Posted on 01/09/2006 8:26:54 AM PST by PatrickHenry
If there’s anything to be learned from the intelligent design debate, it’s that branding “activist judges” is the hobby of bitter losers.
For those who care about the fight over evolution in biology classrooms, Christmas came five days early when the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District ruling was handed down. In his decision, Judge John E. Jones III ruled that not only is the theory of intelligent design religion poorly dressed in science language, teaching it in class is an outright violation of the First Amendment.
The ruling was a concise and devastating demonstration of how law, precedent and evidence can come together to drive complete nonsense out of the courtroom. But if the aftermath of the event proves anything, it proves that nine times out of 10, if someone accuses a judge of being an “activist,” it is because he disagrees with the ruling and wants to make it clear to like-minded followers that they only lost because the liberals are keeping them down. Gratuitous overuse has, in just a few short years, turned the phrase “judicial activism” from a description of an actual problem in the legal system into a catch-all keyword for any ruling that social conservatives dislike.
During the months between the initial suit and the final decision, a high-powered law firm from Chicago volunteered some of its best to represent the plaintiffs pro bono, defenders of evolution and intelligent design mobilized, and few people really cared other than court watchers, biology nerds and a suspicious number of creationist groups. The trial went well for the plaintiffs: Their witnesses and evidence were presented expertly and professionally, and it never hurts when at least two of the witnesses for the defense are caught perjuring themselves in their depositions. Advocates for teaching actual science in school science classes were fairly confident that Jones was going to rule in their favor.
When it came, the ruling was significant enough to earn a slightly wider audience than the aforementioned court watchers, biology nerds and creationists. What drew interest from newcomers was not the minutiae of the trial, but the scope of Jones’ ruling and the scorn for the Dover School Board’s actions that practically radiated off the pages. He ruled both that intelligent design was a religious idea, and that teaching it in a science class was an unconstitutional establishment of religion by the state. He didn’t stop there, however.
“It is ironic,” he wrote, “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 and disguise the real purpose behind the intelligent design policy.”
Such harsh language might provoke some sympathy for intelligent design advocates, if they hadn’t immediately demonstrated how much they deserved it by responding — not with scientific arguments for intelligent design or legal precedent to contradict Jones’ ruling — but with ridiculous name-calling. The Discovery Institute, the leading center of ID advocacy, referred to Jones as “an activist judge with delusions of grandeur.” Bill O’Reilly also brought out the “A” word on his show. Richard Land, spokesman for the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission and noted drama queen, declared him the poster child for “a half-century secularist reign of terror.” The American Family Association, having apparently read a different ruling than the rest of America, insisted that judges were so eager to keep God out of schools that they would throw out even scientific evidence for Him. Funny how so many creationist groups seemed to have missed the memo that intelligent design isn’t supposed to be about God at all.
It was depressingly predictable that the intelligent design crowd would saturate the Internet with cries of judicial activism regardless of the actual legal soundness of the ruling. In only a few years, intellectually lazy political leaders have morphed an honest problem in the judiciary that deserves serious debate into shorthand for social conservatism’s flavor of the week. The phrase has been spread around so much and applied to so many people that it only has meaning within the context of someone’s rant. It is the politico-speak equivalent of “dude.”
Only when one learns that Jones was appointed by George W. Bush and had conservative backers that included the likes of Tom Ridge and Rick Santorum can one appreciate how indiscriminately the term is thrown around. Jones is demonstrably a judicial conservative. In fact, he’s the kind of strict constructionist that social conservatives claim to want on the bench. Their mistake is in assuming that the law and their ideology must necessarily be the same thing.
In the end, no one could defend Jones better than he did himself. He saw the breathless accusations of judicial activism coming a mile away, and refuted them within the text of the ruling. In his conclusion he wrote:
“Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on intelligent design, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. 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. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.”
Jones knew his name would be dragged through the mud and issued the correct ruling anyway. One can only hope that the utter childishness of the intelligent design response will alienate even more sensible people, and that the phrase “judicial activism” will from now on be used only by those who know what they’re talking about. No bets on the latter.
"Clue #1 for the clueless: Marx published his Communist Manifesto years before Darwin published anything on evolution. Clearly, the "foundations" of communism, "scientific" or otherwise, had nothing to do with evolution - unless you want to be a lunatic and claim that Marx had a time machine."
Marx himself wrote that evolution is the scientific foundation of communism. Are you disputing him? Or are you just displaying your ignorance? Whether his writing preceded Darwin or not is utterly irrelevant.
And ID clearly preceded Darwin. Isaac Newton wrote in The Principia,
"This most elegant system of the sun, planets, and comets could not have arisen without the design and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being."
By the way, Newton is widely regarded as the greatest scientist of all time, and The Principia is widely regarded as the greatest scientific publication of all time.
Maxwell, Faraday, Kelvin, and Pasteur (all post-Darwin) were also devout Christians who believed that the job of a scientist is to discover the natural laws and designs of the Creator.
By scoffing at intelligent design, you are crapping on the great founders of Western science. Yet you guys have the unmitigated gall to call ID "unscientific."
Sir, Among the many million in America and Europe who rejoice in your election to office; we embrace the first opportunity which we have enjoyed in our collective capacity, since your inauguration, to express our great satisfaction, in your appointment to the chief magistracy in the United States: And though our mode of expression may be less courtly and pompous than what many others clothe their addresses with, we beg you, sir, to believe that none are more sincere.
Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty--that religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals--that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions--that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbors; But, sir, our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter together with the law made coincident therewith, were adopted as the basis of our government, at the time of our revolution; and such had been our laws and usages, and such still are; that religion is considered as the first object of legislation; and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the state) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights; and these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgements as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those who seek after power and gain under the pretense of government and religion should reproach their fellow men--should reproach their order magistrate, as a enemy of religion, law, and good order, because he will not, dare not, assume the prerogatives of Jehovah and make laws to govern the kingdom of Christ.
Sir, we are sensible that the president of the United States is not the national legislator, and also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the laws of each state; but our hopes are strong that the sentiments of our beloved president, which have had such genial effect already, like the radiant beams of the sun, will shine and prevail through all these states and all the world, till hierarchy and tyranny be destroyed from the earth. Sir, when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow of philanthropy and good will shining forth in a course of more than thirty years we have reason to believe that America's God has raised you up to fill the chair of state out of that goodwill which he bears to the millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for your arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you to sustain and support you enjoy administration against all the predetermined opposition of those who wish to raise to wealth and importance on the poverty and subjection of the people.
And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his heavenly kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.
Signed in behalf of the association,
Nehemiah Dodge
Ephraim Robbins
Stephen S. Nelson
There is no space and no time before the beginning (in inflationary theory wrt this universe, the big bang).
Timelessness in this sense is often called "eternity" by believers - which scientists tend to mistake for infinity, which is a useful mathematical construct but doesn't translate well to physics and is not what we believers mean when we say "eternity". We mean what it is, timelessness.
The bottom line is this: all cosmologies (whether inflationary, imaginary, multi-verse, brane, cyclic, ekpyrotic, etc.) require a beginning because physical causality must have geometry. But the void in which there is a beginning has no space, no time, no energy, no matter, no logic, no physical laws, etc. and especially no physical causation. A beginning requires an uncaused cause, first cause, prime mover, i.e. God.
On spaceships and earth - velocity and time, you might find this helpful: SpaceTime Wheel
"By the way, did you read my article called The Myth of the Blind Watchmaker at http://RussP.us/Dawkins.htm ?"
"Yes, but I stopped after the tenth error. It's not as pathetic as the average anti-evolution screed, but it doesn't even rise to the level of a competent effort."
Oh. And what prey tell were those ten errors?
Who do you think you're fooling?
"Sir, we are sensible that the president of the United States is not the national legislator, and also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the laws of each state; but our hopes are strong that the sentiments of our beloved president, which have had such genial effect already, like the radiant beams of the sun, will shine and prevail through all these states and all the world, till hierarchy and tyranny be destroyed from the earth".
So we see in this famous letter from the Danbury Baptist Association to Thomas Jefferson that even they recognized that they were appealing to the persuasive power of the former President and NOT to a compulsory action by the state (national government).
Somebody has been reading Stephen Hawkings.
Why exactly do you "especially like" something full of ignorance, misrepresentation, and errors? Oh, right, because you're an anti-evolution creationist, and anything that attacks evolutionary biology, no matter how flawed, makes you happy as a clam...
Let's take a closer look at RussP's goofy screed, shall we?
"The other side of the equation, which is often ignored, is that harmful mutations obviously work against survival."
"Often ignored"? Just how vastly ignorant of biology does someone has to be to say such a stupid and incorrect thing? The existence of harmful mutations and the fact that they are countersurvival is not "often ignored", it's covered in every introduction to evolution I've ever seen, is dealt with in depth in any serious treatise on the subject, and is addressed in every study dealing with the effect of mutations. RussP is off to a *very* bad start in this passage.
"So a key input to even the simplest evolution model or simulation would have to be the ratio of beneficial to harmful mutations . . . ."
No s**t, Sherlock. That's why biologists address it instead of "often ignore" it as RussP ludicrously and falsely claims.
"Like most evolutionists, Dawkins never even mentions this ratio."
Again the lie. It's quite simply a lie to say that "most evolutionists" never "even mention" this. Horse manure.
"He discusses the overall mutation rate, but the significance of the ratio of beneficial to harmful mutations never seems to occur to him. Or perhaps he simply avoids the issue because it does not help his cause."
Did RussP actually *read* "the Blind Watchmaker"? Contrary to RussP's false claim, Dawkins discusses "the significance of the ratio of beneficial to harmful mutations" on quite a few pages, including pages 124-125, 129-130, 233-24, 306, and 313.
"Clearly, the rate of harmful mutations exceeds the rate of beneficial mutations . . . . But what is the ratio? Common sense suggests it is probably rather high."
That's sweet and all, but since actual ratios of beneficial/harmful/neutral mutations have been actually measured by countless studies, RussP would be better off discussing the *actual* biology than by trying to argue by "common sense" (i.e., his own uninformed presumptions).
"Imagine a random bit flip in the binary executable code of a computer operating system (e.g., Linux).
Clue for the clueless: Linux has not been refined by billions of years of evolution to be highly fault-tolerant. Biological systems have. They are *far* more resistant to "crashing" due to random mutations than computer operating systems are.
What are the chances that it will improve the functioning of the system? Obviously very small. And what are the chances that it will be harmful? Obviously much higher. Perhaps several orders of magnitude higher."
Again, RussP might want to actually read some science journals for a change and discuss the actual evidence -- the *reality* of biological processes -- instead of relying upon what he "imagines".
And unfortunately for his "imaginary" argument, the actual breakdown of harmful/beneficial/neutral mutations is well within the range which makes evolution effective and productive. So "oops" for his conclusion.
Also "oops" for RussP's bizarre attempt to pillory Dawkins for not bogging down his discussion with exact figures on mutation ratios (which vary from organism to organism, and from gene to gene), as if Dawkins is somehow trying to sweep something under the rug that's fatal to his point, or which he has "forgotten" to take into account, when any informed biologist (which certainly includes Dawkins) knows full well that this issue has been researched ad nauseum and determined to be entirely consistent with successful evolutionary advancement.
In other words, it's such a settled non-issue that Dawkins rightfully didn't bother wasting any of the reader's time on it, and RussP's attempt to turn that into some kind of fatal flaw in Dawkins' book is either a) the result of intentional dishonesty on RussP's part, or b) the result of gross ignorance on RussP's part. You make the call.
I have pointed out on numerous threads that as some of the more intelligent ID exponents have argued, the odds against developing the complexity we see today, on both the macro and micro levels, is too astronomically high to be conceivable, even given the enormous size and age of the universe. You add a nice touch to this.
Hardly -- RussP's "argument" on this point is as childishly naive and flawed as that of almost every other "intelligent ID" (redundant much?) "exponent" when they attempt to critique a subject (evolutionary biology) they obviously haven't bothered to learn the most basic things about. They wave their hands a lot, and make arguments based on "common sense" and what they "imagine", INSTEAD OF ON THE ACTUAL REALITY, which has been determined through decades of careful study, but which the IDers don't think they have to bother to even look at before they pontificate on how impossible it "must" be.
What incompetent dolts.
Oh. And what prey tell were those ten errors?
See my previous post. I found at least ten major flaws in just the very short excerpt that Cicero quoted. How many more would you like me to point out to you?
Who do you think you're fooling?
No one, I'm stating a fact. Who are you trying to fool with your severely flawed screed?
JW Drake et al, Genetics 148:1667-1686 (April, 1998) estimate that the average human zygote has about 64 mutations, most of which occur in "junk" DNA. Of the 6 or 7 mutations remaining, a third are "silent", that is the DNA changes but the amino acid coded for remains the same.
In the 28 January 1999 issue of Nature, in the article "High genomic deleterious mutation rates in hominids" Walker and Kneightey estimate that the mutation rate in the effective genome is a bit higher, 4.2 mutations per individual, of which 1.6 are deleterious.
Since most truly harmful mutations are spontaneously aborted (and those can happen in the non-coding areas as well as coding), it's difficult to say if this is the correct value.
That leaves us with 2 or 3 mutations that can be acted on by natural selection. Those may be beneficial (resistant to some disease) or not (ability to roll your tongue) or somewhere in between (violet eye color -- sexual selection).
Marx himself wrote that evolution is the scientific foundation of communism.
I await your citation.
Are you disputing him?
If he actually said such a stupid thing, yes I am, for the reasons I gave. He might have tried to use evolution to rationalize communism *after* the fact, but it certainly could not have been the "foundation" of Marx's communism, for the elementary and not-hard-to-grasp reason I already gave: Marx had already founded communism *before* Darwin published anything on evolution, thus clearly Marx's foundations for communism, whatever they include, could not have included evolution.
Which part of this are you having trouble grasping?
Or are you just displaying your ignorance? Whether his writing preceded Darwin or not is utterly irrelevant.
Uh huh. Sure. You betcha.
And ID clearly preceded Darwin. Isaac Newton wrote in The Principia,
"This most elegant system of the sun, planets, and comets could not have arisen without the design and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being."
That's classic creationism, son. "ID" is classic creationism dressed up in a rented tuxedo, pretending to be science. It's a modern invention.
Here's what you're missing: Sure, the notion that something intelligent created the universe (and threw down lightning when it was pissed off, etc.) is an old notion. But that's not "Intelligent Design" as people are trying to pass it off today. Again, why don't you actually read the trial transcripts before you waste out time, and yours, with more of your uninformed and irrelevant outbursts? Speaking of which:
By the way, Newton is widely regarded as the greatest scientist of all time, and The Principia is widely regarded as the greatest scientific publication of all time.
Well whoop-de-do. How exactly does this allegedly turn "ID" into valid science? Oh, right, it doesn't. By the way Newton *also* was an avid alchemist. Are you now going to berate us for "crapping on the great founders of Western science" for pointing out that alchemy is poppycock? Or would you like to tone down your emotional and pointless rant a bit, and return to something resembling discussing the issue on its merits?
Maxwell, Faraday, Kelvin, and Pasteur (all post-Darwin) were also devout Christians who believed that the job of a scientist is to discover the natural laws and designs of the Creator.
Correct, which is why they never made the mistake of trying to claim that they actually had scientific evidence of the involvement of [some unnamed designer] in the history of life on Earth, or that their beliefs on the matter were the result of scientific prediction and testing.
OOPS! You just made *my* point for me. Thanks!
By scoffing at intelligent design, you are crapping on the great founders of Western science.
See above. You haven't a freaking clue.
Yet you guys have the unmitigated gall to call ID "unscientific."
Because it is unscientific. Sorry if that makes you blow your top and rant about "crapping" and stuff.
No. The judge found that the rights of the plaintiffs were violated under both the US Constitution and the Pennsylvania Constitution by the actions of the board.
I wouldn't disagree, but elegance is a subjective thing; I'm pretty sure the former slaves preferred the gross amendment(s) over the elegant Constitution plus ten.
"Protestantism was the triumph of Paul over Peter; fundamentalism is the triumph of Paul over Christ."— Will Durant
True. They wanted him to use his influence to alter legislation in Connecticut.
False. Jefferson was the sitting President (1801-1809)
Somewhat. The offending legislation was in Connecticut, Jefferson was expressing his view that the legitimate powers of government don't extend to religious opinions.
Any bet he doesn't change a thing?
"Did RussP actually *read* "the Blind Watchmaker"? Contrary to RussP's false claim, Dawkins discusses "the significance of the ratio of beneficial to harmful mutations" on quite a few pages, including pages 124-125, 129-130, 233-24, 306, and 313."
I don't have anything like enough time to reply to your entire screed, but let me just set you straight on the your most important blunder.
I reread the pages cited above, and in only one sentence does Dawkins even *mention* anything remotely relating to the ratio of harmful to beneficial mutations. All the rest of it is discussion of the mutation rate itself (the rate of copying errors). Apparently you don't understand the difference between the two ideas, but that's typical of evolutionists.
The one sentence in which Dawkins actually mentions anything about the harmful/beneficial ratio is a real hum-dinger. On page 233 (Norton, 1996 edition), he writes:
"The point is that if we consider mutations of ever-increasing magnitude, there will come a point when, the larger the mutation is, the less likely it is to be beneficial; while if we consider mutations of ever-decreasing magnitude, there will come a point when the chance of a mutation's being beneficial is 50 percent."
So the only actual number given is 50% for small mutations, but that is absolute and complete nonsense. If you think the chance of any random mutation being beneficial is 50%, you are truly clueless. That Dawkins could get away with such a blunder speaks volumes.
Again, think about the random bit flips in the Linux kernal. Yes, the possibilities are only 0 or 1, but that hardly means that a change from one to the other is as likely to help as to hurt. If you don't understand why, I suggest you actually try it, and keep doing it until you notice a benefit or a problem. Then let me know which occurs first.
Living organisms are far more complicated than the Linux kernel, of course, which means that the chances of a beneficial mutation are even less.
The emperor has no clothes. In this case, I'm not sure he even has skin!
I'm done wasting my time with you, sir.
"JW Drake et al, Genetics 148:1667-1686 (April, 1998) estimate that the average human zygote has about 64 mutations, most of which occur in "junk" DNA. Of the 6 or 7 mutations remaining, a third are "silent", that is the DNA changes but the amino acid coded for remains the same."
"In the 28 January 1999 issue of Nature, in the article "High genomic deleterious mutation rates in hominids" Walker and Kneightey estimate that the mutation rate in the effective genome is a bit higher, 4.2 mutations per individual, of which 1.6 are deleterious."
And ... and ... and? The ratio of harmful to beneficial mutations is ....? Are you implying that all mutations that are not harmful are beneficial? What about neutral mutations?
You guys don't even understand the friggin' *question*!
Are you guys all idiots? That's the distinct impression I'm starting to get.
Any bet you are clueless?
Because you keep making flawed points.
The point was not that Linux can withstand a higher or lower mutation rate than human genes.
Then perhaps you shouldn't have used it as an invalid analogy for human genes.
The point was that, if a defect or mutation occurs at random, the chances of a harmful effect are much greater than the chances of a beneficial effect (and neutral effects are essentially irrelevant by definition).
Yeah, so? Evolution quickly weeds out the harmful ones (immediately, in the case of highly harmful mutations which prevent successful embryological development, which is most of the fatal ones). Meanwhile, the beneficial ones tend to accumulate in the population. The harmful mutation rate can be *FAR* higher than the beneficial rate, and evolution can *still* proceed successfully.
So again, what is your attempted point, if any?
Let me ask you the question that I have never had answered by an evolutionist. What is the approximate ratio of harmful to beneficial mutations in nature? I will be impressed by either a general estimate or a specific estimate for any species at any time, anywhere. Just give me a frickin' ballpark number, and tell me where it is documented. Is it closer to 10:1, 1000:1, or 1,000,000:1? Thanks.
Mutation rates in mammalian genomes
Allele frequency distribution under recurrent selective sweeps
Pleiotropic effects of beneficial mutations in Escherichia coli
Hypermutability impedes cooperation in pathogenic bacteria
Role of selection in fixation of gene duplications
An empirical test of the mutational landscape model of adaptation using a single-stranded DNA virus
The rate of compensatory mutation in the DNA bacteriophage phiX174
Experimental studies of deleterious mutation in Saccharomyces cerevisiae
Inferring Deleterious-Mutation Parameters in Natural Daphnia Populations
Estimate of the Mutation Rate per Nucleotide in Humans
New estimates of the rates and effects of mildly deleterious mutation in Drosophila melanogaster
64 mutations total.
57 in junk DNA - neutral.
2-3 are silent - neutral.
2 (and probably more) harmful.
2-3 beneficial (or not depending on the environment).
Get your own calculator.
You guys don't even understand the friggin' *question*!
Try reading the friggin' answer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.