting what I called an ignorant and deceptive response:
"Archaeology identifies human-manufactured objects only",
you chose to replace text I snipped and made my response appear to
be directed at your other bullshit. But I'll play along.

"It concerns itself with non-human design only to the degree necessary to establish an object's nonhuman origin."

No, archaeology 'concerns itself" with natural causes to the degree necessary to establish an artifacts human origin.

Without the ability to distinguish between non-designed objects and a designed objects, archaeology would not exist.

[Glenn]

"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:fjmb8d5niodpu1un1...@4ax.com...

I didn't thank you. And you didn't provide any reference.

>
>>A strawman was created and nourished to make ID and Behe's remarks appear to be unscientific.
>
> Behe's remark *was* unscientific, as my reference shows.

So says the childish provocateur. And you provided no reference.

>
>>That ID does not attempt to identify a designer does not make ID unscientific.
>
> No, other characteristics do that quite well.

Non-responsive and unsupported.

>
>>The 'baseline' of both archaeology and ID is the ability to distinguish between non-designed objects and a designer.
>
> Archaeology uses known characteristics of *human* design to
> identify *human-produced* artifacts.

Not exclusively. But you know that.

>ID uses "Well, it looks
> like design to us" to imply designs which *could not* be
> produced by humans.

Bullshit rhetoric. Expected from you.

>
> And to "the ability to distinguish between non-designed
> objects and a designer" is an ability shared by all who can
> tell the difference between an engineer and a rock.
> --

Archaeology goes a little further than telling the difference between an engineer and a rock, bozo.

[Glenn]

"Dr. Gary Hurd" <gary...@cox.net> wrote in message news:5c54c7d8-1840-42b3...@googlegroups.com...

> On Thursday, February 15, 2018 at 7:30:05 AM UTC-8, Glenn wrote:
>> >
>> You're deceptive and a biased liar. Of course others allowed you to help.
>
> Was the ID movement's God Father, Philip Johnson lying?
>

Changing the subject. More deception. You're not a good person.

[Glenn]

"Dr. Gary Hurd" <gary...@cox.net> wrote in message news:95283cd3-ef6e-47dd...@googlegroups.com...

More deception.

[Borrowed Time]

You sound as if you're losing it.

[jillery]

On Thu, 15 Feb 2018 15:29:00 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>

Why do you object to responding to what I actually wrote?

Why do you think I should "support" your mangled version instead?

>"It concerns itself with non-human design only to the degree necessary to establish an object's nonhuman origin."
>
>No, archaeology 'concerns itself" with natural causes to the degree necessary to establish an artifacts human origin.

Either one works for me. Your statement merely focuses on the
complement of mine. You make no meaningful distinction between them.

>Without the ability to distinguish between non-designed objects and a designed objects, archaeology would not exist.

You mysteriously dropped the necessary "human" qualifier. That's an
obvious bullshit thing to do.

>"The 'baseline' of both archaeology and ID is the ability to distinguish between non-designed objects and a designer."

Now that you posted your obligatory bullshit, try to say something
intelligent, if only for the novelty of the experience, like how you
think ID distinguishes between human design and non-human design. Try
not to hurt yourself.

[jillery]

Don't let him fool you. It may sound as if he's losing it, but in
fact he lost it a long time ago. Such a tragedy.

[Dr. Gary Hurd]

On Thursday, February 15, 2018 at 3:55:03 PM UTC-8, jillery wrote:

> >> More deception.
> >
> >You sound as if you're losing it.
>
>
> Don't let him fool you. It may sound as if he's losing it, but in
> fact he lost it a long time ago. Such a tragedy.
>
> --
> I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
>
> Evelyn Beatrice Hall
> Attributed to Voltaire

Heheh

[R. Dean]

On 2/14/2018 2:44 PM, scienceci...@gmail.com wrote:
> R. Dean wrote,
>
> "Judge Jones and Plagiarism at the Dover Trial.?"
>
> http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2006/12/judge-jones-dover-trial.html?m=1

>
>> Does this color the results of
>> the Dover Trial in 2006?
>> If not why not?
>

>> I can understand a judge
>> using the information he
>> learns from both sides
>> then rendering a judgement
>> in his own words, but
>> plagiarizing the words
>> of one side, then advancing
>> these words as his own?
>> IOW this judge's >pronouncement was given
>>from his own ignorance to
>> make an honest and fair
>> judgement between
>> conflicting points of view.
>
> No. A *finding of fact* is in the Petition to Show Cause of a petitioner, in this case the ACLU. It alleges certain facts, about names, places, dates, quantities, and statutes of the law and an alleged violation of the cited law that took place.
>
> It is the respondent's job to show that the facts were either, incorrect, or there was a just cause for what took place in the facts, if the facts were correct.
>
> The Rule to Show Cause is an accompanying document asking for a ruling and an order, so by law it must reiterate the finding of facts if the respondent failed to show cause. That is not plagiarism.
>
When the Judge copied some 90% of the ACLU's word for word or with
slight changes this absolutely is plagiarism, which in case a judge
does it is acceptable whether he presents them as his own or not.

>
> You can see by logic that proving a factual designer in court would be needed in the repondent's argument to correct the petitioner's findings of fact.
>
> SC RED
>

[Robert Camp]

On 2/14/18 4:49 PM, Dr. Gary Hurd wrote:
> On Friday, February 9, 2018 at 3:50:04 PM UTC-8, Robert Camp wrote:
>
>> Well, considering Dembski turned-tail and ran when he saw the writing on the wall, you could say that at least *he* (if not, say, the more gullible Behe) understood. However, it's hard to give him any credit here, considering how this intellectual cowardice was brought into sharp relief by his earlier (2002) boast that,
>>
> "I’ll wager a bottle of single-malt scotch, should it ever go to trial whether ID may legitimately be taught in public school science curricula, that ID will pass all constitutional hurdles."
>>
> If you think the DI was not expecting a favorable outcome (just look up Luskin's writings on the subject) then you are as naive as Behe.
>
> That was so funny. And Dembski pocketed his "expert witness" fee.

Amazing how quickly some people forget, or ignore, events that should be
pertinent to the formation of their perspectives on these issues, eh?

[R. Dean]

I've made the argument for years that there is no evidence pointing to

the identity of the designer, consequently, intelligent design does not
and cannot identify the designer. You cannot show where any ID proponent
has claimed to have such evidence. I agree that some people might
believe the designer was Allah, Zuss or Jesus Christ, but there is no
evidence pointing to any of these. So, for anyone to claim otherwise is
false.

[Dr. Gary Hurd]

On Thursday, February 15, 2018 at 5:40:03 PM UTC-8, Robert Camp wrote:
>
> Amazing how quickly some people forget, or ignore, events that should be
> pertinent to the formation of their perspectives on these issues, eh?

Well, I am still more worried since the Reich-wing are packing the Federal Courts with incompetents and fundamentalists.

[jillery]

On Thu, 15 Feb 2018 21:42:43 -0500, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>
wrote:

Yes, you have made that argument for several years. And every time I
noticed you make that argument, I made the argument that the identity
of ID's agent isn't the point in question, so your argument is just a
strawman evasion of the real issue; to specify the features of ID's
designer sufficient to identify any differences between designs from
ID and designs from unguided natural processes.

Not sure how you keep forgetting that.

[jillery]

On Thu, 15 Feb 2018 20:02:25 -0500, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 2/14/2018 2:44 PM, scienceci...@gmail.com wrote:
>> R. Dean wrote,
>>
>> "Judge Jones and Plagiarism at the Dover Trial.?"
>>
>> http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2006/12/judge-jones-dover-trial.html?m=1
>>
>>> Does this color the results of
>>> the Dover Trial in 2006?
>>> If not why not?
>>
>>> I can understand a judge
>>> using the information he
>>> learns from both sides
>>> then rendering a judgement
>>> in his own words, but
>>> plagiarizing the words
>>> of one side, then advancing
>>> these words as his own?
>>> IOW this judge's >pronouncement was given
>>>from his own ignorance to
>>> make an honest and fair
>>> judgement between
>>> conflicting points of view.
>>
>> No. A *finding of fact* is in the Petition to Show Cause of a petitioner, in this case the ACLU. It alleges certain facts, about names, places, dates, quantities, and statutes of the law and an alleged violation of the cited law that took place.
>>
>> It is the respondent's job to show that the facts were either, incorrect, or there was a just cause for what took place in the facts, if the facts were correct.
>>
>> The Rule to Show Cause is an accompanying document asking for a ruling and an order, so by law it must reiterate the finding of facts if the respondent failed to show cause. That is not plagiarism.

>> You can see by logic that proving a factual designer in court would be needed in the repondent's argument to correct the petitioner's findings of fact.
> >
>When the Judge copied some 90% of the ACLU's word for word or with
>slight changes this absolutely is plagiarism, which in case a judge
>does it is acceptable whether he presents them as his own or not.

One more time, from Oxforddictionaries.com:
*****************************************
plagiarism: noun: The practice of taking someone else's work or ideas
and passing them off as one's own.
*****************************************

Merely copying someone else's work is not plagiarism, by definition.

Judge Jones cited his sources in the text of his decision.

There is no plagiarism involved here. You're just making it up.

[Mike_Duffy]

On Thu, 15 Feb 2018 23:09:17 -0500, jillery wrote:

> [...] the real issue; to specify the features of ID's

> designer sufficient to identify any differences between
> designs from ID and designs from unguided natural processes.

A *really* good designer might simply adjust initial parameters of the
Universe in order to cause the processes of abiogenesis and evolution to be
inevitable even if left unguided.

[jillery]

On Fri, 16 Feb 2018 00:58:07 -0500, Mike_Duffy <mqduf...@bell.net>
wrote:

My impression is any entitfy capable of manipulating the kind of
events IDists claim as examples of ID, would necessarily be capable of
doing exactly what you describe above. If so, not sure why such an
entity would continue tweaking the universe and micro-managing
evolution the way IDists claim.

What is it about IDists that they imagine a Designer who can't make up
Its own mind?

[Dr. Gary Hurd]

That is sort of the default position for any religion that is not debunked by science.

And, it is much more interesting than the standard grade crap from creationists.

I once had a pal who was a RC priest. I teased him that he just liked to dress funny and snort incense. Nothing I ever told him about science ever provoked more than, "Isn't God amazing?"

Creationists like Glenn and similar jerk-offs in fact are opposed to nearly 1600 years of Christian theology.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, February 15, 2018 at 4:15:03 PM UTC-5, Dr. Gary Hurd wrote:
> On Thursday, February 15, 2018 at 7:30:05 AM UTC-8, Glenn wrote:
> > >
> > You're deceptive and a biased liar. Of course others allowed you to help.

I'm reserving judgment on Glenn's comment until I see sufficient
evidence of its rightness or wrongness, as the case may be.

I believe I am quite unique in talk.origins in that I not only
follow the above protocol, but actually spell out my judgment
once it is made, regardless of who the object of that
judgment is.

And because of that, I am bereft of people who will speak up
for me when I am unjustly attacked for exercising this unique trait.
Glenn did a few times, years ago, but seems to have lost interest
in doing so.

> Was the ID movement's God Father, Philip Johnson lying?
>
> "The Intelligent Design movement starts with the recognition that 'In the beginning was the Word,' and 'In the beginning God created.' Establishing that point isn't enough, but it is absolutely essential to the rest of the gospel message." Foreword to "Creation, Evolution, & Modern Science" (2000).

How the modern ID movement started is not germane to the METHODOLOGY
of the scientific practitioners of modern ID. At least in the hands
of Michael Behe, it is scrupulously sticking to the methodology
of secular science.

> "Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools." American Family Radio (10 January 2003)
>
> "I also don't think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme.

...of microevolution. As a Theory of Evolution, including macroevolution,
it is barely out of the starting blocks.

DO NOT CONFUSE the theory of evolution with the massive proof beyond
a reasonable doubt that evolution has occurred on a huge scale.
That has been done by comparative anatomy, fossil evidence,
and DNA analyses, with no contribution from the Darwinian
theory, which seeks to explain WHY it happened in such spectacular
fashion.

I do believe that Johnson, a lawyer without a significant scientific
background, was unaware of this huge difference.

> There is no intelligent design theory that's comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement.

Most notably, Behe has contributed to the theory and Minnich to the
evidence for Behe's hypothesis of the Irreducible Complexity (IC)
of the bacterial flagellum.

Both of these testified extensively at Dover.

> Some of them are quite convinced that it's doable, but that's for them to prove...No product is ready for competition in the educational world." Berkley Science Review (Spring 2006).

This much is very true, but one must keep in mind that the
modern scientific theory of ID (not to be confused with
the old Argument from Design of Aquinas, Paley, etc.) has
only been around for about two decades, while the modern
scientific theory of evolution has been around for at least
ten times that long (think Lamarck, not Darwin).


Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, February 15, 2018 at 6:20:04 PM UTC-5, Borrowed Time wrote:
> On Thursday, February 15, 2018 at 2:50:03 PM UTC-8, Glenn wrote:
> > "Dr. Gary Hurd" <gary...@cox.net> wrote in message news:95283cd3-ef6e-47dd...@googlegroups.com...
> > > On Thursday, February 15, 2018 at 7:30:05 AM UTC-8, Glenn wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> You're deceptive and a biased liar. Of course others allowed you to help.
> > >
> > > So maybe William Dembski was lying when he wrote the 1999 article for the Christian magazine Touchstone? The article was titled "Signs of Intelligence," and Dembski confirmed the foundation of ID in John 1 when he assured readers that "Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." ("Signs of Intelligence," 1999, Touchstone magazine).

Dembski is not a reliable witness to what the scientific theory
is like. See my reply to Gary Hurd, less than an hour ago.

<snip documentation of irrelevant personal testimony by Dembski>

> > >
> > More deception.
>
> You sound as if you're losing it.

You come across to me like a troll. But I'm reserving judgment [1] until
I see a reply to this post, and/or to the following post of mine:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/X4MYMEX-JuI/qfktxWNXAQAJ
Subject: Re: A list unlike the ones at which Hemidactylus sneers
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2018 06:02:33 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <fb6509db-cdae-4728...@googlegroups.com>

This is a reply to THE ONLY OTHER post you've made to
talk.origins under your current e-mail address so far.

Did you use other e-mail addresses to post to talk.origins before?
If so, what aliases did you use?

[1] For a better idea of what I mean here, look at the reply
I did to Gary Hurd less than an hour ago.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Department of Math. -- standard disclaimer --

[Mike_Duffy]

On Fri, 16 Feb 2018 02:33:44 -0500, jillery wrote:

> If so, not sure why such an entity would continue
> tweaking the universe and micro-managing evolution

For the same reasons he let flow the blood of the lamb of god and then lets
Satan slip evil ideas into our brains. (You know, the mental part of the
temple of god that is our very body.)

It's all part of a plan we are too stupid to understand. Don't even try.

[R. Dean]

Whatever you call it's acceptable for the Judge to have done this.
After all his decision was the right decision.

[Borrowed Time]

I am a recent visitor to this group. I have looked around only briefly and selectively. Your contributions caught my attention as being particularly contentious and not a little disorganized, particularly from one who describes himself as a mathematician. I confess I am unable to see just what issues are being so bitterly contested in some of these exchanges.

As for your recent reply to Dr. Hurd

"I'm reserving judgment on Glenn's comment until I see sufficient
evidence of its rightness or wrongness, as the case may be.

I believe I am quite unique in talk.origins in that I not only
follow the above protocol, but actually spell out my judgment
once it is made, regardless of who the object of that
judgment is.

And because of that, I am bereft of people who will speak up
for me when I am unjustly attacked for exercising this unique trait.
Glenn did a few times, years ago, but seems to have lost interest
in doing so"

I find that a remarkable manifesto. I wonder what qualifications enable you to stand in such judgement. That said, the peculiarly American "controversy" between biological science and theology has always been a source of wonderment for me.

You may expect little more from me. As you might guess from my "alias", as you put it, I feel little reason to pursue matters of small interest to me. I have found few things being discussed here that I have any strong inclination to follow.

[Earle Jones]

On 2018-02-16 17:58:58 +0000, Borrowed Time said:

> On Friday, February 16, 2018 at 7:35:05 AM UTC-8, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>> On Thursday, February 15, 2018 at 6:20:04 PM UTC-5, Borrowed Time wrote:
>>> On Thursday, February 15, 2018 at 2:50:03 PM UTC-8, Glenn wrote:
>>>> "Dr. Gary Hurd" <gary...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:95283cd3-ef6e-47dd...@googlegroups.com...
>>>>> On Thursday, February 15, 2018 at 7:30:05 AM UTC-8, Glenn wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're deceptive and a biased liar. Of course others allowed you to help.
>>>>>
>>>>> So maybe William Dembski was lying when he wrote the 1999 article for
>>>>> the Christian magazine Touchstone? The article was titled "Signs of
>>>>> Intelligence," and Dembski confirmed the foundation of ID in John 1
>>>>> when he assured readers that "Indeed, intelligent design is just the
>>>>> Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information
>>>>> theory." ("Signs of Intelligence," 1999, Touchstone magazine).
>>
>> Dembski is not a reliable witness to what the scientific theory

>> is like. See my reply to Gary Hurd, less than an hour ago....

*
It is not difficult to understand where William Dembski's "science" is
coming from:

"My thesis is that all disciplines find their completion in Christ
and cannot be properly understood apart from Christ."

--William Dembski, 'Intelligent Design', p 206

But, of course, ID is not religion.

earle
*

[erik simpson]

Of course. But as we see above,
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/RmJfq-PdDl0/bPoDs0xZAQAJ
Peter is The Judge. So we may soon know the Truth.

[Dr. Gary Hurd]

On Friday, February 16, 2018 at 10:00:04 AM UTC-8, Borrowed Time wrote:
"I have found few things being discussed here that I have any strong inclination to follow."

This particular thread assumes participants are already familiar with the 2005 Dover, PA trial, and in general the ID creationism sham.

Since the trial was a disaster for the ID creationist movement the Discovery Institute and their remaining supporters try to invent reasons to deny the actual event. It is quite obscure to people not familiar with the issue. My involvement goes back 20 years to when I was a curator and director of a natural history museum.

I had a little moment in the Dover trial itself when biology professor and ID creationist Mike Behe was cross examined.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12pm2.html#day12pm475

[jillery]

On Fri, 16 Feb 2018 12:42:58 -0500, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>

Whatever??? It's your point. Not sure why you can't admit you're
worg.

[Mark Isaak]

On 2/15/18 6:42 PM, R. Dean wrote:
[...]

> I've made the argument for years that there is no evidence pointing to
> the identity of the designer, consequently, intelligent design does not
> and cannot identify the designer.

And since intelligent design is *defined* in terms of the designer, not
identifying the designer means that ID is not merely unscientific, it is
totally meaningless.

> You cannot show where any ID proponent
> has claimed to have such evidence. I agree that some people might
> believe the designer was Allah, Zuss or Jesus Christ, but there is no
> evidence pointing to any of these. So, for anyone to claim otherwise is
> false.

In fact, Gary Hurd has just posted about two prominent people who have
claimed such evidence. You are correct that such claims are baseless,
but that does not stop people from making them. Just like your own
claims about design.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Ignorance, allied with power, is the most ferocious enemy justice can
have." - James Baldwin

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 15 Feb 2018 15:21:09 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>On Thu, 15 Feb 2018 12:05:49 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 19:17:37 -0500, the following appeared
>>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>>On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 14:01:09 +0000, Martin Harran
>>><martin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 8 Feb 2018 00:52:45 -0500, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>[...]
>>>>
>>>>>I absolutely agree that Intelligent Design is not religious, in that it
>>>>>does not turn to any religious materials such as the Bible, religious
>>>>>publications or religious doctrine for support.
>>>>
>>>>As I have explained to you elsewhere [1], the problem is that
>>>>Intelligent Design requires an Intelligent Designer which means some
>>>>sort of entity which is outside of what we know as nature. Effectively
>>>>that is a supernatural being which means that it is a god. It may not
>>>>be the Christian god which the main proponents of Intelligent Design
>>>>support, it may not even be a god to whom you pray, and you may not go
>>>>to church to worship it but if it is a supernatural being then it is
>>>>*de facto* a god; that is why intelligent design, invoking an
>>>>intelligent designer, is *de facto* religious.
>>>>
>>>>I find it rather anomalous that I, who believe in a supernatural
>>>>entity, find no need to involve that entity in the detail of evolution
>>>>yet you, who claim not to believe in a supernatural entity, do find
>>>>the need to invoke such an entity.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>[...]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>[1] It was during your apparent absence so you may have missed it. You
>>>>can find it here along with my response to other things you have
>>>>previously brought up:
>>>>
>>>>Message ID: 9uj94d9rv46j8n4kb...@4ax.com
>>>>
>>>>Google Groups:
>>>>https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/talk.origins/F.A.O.$20R.$20Dean$20(
>>>>
>>>>or http://bit.ly/2Bt56PH
>>>
>>>
>>>FTR R.Dean has explicitly acknowledged that his understanding of ID
>>>necessarily requires a supernatural Agent. However, apparently R.Dean
>>>does not equate supernatural with religion.
>>
>>Well, since logically that Agent either predates the
>>universe or emerged within it in some way not connected with
>>life, and isn't subject to natural constraints, I can't
>>imagine what else we could equate it with.
>
>
>Apparently R.Dean has a better imagination about this than either of
>us. I have tried to get him to elaborate. The most I got from him is
>that ID isn't an expressed dogma of any organized religion, therefore
>ID isn't religious. In fairness, I have heard similar from other
>IDists.

Oy...

Well, that's one way for him to evade the issue while
denying (in his own mind, at least) that he's evading it.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 15 Feb 2018 15:35:15 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:

>
>"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:fjmb8d5niodpu1un1...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 17:38:41 -0700, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:

>> That's why I provided the reference.
>>
>> You're welcome.
>
>I didn't thank you. And you didn't provide any reference.

So you're a jerk; no surprise. Here's the part you snipped,
in my response to Dr Hurd:

[begin]

>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12pm2.html#day12pm475

For Glenn's info, to forestall any quibbling about quoted

material, your comment was a paraphrase. Behe's actual
statement, WRT designs we can't (yet) manufacture, was "Lots
of science fiction movies are based on scenarios like that".
It's down in the transcript a little less than halfway, and
"Edit/Find" (in Firefox; other browsers may vary) pulls it
up just fine.

[end]

So yes, I did; snipping it and then denying it existed
doesn't make it disappear.

>>>A strawman was created and nourished to make ID and Behe's remarks appear to be unscientific.
>>

>> Behe's remark *was* unscientific, as my reference shows.
>
>So says the childish provocateur. And you provided no reference.

I certainly did; see above, liar. Or is it your contention
that "Lots of science fiction movies are based on scenarios
like that" is a scientific remark? That would explain a lot.

>>>That ID does not attempt to identify a designer does not make ID unscientific.
>>

>> No, other characteristics do that quite well.
>
>Non-responsive and unsupported.

Fully responsive; ID has *none* of the characteristics of a
scientific theory, or even an untested hypothesis, and
IDists have done *no* actual research. If you think it does
or they have, post the references.

>>>The 'baseline' of both archaeology and ID is the ability to distinguish between non-designed objects and a designer.
>>

>> Archaeology uses known characteristics of *human* design to
>> identify *human-produced* artifacts.
>
>Not exclusively. But you know that.
>
>>ID uses "Well, it looks
>> like design to us" to imply designs which *could not* be
>> produced by humans.
>
>Bullshit rhetoric. Expected from you.

So post the references which refute my post.

>> And to "the ability to distinguish between non-designed
>> objects and a designer" is an ability shared by all who can
>> tell the difference between an engineer and a rock.

>Archaeology goes a little further than telling the difference between an engineer and a rock, bozo.

It was your claim, not mine. Perhaps you meant "between
designed and non-designed objects", and just don't know how
to construct a sentence in English comparing equal things?

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 15 Feb 2018 15:46:09 -0700, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:

>

>"Dr. Gary Hurd" <gary...@cox.net> wrote in message news:95283cd3-ef6e-47dd...@googlegroups.com...
>> On Thursday, February 15, 2018 at 7:30:05 AM UTC-8, Glenn wrote:
>>> >
>>> You're deceptive and a biased liar. Of course others allowed you to help.
>>
>> So maybe William Dembski was lying when he wrote the 1999 article for the Christian magazine Touchstone? The article was titled “Signs of Intelligence,” and Dembski confirmed the foundation of ID in John 1 when he assured readers that "Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." (“Signs of Intelligence,” 1999, Touchstone magazine).
>>

>> On March 7, 2004, Dembski gave a talk at the Baptist Fellowship Church in Waco, TX that was taped recorded. Relevant to the current topic, Dembski, in response to an audience member's question said, “When you are attributing the wonders of nature to these mindless material mechanisms, God’s glory is getting robbed.” He further added, “And so there is a cultural war here. Ultimately I want to see God get the credit for what he’s done — and he’s not getting it.”

>More deception.

"Facts with references are deception."

"Truth is a lie."

"Lies are truth."

"I love Big Brother."

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 15 Feb 2018 15:15:18 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Borrowed Time
<dyne.ce...@gmail.com>:

>On Thursday, February 15, 2018 at 2:50:03 PM UTC-8, Glenn wrote:

>> "Dr. Gary Hurd" <gary...@cox.net> wrote in message news:95283cd3-ef6e-47dd...@googlegroups.com...
>> > On Thursday, February 15, 2018 at 7:30:05 AM UTC-8, Glenn wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> You're deceptive and a biased liar. Of course others allowed you to help.
>> >
>> > So maybe William Dembski was lying when he wrote the 1999 article for the Christian magazine Touchstone? The article was titled “Signs of Intelligence,” and Dembski confirmed the foundation of ID in John 1 when he assured readers that "Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." (“Signs of Intelligence,” 1999, Touchstone magazine).
>> >
>> > On March 7, 2004, Dembski gave a talk at the Baptist Fellowship Church in Waco, TX that was taped recorded. Relevant to the current topic, Dembski, in response to an audience member's question said, “When you are attributing the wonders of nature to these mindless material mechanisms, God’s glory is getting robbed.” He further added, “And so there is a cultural war here. Ultimately I want to see God get the credit for what he’s done — and he’s not getting it.”
>> >
>> More deception.
>

>You sound as if you're losing it.

"...sound as if..."?

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 15 Feb 2018 21:42:43 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>:

Whoooshhh...

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 16 Feb 2018 00:58:07 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Mike_Duffy <mqduf...@bell.net>:

As I've posted before, copied from a post by Louann
Miller(?) back in 2000:

"Any deity worthy of a graven image can cobble up a working
universe complete with fake fossils in under a week - hey,
if you're not omnipotent, there's no real point in being a
god. But to start with a big ball of elementary particles
and end up with the duckbill platypus without constant
twiddling requires a degree of subtlety and the ability to
Think Things Through: exactly the qualities I'm looking for
when I'm shopping for a Supreme Being." - Lee DeRaud