Intelligent design. Philosophy of ignorance.

Apparently not. Those documents are what each side wants the court to find. It is apparently normal for the Judge to largely copy material from the winning side when their arguments prevailed. So all it really means is that the ID side lost, badly.If their claims of errors didn't amount to "telling the truth instead of agreeing with us" then that might be a problem - although even that would depend on the significance of the actual errors.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

Call me naive, but I've never heard of this, and it seems strange that no credit was given to the original source. But I do see that on page 7 Judge Jones says, "This Memorandum Opinion constitutes the Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law which are based upon the Court’s review of the evidence presented at trial, the testimony of the witnesses at trial, the parties’ proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law with supporting briefs,..."What we need is link to the defendant's findings and conclusions document. Parts of that document should also have found its way into Jones's brief, even if only the parts characterizing the defendant's position.--Percy

Apparently it is not unusual and perfectly legal. Here is Ed Brayton and Timothy Sandefur's take on it:Page not found · GitHub PagesPage not found | ScienceBlogs

But Sandefur's Supreme Court quote was apparently incomplete, as someone else points out, quoting this portion from UNITED STATES v. EL PASO GAS CO: The person providing this information over at Panda's Thumb was IDiot Savant, and he went on to say: I find myself equally disappointed in Judge Jones. The extent of his changes to the ACLU document are little more than wordsmithing and context massaging.On the other hand, one has to ask that if such rulings really aren't "worth the paper they are written on" at the court of appeals, then why don't the defendants appeal?--Percy

You are miss-using parsimony here. It is not just the simplest explanation, but the simplest explanation that explains all the facts.The earth at the center of the universe is the simplest explanation for why we see everything else appear to orbit the earth, but it doesn't explain retrograde movements.A heliocentric model does explain retrograde motion, but then there are motions in deep space that are not explained until you open to modern astronomy with our planet orbiting a sun in the arm of a galaxy that is itself travelling through space.This explanation is much more complex than the geocentric model but it is the simplest one that explains all the facts.The concept of an intelligent designer involved in the evolution of organisms on earth doesn't predict the guinea worm (Message 98) or even that whole classes of organisms would behave in this manner - rather it would predict the opposite.Evolution does predict them. That is what makes it a useful scientific theory, and not pie in the sky pseudomythology involving miniature magic elephants.The problem with the design concept is that there is insufficient design evidence in the universe to make a case for it in any {system\feature\function\ability}.It may be "simple" but that doesn't make it more powerful, more useful OR more valid, it just makes it "simple" ... in several connotations of the word.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

As I've said before, when creationists attempt to use ID they only do so half-heartedly and they will always revert to their creationist roots when pushed to explain the contradictions inherent in the ID position.This is a prime example.ID cannot use this excuse, or it fails to carry it's precepts to their logical conclusions.John 10.10 also invalidates his own argument: For now we have an unknown purpose or an evil purpose, some "plan" that cannot be to our knowing, and this makes the "product" totally unpredictable.If you cannot discern a purpose and you cannot discern a plan then you cannot conclude design.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I suspect that the findings of law may be more important. It is only the findings of fact that are largely copied. And even they are not completely the same.But there are good reasons why there was no appeal. Firstly the case against the school board was too clear - appealing would only be throwing good money after bad. The original case cost the board a lot of money, even with the Thomas More Law Institute covering their own legal costs. And secondly, the board were elected out of office and the new board had no interest in pursuing the case.

Percy quotes: Yes Judge Jones quoted the findings of fact but not the findings of law. From what I understand judges will sometimes simply sign the plaintiffs or the defendants findings in toto and essentially do no work of their own. That is what Rule 52 is about. This is not what happened here. The copying and pasting the DI is going on about is from one section of the decision. That 90% figure they mention is 90% of 1/3 of the ruling.Nick Matzke on PT explains: I don’t think it’s surprising that a judge would quote one side’s findings of fact in a case dealing with science. To appeal to yours and my biases, one side’s findings of fact are from science and scientists, and the other side’s are utter pseudo-science. Don’t we all want the judge to quote the scientific findings of fact? What alternative do you propose? That Judge Jones perform experiments on the bac flag, get the experiments peer-reviewed, etc.?Also, Ed Brayton’s treatment of the issue demonstrates how the judge is quoting verbatim from the findings of fact of the plaintiff, because their findings of fact are true. There are only so many ways to say something. If the plaintiff says that, “ID is, in fact, based on a false dichotomy,” how else should the judge express this? Because this isn’t about law, it’s nothing but PR.

Ed Brayton has a lot of good stuff at that link I posted earlier. I particularly like this one, from the defendant's finding of fact, apparently not used by Judge Jones: LOLObviously, both sides wanted their findings of fact to be a part of the decision. You don't always get what you want.

Monty Python

quote:

---

All things dull and ugly,
All creatures short and squat,
All things rude and nasty,
The Lord God made the lot.
Each little snake that poisons,
Each little wasp that stings,
He made their brutish venom.
He made their horrid wings.

​

All things sick and cancerous,
All evil great and small,
All things foul and dangerous,
The Lord God made them all.

​

Each nasty little hornet,
Each beastly little squid--
Who made the spikey urchin?
Who made the sharks? He did!

​

All things scabbed and ulcerous,
All pox both great and small,
Putrid, foul and gangrenous,
The Lord God made them all.

​

Amen.

---

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Intelligent design: The God LabThis describes some biochemical work being done by IDists. A new strategy in reaction to the Dover decision is what it appears to be. They seem to think that if they can find a gap in knowledge they have a place to stuff a little god.

Good read thanks.I was particularly interested in the attempts to somehow disprove the interesting emerging evidence that self-replicating artificial organism can mutate unpredictably or evolve as hinted at in the Nature Paper by Pennock. This is damning to the ID point-of-view that information can be created by purely random processes. I do not see how Dixon of the Discovery Institute ...err Biologic Institute ... is going to discredit this by some negative case or counter example - all you need to do is show that it can happen in certain situations - not necessarily every case.My guess is they are going to try to show the improbability in biological systems as compared to artificial systems via statistics. This is a fools errand as statistics greatly depend on assumptions.

Teach me, mold me, o'wise sage. There is no confusion. Scientific theory employs branches of science to verify its claims. Where's the ambiguity in that? Theory does not encompass its own branch of science.

---

"With derision the atheist points out that there can be no God because this world is so unfair. Without hesitation, I concur with him. Indeed, we live in an unfair world because of all sorts of social ills and perils. I must not contend with such a sentiment because it is factual-- we don't live in a fair world. Grace is unambiguous proof that we live in an unfair world. I received salvation when I deserved condemnation. Yes, indeed this world is unfair." -Andrew Jaramillo-

Funny how those creationists keep popping out of the ID woodwork eh?

quote:

---

"The objective is to challenge the scientific community on naturalism." Weber is not a scientist but a retired professor of business and administration at the Presbyterian Whitworth College in Spokane, Washington. He heads the Spokane chapter of Reasonstobelieve.org, a Christian organisation that seeks to challenge Darwinism.

---

Color for emphasis to those who think ID is not creationism in a box.FUNDED by the gullible.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

That's the confusion. The branches of science don't represent fundamentally different modes of knowledge, or something to be employed. They're just informal domains used to make the paperwork easier. Different institutions draw the boundaries in different places, and they overlap in many situations. For instance, what "branch" of science does biochemistry represent? Biology or chemistry?It's a bit of both, of course. Just like genetic programming, or bioinformatics, or computational metallurgy, or nuclear chemistry, and so on.Science is the body of knowledge derived by the application of the scientific method. Evolution is a part of science because the theory of evolution was derived via the scientific method. ID was not. That's the big difference, really.