Replies

Yes, but it’s a judge we are talking about...

Exactly. Which is what is so ludicrous about his presuming the authority to falsify a religious belief, as well as his entire irrelevant analysis of whether ID was science or not, after he found a supposed violation of the Establishment Clause.

Seems to me that people define an activist judge as one who comes to a different conclusion than they hope for, so it’s no surprise that you’re trying to push that angle. However, Jones is a Republican and was a Bush appointee so you’ll need to come up with something better than whining and distorting everyday procedures to get that one to fly.

The well-worn "Jones is a Republican and a Bush appointee" canard I suppose is intended to support for the notion that we should we uncritically accept as dogma whatever "Bush-appointed Republican Judges" say when they delve into scientific minutia and theology. Who did or did not appoint Judge Jones has nothing to do with whether his ruling and/or portions of it were accurate, Constitutional, or within the scope of his authority.

Here are a few of some of just his factual errors, which he copied from the ACLU brief, I guess during one of his everyday procedures:

Table C

Selected Examples of ACLU Errors Perpetuated by Judge Jones

Judge Jones’ Decision ACLU’s Proposed “Findings of Fact” Trial Record

He [Behe] was presented with fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not “good enough.” He [Behe] was confronted with the fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books and several immunology text-book chapters about the evolution of the immune system, P256, 280, 281, 283, 747, 748, 755 and 743, and he insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution -it was "not good enough. Behe’s real testimony: These articles are excellent articles I assume. However, they do not address the question that I am posing. So it’s not that they aren't good enough. It’s simply that they are addressed to a different subject.1

...ID is not supported by any peer-reviewed research, data or publications. Intelligent design is not supported by any peer-reviewed research, data or publications. Expert witness Scott Minnich testified at trial that there were between “seven and ten” peer-reviewed papers supporting ID,2 and he discussed a pro-intelligent design article in the peer-reviewed biology journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. 3 Additional peer-reviewed publications were listed in an annotated bibliography submitted in an amicus brief accepted as part of the official court record by Judge Jones.4

In addition to failing to Besides failing to produce Microbiologist Scott Minnich testified in

produce papers in papers in peer-reviewed court showing slides of the genetic

peer-reviewed journals, ID journals, intelligent design knock-out experiments he performed in

also features no scientific also features no scientific his own laboratory at the University of

research or testing. research or testing. Idaho which found that the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex with respect to its complement of 35 genes.5 Judge Jones failed to mention any of Minnich’s experimental data supporting the irreducible complexity of the flagellum.

A Comparison of Judge Jones’ Opinion in Kitzmiller v. Dover with Plaintiffs’ Proposed “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law”
By John G. West and David K. DeWolf *

Judge Jones’ Decision	ACLU’s Proposed “Findings of Fact”	Trial Record
He [Behe] was presented with fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not “good enough.”	He [Behe] was confronted with the fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books and several immunology text-book chapters about the evolution of the immune system, P256, 280, 281, 283, 747, 748, 755 and 743, and he insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution -it was "not good enough.	Behe’*s real testimony:* These articles are excellent articles I assume. However, they do not address the question that I am posing. So it’s not that they aren't good enough. It’s simply that they are addressed to a different subject.1
...ID is not supported by any peer-reviewed research, data or publications.	Intelligent design is not supported by any peer-reviewed research, data or publications.	Expert witness Scott Minnich testified at trial that there were between “seven and ten” peer-reviewed papers supporting ID,2 and he discussed a pro-intelligent design article in the peer-reviewed biology journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. 3 Additional peer-reviewed publications were listed in an annotated bibliography submitted in an amicus brief accepted as part of the official court record by Judge Jones.4
In addition to failing to	Besides failing to produce	Microbiologist Scott Minnich testified in
produce papers in	papers in peer-reviewed	court showing slides of the genetic
peer-reviewed journals, ID	journals, intelligent design	knock-out experiments he performed in
also features no scientific	also features no scientific	his own laboratory at the University of
research or testing.	research or testing.	Idaho which found that the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex with respect to its complement of 35 genes.5 Judge Jones failed to mention any of Minnich’s experimental data supporting the irreducible complexity of the flagellum.

Do you really want federal judges deciding what is and is not science? Do you really want federal judges deciding what are true and false religious beliefs? Be careful what you ask for. You just might get it.

Cordially,

Deciding whether ‘ID is science’ was central to the case rather than entirely irrelevant as you claim. If ID could demonstrate that it was legitimate science, then it could reasonably ask that it be included in the science curriculum at Dover. The painful part for ID’er (amongst many) was when it was shown concusively that ‘Pandas’ was a rehash of previous creationist texts.

As to the stuff about Minnich, most of those ‘7 or 10’ (knock yourself out guys!) articles in peer reviewed publications are review articles and contain little or no orignal science. Let’s hear from Behe on this matter, who testified on the stand at Dover that “there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred.” I think we can safely say that the criticism of Jones’ findings is nitpicking, at best.

I don’t believe that we should uncritcially accept the pronouncements of judges. For that reason, I’ve read the transcripts of the trial. It’s obvious that Jones got the constitiutional aspect absolutely correct. The evidence that ID is not science and has a theological underpinning was also compelling and well within the scope of his findings.

Cheers.