Tuesday, December 20, 2005

Tidbits from the Decision, Part Two

From page 64:


After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. As we will discuss in more detail below, it is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research.


This is exactly what scientific critics of ID have been saying for years. In fact, as I read through the opinion, I am struck by the extent to which Judge Jones' opinion, based entirely on the evidence before him and the relevant caselaw, matches almost perfectly what people on my side of this have been saying for years.

This is highly significant. Evolutionists are constantly being accused of being unwilling to engage proponents of ID. We are besieged by juvenile taunts like, “If the evidence for evolution is as strong as you say, then why are you so afraid to let a dissenting voice be heard?” Such bleats were especially loud in the wake of the decision by scientists to boycott the Kansas evolution hearings a while back.

We now see what nonsense this really is. Evolutionists are perfectly happy to engage their opponents, as long as the venue is one in which facts and evidence will be the basis for the verdict. Public debates in front of lay audiences are primarily about good theater and flashy rhetoric. The Kansas evolution hearings were about providing scientific cover for the foregone conclusion of an anti-science school board.

The people flinging the taunts are not really interested in having a fair and open hearing of the facts. Instead they are only interested in having a ready supply of cheap talking points to hurl in lieu of actually learning some scientists.

5 Comments:

At 6:50 AM, Anonymous darthwilliam said...

I agree - we have now had a debate in a fair forum based on the facts and ID lost big time! Perhaps the forces of reason still have a chance.

...darth

 
At 8:50 AM, Anonymous antiheddle said...

Hot wind from Heddle:
Did you get a chance to read Heddle's "insights" over at helives? Hold your nost...

"...There was not much doubt about the final outcome. The unknowns were: How activist is this judge? How far would he go? What degree of omniscience would he assume? The answers: very activist, he went very far, and he assumed godlike omniscience although without the attendant infallibility..."

and

"...Judge Jones ruled that ID is not science. Of course, one wonders on what basis he is qualified to say what is or isn’t science. (Maybe he explains somewhere in the 139 pages, I’m working off blurbs.) If it includes testability and falsifiability, it would be interesting to ask the judge how evolution is testable, and how evolution is falsifiable. (I’m not saying evolution isn’t either of those. I’m speculating that Judge Jones wouldn’t know how to answer—and yet his is ruling on what constitutes science.)..."

If Heddle were the thoughtful researcher that he thinks that he is he would have read the judge's statement of non-activism. Also, I believe that a few weeks of hearing experts carefully providing scientific evidence and a handful of hacks not providing evidence helps qualify the judge to discern the difference.

 
At 8:55 AM, Anonymous antiheddle said...

oops...
You can hold your "nost" if you want to; but I meant, of course, "nose".

 
At 1:58 PM, Blogger Mark said...

Another thing that Judge Jones pointed out was that the Board members were so ignorant about ID -- they just knew it had to do with some form of Creationism, and that was enough for them. They could not speak a word about any science in ID (only parrot the pseudoscientific claptrap they got from the discovery Institute).

 
At 3:34 AM, Blogger zhengbin said...

Kauf und Verkauf von Gold in den thomas sabo Goldmarkt hat viel an Popularität gewonnen,

 

Post a Comment

<< Home