Dover Penn ID trial
- Thread starter Ed
- Start date
Bronze Dog
Copper Alloy Canid
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2005
- Messages
- 4,993
From my experience:
Activist Judge: A judge who disagrees with you.
Activist Judge: A judge who disagrees with you.
From the Discovery Institute News:
"Activist judge". Ha! Judge Jones sure predicted that right.
What a bunch of bad-sport maroons.
Digital code in the DNA? Really? Where is the AD/DA converter in my body?
Perhaps they'd like some cheese with that whine.
Hurray for Judge Jones! Someone should send him a case of Scotch.
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2005
- Messages
- 27,472
Judge Jones wrote:
This will become the pet quote of post-trial ID proponents.
This will become the pet quote of post-trial ID proponents.
Let's be fair -- this statement qualifies as "accurate, but irrelevant and misleading" instead of "wrong," as so many of the DI's scientific statements are.
The genetic code -- you know, all those GATTACA stuff -- is in fact digital; there's no intermediate chemical that's 20% G and 80% T. Similarly, the base codons are digital; there's not a representation for 30% guanine and 70% adenine.
To which the proper response is "so what"? The formula for water is H2O, not H3andabitO, but that doesn't make water "designed."
Fair enough, I just wanted to make a sound geek joke
But you're right it's irrelevant.
Can they? Of course. Under US law, I believe you always have the right to one appeal.
Will they? Only they know for sure, but my bet is probably not -- the new board was elected specifically on an anti-ID platform and does not want to implement the proposed policy. To appeal would cost money, and in particular would probably cost them lots of money, atop the fees that they've already lost in paying not only for their own but for the ACLU's lawyers as well.
Not to rain on the parade but did anyone notice this
My big question is, why?
Ossai
from the Yahoo article?
My big question is, why?
Ossai
Because, since the November elections, it's an entirely new board elected on an anti-ID platform. Similarly, if there were a general election in Great Britain tomorrow, and the Get Out of Iraq party won an overwhelming majority in Parliament, you can bet the new Prime Minister would waste no time reversing Blair's (previous) positions and policies.
Jones should apply for the million dollars...oh, wait...he's too well grounded in common sense and evidence. Darn. Because he deserves it.From the Discovery Institute News:
"Activist judge". Ha! Judge Jones sure predicted that right.
What a bunch of bad-sport maroons.
tsg
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2005
- Messages
- 6,771
Normally I'd agree with this, but I was being a little metaphorical with the statement. In our legal system, the only way to ask the question that hasn't been answered yet is for it to go to court. This never should have had to. Don't get me wrong. I'm ecstatic that the decision came out as it did but it unnerves me to no end that it had to be made.
What's worse is that the Discovery Institute et al still don't think they did anything wrong.
Complexity
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,242
Read the entire opinion - it is a stunning document.
From the DI's Press Release:
Obviously, the Discovery Institute was hoping for a sympathetic judge who was willing to pretend he fell off the turnip truck yesterday and say "gee, I can't see any explicitly religious wording in this disclaimer; it must not be religious."
They would want the judge to then listen to the arguments about the scientific merits of evolution and ID and say "Golly gosh gee, this is all so technical and confusing- I think we need to teach both sides and let the kids decide."
I congratulate Judge Jones not so much for recognizing a fallacious argument (which I would expect of any judge) but for refusing to pretend he didn't.
Translation: We are dismayed that the judge was willing to look beyond the sacrificial goat and see the person running behind it, driving it with a stick.
This is probably the richest part of all. Maybe we should draw up two lists: on one side the peer-reviewed scientific papers giving positive evidence of intelligent design, on the other side the court cases generated by the Intelligent Design movement.
Obviously, the Discovery Institute was hoping for a sympathetic judge who was willing to pretend he fell off the turnip truck yesterday and say "gee, I can't see any explicitly religious wording in this disclaimer; it must not be religious."
They would want the judge to then listen to the arguments about the scientific merits of evolution and ID and say "Golly gosh gee, this is all so technical and confusing- I think we need to teach both sides and let the kids decide."
I congratulate Judge Jones not so much for recognizing a fallacious argument (which I would expect of any judge) but for refusing to pretend he didn't.
Translation: We are dismayed that the judge was willing to look beyond the sacrificial goat and see the person running behind it, driving it with a stick.
This is probably the richest part of all. Maybe we should draw up two lists: on one side the peer-reviewed scientific papers giving positive evidence of intelligent design, on the other side the court cases generated by the Intelligent Design movement.
Renfield
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2003
- Messages
- 1,055
I read a statistic somewhere that conservative judges have actually overturned more laws on constitutional grounds then the more liberal judges on the court. So I think you may be right.
I'd like to take a moment to highlight some of my favorite sections from the decision regarding the Judge's opinion of the defendants:
Page 46:
...the Dover School Board members testimony, which was marked by selective memories and outright lies under oath,
Page 97:
Simply put, Bonsell repeatedly failed to testify in a truthful manner about this and other subjects.
Page 102:
With surprising candor considering his otherwise largely inconsistent and non-credible testimony, Buckingham did admit that he made this statement.
Page 105:
Finally, although Buckingham, Bonsell, and other defense witnesses denied the reports in the news media and contradicted the great weight of the evidence
about what transpired at the June 2004 Board meetings, the record reflects that these witnesses either testified inconsistently, or lied outright
under oath on several occasions, and are accordingly not credible on these points.
Page 113:
The fact that Baksa contradicted this testimony on re-direct and stated that he had never read the webpage has an unfortunate and negative impact
on his credibility in this case.
Page 115:
...the inescapable truth is that both Bonsell and Buckingham lied at their January 3, 2005 depositions...This mendacity was a clear and
deliberate attempt to hide the source of the donations...
Page 130:
...their contentions are simply irreconcilable with the record evidence. Their asserted purposes are a sham...
Page 131:
Finally, although Defendants have unceasingly attempted in vain to distance themselves from their own actions and statements, which culminated in
repetitious, untruthful testimony, such a strategy constitutes additional strong evidence of improper purpose...
Page 132:
Defendants' previously referenced flagrant and insulting falsehoods to the Court provide sufficient and compelling evidence for us to deduce that any
allegedly secular purposes that have been offered in support of the ID Policy are equally insincere.
Page 137:
It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again
lie to cover their tracks...
Page 138:
The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial.
Page 46:
...the Dover School Board members testimony, which was marked by selective memories and outright lies under oath,
Page 97:
Simply put, Bonsell repeatedly failed to testify in a truthful manner about this and other subjects.
Page 102:
With surprising candor considering his otherwise largely inconsistent and non-credible testimony, Buckingham did admit that he made this statement.
Page 105:
Finally, although Buckingham, Bonsell, and other defense witnesses denied the reports in the news media and contradicted the great weight of the evidence
about what transpired at the June 2004 Board meetings, the record reflects that these witnesses either testified inconsistently, or lied outright
under oath on several occasions, and are accordingly not credible on these points.
Page 113:
The fact that Baksa contradicted this testimony on re-direct and stated that he had never read the webpage has an unfortunate and negative impact
on his credibility in this case.
Page 115:
...the inescapable truth is that both Bonsell and Buckingham lied at their January 3, 2005 depositions...This mendacity was a clear and
deliberate attempt to hide the source of the donations...
Page 130:
...their contentions are simply irreconcilable with the record evidence. Their asserted purposes are a sham...
Page 131:
Finally, although Defendants have unceasingly attempted in vain to distance themselves from their own actions and statements, which culminated in
repetitious, untruthful testimony, such a strategy constitutes additional strong evidence of improper purpose...
Page 132:
Defendants' previously referenced flagrant and insulting falsehoods to the Court provide sufficient and compelling evidence for us to deduce that any
allegedly secular purposes that have been offered in support of the ID Policy are equally insincere.
Page 137:
It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again
lie to cover their tracks...
Page 138:
The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial.
logical muse
LogMu
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2005
- Messages
- 2,050
I woke up this morning with this news being announced on the radio, all the way over here in sunny Melbourne, Australia.
I'd like to buy that judge a beer.
I'd like to buy that judge a beer.