Dover Penn ID trial - Page 12

tsg · 8th November 2005, 01:31 PM

Originally Posted by Melendwyr

Yes, but as he's trying to convince people who won't permit the hypothesis to be taught if it requires the Christian God or any other god, he's stated that the IDer can have other-than-divine origins. Aliens, for example.

I believe that was asked during the trial itself. I could be mistaken.

Behe states that the designer could be aliens or time travelers, but no one in the ID movement doesn't believe it's not God. As Rothschild said in his closing argument, "Intelligent Design could not come closer to naming the designer if it was spotted the letters 'G' and 'O'."

What makes it a religious view is that it relies on a supernatural creator, which is the same reason creationism was shot down in Edwards.

Melendwyr · 8th November 2005, 01:39 PM

Originally Posted by tsg

Behe states that the designer could be aliens or time travelers, but no one in the ID movement doesn't believe it's not God.

I think you have an extra negative in that statement... or do all IDers believe it wasn't God?

CFLarsen · 8th November 2005, 01:56 PM

Originally Posted by Melendwyr

I think you have an extra negative in that statement... or do all IDers believe it wasn't God?

Can you find me one who doesn't believe it?

The White Crow argument.

drkitten · 8th November 2005, 02:00 PM

Originally Posted by Melendwyr

Yes, Behe has said that the Intelligent Designer doesn't need to have been any particular kind of god.

Yes. Like much of the rest of the defense testimony, this is a deliberate attempt to deceive.

tsg · 8th November 2005, 02:01 PM

Originally Posted by Melendwyr

I think you have an extra negative in that statement... or do all IDers believe it wasn't God?

Or not enough. No ID'ers don't believe it isn't not God.

hammegk · 8th November 2005, 02:24 PM

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

Can you find me one who doesn't believe it?

The White Crow argument.

Here's one, although I'm sure we could argue about what defines 'god'.

Originally Posted by tsg

... it relies on a supernatural creator ...

For objective idealists like myself, if it effects or affects what we perceive as the universe, it cannot be supernatural.

BillHoyt · 8th November 2005, 02:30 PM

[quote=CFLarsen;1264778]Can you find me one who doesn't believe it?
QUOTE]
They'll rarely, if ever, admit it. But the choices are clear: God or not-god. If it is not-god, then it must be subject to their original contentions about complexity requiring an intelligent designer. The not-god answer is just begging the question.

chipmunk stew · 8th November 2005, 05:47 PM

Originally Posted by hammegk

Here's one, although I'm sure we could argue about what defines 'god'.

For objective idealists like myself, if it effects or affects what we perceive as the universe, it cannot be supernatural.

This is as close as I've ever heard you state your beliefs. Just for clarification (and this is not a set-up, just an honest request for clarification) are you stating that you entertain the possibility of ID, at least in principal, and that the designer in question, while perhaps operating under laws we have not identified, is not necessarily the supernatural God of a particular religion, but is rather of nature, "meta-natural", perhaps?

tsg · 8th November 2005, 09:55 PM

Unoffical election results as far as I can tell from here.

From what I can find out, the Dover Board of Ed had 4 four-year-term seats open, 3 two-year-term seats and one unexpired two-year-term seat to fill.

Alan Bonsell came in dead last for a four-year seat. All the four-year seats went to Democrats, Bryan Rehm being one of them. Sheila Harkins also came in dead last for a two-year seat. Democrats also won all of those. Only two people ran for the unexpired seats. The Democrat won it.

In fact, all the Democrats won, and all the Republicans lost. Take that for what you will.

These results are unofficial and I might be dead wrong about the number of seats.

ETA: Apparently Bill Buckingham wasn't up for re-election.

CFLarsen · 8th November 2005, 11:20 PM

Originally Posted by hammegk

Here's one, although I'm sure we could argue about what defines 'god'.

Rrrrright. Not without a condition.

Mojo · 9th November 2005, 01:18 AM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...110900114.html

Dragon · 9th November 2005, 01:41 AM

Originally Posted by Mojo

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...110900114.html

and Wikinews

Quote:

All eight open school board seats were won by Dover CARES coalition candidates. Two candidates who had previously voted as school board members to include intelligent design in the public school science curriculum received the fewest votes in Tuesday's election. One of the newly elected board members is Bryan Rehm, a parent of a Dover school student. Rehm, along with ten other parents, initiated a law suit against the school board for its decision to insert Intelligent Design into the science curriculum.

Upchurch · 9th November 2005, 01:22 PM

I win! Internet, come to Papa!

But I'll be a good winner, so free title changes are still on me.

Ducky · 9th November 2005, 01:57 PM

As I posted here, my favorite statement about this election was from one of the losers not reelected:

Quote:

School board member David Napierskie, who lost Tuesday, said the vote wasn’t just about ideology.

“Some people felt intelligent design shouldn’t be taught and others were concerned about having tax money spent on the lawsuit,” he said.

You mean the lawsuit started over your ideology?

BillHoyt · 9th November 2005, 02:10 PM

Originally Posted by fowlsound

As I posted here, my favorite statement about this election was from one of the losers not reelected:

You mean the lawsuit started over your ideology?

Wow! He MUST be joking. No, never mind, I said that about the original school board decision. I hope I don't have to say that about the judge's finding.

Meanwhile, of course, Kansas, taking full advantage of the spotlight being off them, reverses course again, heading straight for the Laughingstock Lounge. I feel for the good, rational people of Kansas, and hope the last one out turns the lights off. The rest don't need the lights on. They can't read anyway.

chipmunk stew · 9th November 2005, 04:53 PM

Originally Posted by chipmunk stew

This is as close as I've ever heard you state your beliefs. Just for clarification (and this is not a set-up, just an honest request for clarification) are you stating that you entertain the possibility of ID, at least in principal, and that the designer in question, while perhaps operating under laws we have not identified, is not necessarily the supernatural God of a particular religion, but is rather of nature, "meta-natural", perhaps?

Well? Am I close?

hammegk · 9th November 2005, 05:40 PM

"Meta-natural"; don't believe I've heard that one before. Could be; I am a bit partial to a somewhat extended version of Bergsonian elan-vital (although Huxley has suggested what some accept as a stinging rejoinder to Bergson's idea

).

Mojo · 10th November 2005, 01:18 AM

Where does the effective removal of the old school leave the case? If the plaintiffs win, the new board will presumably not want to appeal the decision. Where does this leave the case as a precedent? What other courts is Judge Jones's decision binding on?

Ideally this would have gone all the way up to the SC and set a proper precedent, binding on all courts in the US.

sphenisc · 10th November 2005, 04:21 AM

Originally Posted by chipmunk stew

This is as close as I've ever heard you state your beliefs. Just for clarification (and this is not a set-up, just an honest request for clarification) are you stating that you entertain the possibility of ID, at least in principal, and that the designer in question, while perhaps operating under laws we have not identified, is not necessarily the supernatural God of a particular religion, but is rather of nature, "meta-natural", perhaps?

I can sign up for that as well.

vbloke · 10th November 2005, 04:49 AM

there's an interesting article linking ID and eonomics in todays Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/lastw...564377,00.html

Ed · 10th November 2005, 04:53 AM

Originally Posted by Mojo

Where does the effective removal of the old school leave the case? If the plaintiffs win, the new board will presumably not want to appeal the decision. Where does this leave the case as a precedent? What other courts is Judge Jones's decision binding on?

Ideally this would have gone all the way up to the SC and set a proper precedent, binding on all courts in the US.

The Board is being sued, not individuals on the board so the case goes on. The difference is, (as cited in the paper yesterday for which I have no reference) that the new board will 1) rescind the stupid ruling that got them in trouble in the first place and 2) not appeal a loss.

Dragon · 10th November 2005, 04:58 AM

Originally Posted by vbloke

there's an interesting article linking ID and eonomics in todays Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/lastw...564377,00.html

Delicious, especially the last two paragraphs -

Mojo · 10th November 2005, 06:20 AM

Originally Posted by Ed

The Board is being sued, not individuals on the board so the case goes on. The difference is, (as cited in the paper yesterday for which I have no reference) that the new board will 1) rescind the stupid ruling that got them in trouble in the first place and 2) not appeal a loss.

That's the problem. It won't go up to a higher court. Will a verdict at this level be useable as a precedent in, say, Kansas?

Ed · 10th November 2005, 06:33 AM

Originally Posted by Mojo

That's the problem. It won't go up to a higher court. Will a verdict at this level be useable as a precedent in, say, Kansas?

I guess that it can be cited as case law but there is nothing binding, I think. It depends on how well the judge supports his decision. If he can flay the Board with a detailed analysis of their arguments it will have some influence I am sure. After all, if he can see thru their arguments and make his reasoning clear, then it would be up to another judge to go him one better if they disagree on the outcome.

Upchurch · 10th November 2005, 08:45 AM

Originally Posted by Ed

The Board is being sued, not individuals on the board so the case goes on.

Could the plaintiffs conceivably still drop the suit, even though the final arguments have already been made?

I'm guessing they don't want to drop it given that (I think) they are likely to win. That would mean a win in both the courts and the polls and strengthen the social and legal arguments* against ID in the science classroom.

* as opposed to merely the scientific argument

Spidey13 · 10th November 2005, 10:58 AM

KingMerv00 · 10th November 2005, 11:32 AM

Originally Posted by Mojo

That's the problem. It won't go up to a higher court. Will a verdict at this level be useable as a precedent in, say, Kansas?

It is in federal court so it would be considered a persuasive authority rather than a mandatory authority. Still, better than nothin I say.

If it DID go to trial in Kansas and they contradicted the Dover ruling, perhaps the Supreme Court would hear a new case directly to put the issue to rest once and for all.

Upchurch · 10th November 2005, 11:47 AM

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

to put the issue to rest once and for all.

That's optimistic.

KingMerv00 · 10th November 2005, 11:48 AM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

That's optimistic.

You're wrong. That's insane.

Edit: What the hell was I thinking?

Upchurch · 10th November 2005, 11:53 AM

Behe made it look easy. Says so himself.

Quote:

As far as the "ordeal" goes, despite what the LA Times article makes it seem, it was actually all rather exhilirating. I rather enjoyed myself on the witness stand, because I got to explain in very great detail the argument for intelligent design, and the other side had to sit there and listen.

The cross examination was fun too, and showed that the other side really does have only rhetoric and bluster. At one point the lawyer for the other side who was cross examining me ostentatiously piled a bunch of papers on the witness stand that putatively had to do with the evolution of the immune system. But it was obvious from a cursory examination that they were more examples of hand waving speculations, which I had earlier discussed in my direct testimony. So I was able to smile and say that they had nothing more to say than the other papers. I then thought to myself, that here the NCSE, ACLU, and everyone in the world who is against ID had their shot to show where we were wrong, and just trotted out more speculation. It actually made me feel real good about things.

KingMerv00 · 10th November 2005, 11:57 AM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Could the plaintiffs conceivably still drop the suit, even though the final arguments have already been made?

I'm guessing they don't want to drop it given that (I think) they are likely to win. That would mean a win in both the courts and the polls and strengthen the social and legal arguments* against ID in the science classroom.

* as opposed to merely the scientific argument

I believe you could drop the case, but only in theory. It would be at the discretion of the court and they would be very unlikely to grant a withdrawl at this stage since it wouldn't serve the public interest.

Did I say "very unlikely"? I meant "basically impossible".

Bronze Dog · 10th November 2005, 11:59 AM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Behe made it look easy. Says so himself.

Funny, considering that the very possibility of speculation into mechanisms destroys his argument.

Mojo · 10th November 2005, 12:08 PM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Behe made it look easy. Says so himself.

Quote:

As far as the "ordeal" goes, despite what the LA Times article makes it seem, it was actually all rather exhilirating. I rather enjoyed myself on the witness stand, because I got to explain in very great detail the argument for intelligent design, and the other side had to sit there and listen.

The cross examination was fun too, and showed that the other side really does have only rhetoric and bluster. At one point the lawyer for the other side who was cross examining me ostentatiously piled a bunch of papers on the witness stand that putatively had to do with the evolution of the immune system. But it was obvious from a cursory examination that they were more examples of hand waving speculations, which I had earlier discussed in my direct testimony. So I was able to smile and say that they had nothing more to say than the other papers. I then thought to myself, that here the NCSE, ACLU, and everyone in the world who is against ID had their shot to show where we were wrong, and just trotted out more speculation. It actually made me feel real good about things.

DavidJames · 10th November 2005, 12:08 PM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Behe made it look easy. Says so himself.

His comments are unbelievable. Perhaps Behe should read the transcripts. Quite frankly, he came off as an idiot.

KingMerv00 · 10th November 2005, 12:10 PM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Behe made it look easy. Says so himself.

%&#@!

You know, of all of the IDers I think Behe bothers me the most. Unlike alot of them *cough* HOVIND *cough* the man has a real scientific education yet the scientific method is lost on him.

Upchurch · 10th November 2005, 12:12 PM

Originally Posted by DavidJames

His comments are unbelievable. Perhaps Behe should read the transcripts. Quite frankly, he came off as an idiot.

What? You expect him to stop cherry-picking now? It'd ruin his career. ...sorta.

Melendwyr · 10th November 2005, 12:30 PM

As someone on this forum is fond of saying, the problem with intellectual KO's is that the recipient usually doesn't notice them.

In Behe's mind, all of the stupid things he believes make perfect sense. From that perspective, it's clear he performed brilliantly on the stand. To be able to recognize he was made a fool of, he'd have to be able to recognize that he's spewing nonsense.

This inability to view one's own beliefs objectively is why a lot of scientific progress involves waiting for the oldguard to die off.

delphi_ote · 10th November 2005, 12:39 PM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

It'd ruin his career. ...sorta.

Actually, he'd just be doing his job. He's a professional moron.

drkitten · 10th November 2005, 01:08 PM

Originally Posted by delphi_ote

Actually, he'd just be doing his job. He's a professional moron.

You know, I think that's deeply unfair.

The guy's a biology professor at a Research I university. If you're saying that he's a professional moron, what are you saying about his colleagues?

Melendwyr · 10th November 2005, 01:25 PM

Originally Posted by drkitten

The guy's a biology professor at a Research I university. If you're saying that he's a professional moron, what are you saying about his colleagues?

That they're employed at the same department as a professional moron?

8th November 2005, 01:31 PM	#441
tsg Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 6,771	Originally Posted by Melendwyr Yes, but as he's trying to convince people who won't permit the hypothesis to be taught if it requires the Christian God or any other god, he's stated that the IDer can have other-than-divine origins. Aliens, for example. I believe that was asked during the trial itself. I could be mistaken. Behe states that the designer could be aliens or time travelers, but no one in the ID movement doesn't believe it's not God. As Rothschild said in his closing argument, "Intelligent Design could not come closer to naming the designer if it was spotted the letters 'G' and 'O'." What makes it a religious view is that it relies on a supernatural creator, which is the same reason creationism was shot down in Edwards.
tsg Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 6,771	__________________ Being offended by someone questioning your beliefs is a sign that you should be questioning them. In the beginning there was nothing. And the Lord said "Let There Be Light!" And still there was nothing, but at least now you could see it.

8th November 2005, 01:39 PM	#442
Melendwyr Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 2,064	Originally Posted by tsg Behe states that the designer could be aliens or time travelers, but no one in the ID movement doesn't believe it's not God. I think you have an extra negative in that statement... or do all IDers believe it wasn't God?
Melendwyr Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 2,064

8th November 2005, 02:01 PM	#445
tsg Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 6,771	Originally Posted by Melendwyr I think you have an extra negative in that statement... or do all IDers believe it wasn't God? Or not enough. No ID'ers don't believe it isn't not God.
tsg Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 6,771	__________________ Being offended by someone questioning your beliefs is a sign that you should be questioning them. In the beginning there was nothing. And the Lord said "Let There Be Light!" And still there was nothing, but at least now you could see it.

8th November 2005, 02:24 PM	#446
hammegk Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 8,413	Originally Posted by CFLarsen Can you find me one who doesn't believe it? The White Crow argument. Here's one, although I'm sure we could argue about what defines 'god'. Originally Posted by tsg ... it relies on a supernatural creator ... For objective idealists like myself, if it effects or affects what we perceive as the universe, it cannot be supernatural.
hammegk Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 8,413

8th November 2005, 02:30 PM	#447
BillHoyt Guest Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 5,758	[quote=CFLarsen;1264778]Can you find me one who doesn't believe it? QUOTE] They'll rarely, if ever, admit it. But the choices are clear: God or not-god. If it is not-god, then it must be subject to their original contentions about complexity requiring an intelligent designer. The not-god answer is just begging the question.
BillHoyt Guest Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 5,758

8th November 2005, 01:56 PM	#443
CFLarsen Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 42,371	Originally Posted by Melendwyr I think you have an extra negative in that statement... or do all IDers believe it wasn't God? Can you find me one who doesn't believe it? The White Crow argument.

8th November 2005, 02:00 PM	#444
drkitten Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 21,629	Originally Posted by Melendwyr Yes, Behe has said that the Intelligent Designer doesn't need to have been any particular kind of god. Yes. Like much of the rest of the defense testimony, this is a deliberate attempt to deceive.

8th November 2005, 05:47 PM	#448
chipmunk stew Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 7,448	Originally Posted by hammegk Here's one, although I'm sure we could argue about what defines 'god'. For objective idealists like myself, if it effects or affects what we perceive as the universe, it cannot be supernatural. This is as close as I've ever heard you state your beliefs. Just for clarification (and this is not a set-up, just an honest request for clarification) are you stating that you entertain the possibility of ID, at least in principal, and that the designer in question, while perhaps operating under laws we have not identified, is not necessarily the supernatural God of a particular religion, but is rather of nature, "meta-natural", perhaps?

8th November 2005, 09:55 PM	#449
tsg Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 6,771	Unoffical election results as far as I can tell from here. From what I can find out, the Dover Board of Ed had 4 four-year-term seats open, 3 two-year-term seats and one unexpired two-year-term seat to fill. Alan Bonsell came in dead last for a four-year seat. All the four-year seats went to Democrats, Bryan Rehm being one of them. Sheila Harkins also came in dead last for a two-year seat. Democrats also won all of those. Only two people ran for the unexpired seats. The Democrat won it. In fact, all the Democrats won, and all the Republicans lost. Take that for what you will. These results are unofficial and I might be dead wrong about the number of seats. ETA: Apparently Bill Buckingham wasn't up for re-election.
tsg Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 6,771	__________________ Being offended by someone questioning your beliefs is a sign that you should be questioning them. In the beginning there was nothing. And the Lord said "Let There Be Light!" And still there was nothing, but at least now you could see it.

8th November 2005, 11:20 PM	#450
CFLarsen Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 42,371	Originally Posted by hammegk Here's one, although I'm sure we could argue about what defines 'god'. Rrrrright. Not without a condition.

9th November 2005, 01:18 AM	#451
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nor Flanden Posts: 39,476	http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...110900114.html
	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

9th November 2005, 01:41 AM	#452
Dragon Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 1,639	Originally Posted by Mojo http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...110900114.html and Wikinews Quote: All eight open school board seats were won by Dover CARES coalition candidates. Two candidates who had previously voted as school board members to include intelligent design in the public school science curriculum received the fewest votes in Tuesday's election. One of the newly elected board members is Bryan Rehm, a parent of a Dover school student. Rehm, along with ten other parents, initiated a law suit against the school board for its decision to insert Intelligent Design into the science curriculum.
Dragon Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 1,639

9th November 2005, 01:22 PM	#453
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 34,265	I win! Internet, come to Papa! But I'll be a good winner, so free title changes are still on me.
	__________________ "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes. "It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.

9th November 2005, 01:57 PM	#454
Ducky Guest Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 11,933	As I posted here, my favorite statement about this election was from one of the losers not reelected: Quote: School board member David Napierskie, who lost Tuesday, said the vote wasn’t just about ideology. “Some people felt intelligent design shouldn’t be taught and others were concerned about having tax money spent on the lawsuit,” he said. You mean the lawsuit started over your ideology?
Ducky Guest Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 11,933

9th November 2005, 02:10 PM	#455
BillHoyt Guest Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 5,758	Originally Posted by fowlsound As I posted here, my favorite statement about this election was from one of the losers not reelected: You mean the lawsuit started over your ideology? Wow! He MUST be joking. No, never mind, I said that about the original school board decision. I hope I don't have to say that about the judge's finding. Meanwhile, of course, Kansas, taking full advantage of the spotlight being off them, reverses course again, heading straight for the Laughingstock Lounge. I feel for the good, rational people of Kansas, and hope the last one out turns the lights off. The rest don't need the lights on. They can't read anyway.
BillHoyt Guest Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 5,758

9th November 2005, 04:53 PM	#456
chipmunk stew Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 7,448	Originally Posted by chipmunk stew This is as close as I've ever heard you state your beliefs. Just for clarification (and this is not a set-up, just an honest request for clarification) are you stating that you entertain the possibility of ID, at least in principal, and that the designer in question, while perhaps operating under laws we have not identified, is not necessarily the supernatural God of a particular religion, but is rather of nature, "meta-natural", perhaps? Well? Am I close?

9th November 2005, 05:40 PM	#457
hammegk Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 8,413	"Meta-natural"; don't believe I've heard that one before. Could be; I am a bit partial to a somewhat extended version of Bergsonian elan-vital (although Huxley has suggested what some accept as a stinging rejoinder to Bergson's idea ).
hammegk Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 8,413

10th November 2005, 01:18 AM	#458
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nor Flanden Posts: 39,476	Where does the effective removal of the old school leave the case? If the plaintiffs win, the new board will presumably not want to appeal the decision. Where does this leave the case as a precedent? What other courts is Judge Jones's decision binding on? Ideally this would have gone all the way up to the SC and set a proper precedent, binding on all courts in the US.
	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

10th November 2005, 04:21 AM	#459
sphenisc Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 6,051	Originally Posted by chipmunk stew This is as close as I've ever heard you state your beliefs. Just for clarification (and this is not a set-up, just an honest request for clarification) are you stating that you entertain the possibility of ID, at least in principal, and that the designer in question, while perhaps operating under laws we have not identified, is not necessarily the supernatural God of a particular religion, but is rather of nature, "meta-natural", perhaps? I can sign up for that as well.
sphenisc Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 6,051

10th November 2005, 04:49 AM	#460
vbloke Disturbing shirts Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 717	there's an interesting article linking ID and eonomics in todays Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/lastw...564377,00.html
vbloke Disturbing shirts Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 717	__________________ http://intelligentdesignr.org.uk Who Is The intelligent designr? http://www.ukskeptics.com Skepticism in the UK

10th November 2005, 04:53 AM	#461
Ed Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,658	Originally Posted by Mojo Where does the effective removal of the old school leave the case? If the plaintiffs win, the new board will presumably not want to appeal the decision. Where does this leave the case as a precedent? What other courts is Judge Jones's decision binding on? Ideally this would have gone all the way up to the SC and set a proper precedent, binding on all courts in the US. The Board is being sued, not individuals on the board so the case goes on. The difference is, (as cited in the paper yesterday for which I have no reference) that the new board will 1) rescind the stupid ruling that got them in trouble in the first place and 2) not appeal a loss.
Ed Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,658

10th November 2005, 04:58 AM	#462
Dragon Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 1,639	Originally Posted by vbloke there's an interesting article linking ID and eonomics in todays Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/lastw...564377,00.html Delicious, especially the last two paragraphs -
Dragon Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 1,639

10th November 2005, 06:20 AM	#463
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nor Flanden Posts: 39,476	Originally Posted by Ed The Board is being sued, not individuals on the board so the case goes on. The difference is, (as cited in the paper yesterday for which I have no reference) that the new board will 1) rescind the stupid ruling that got them in trouble in the first place and 2) not appeal a loss. That's the problem. It won't go up to a higher court. Will a verdict at this level be useable as a precedent in, say, Kansas?
	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

10th November 2005, 06:33 AM	#464
Ed Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,658	Originally Posted by Mojo That's the problem. It won't go up to a higher court. Will a verdict at this level be useable as a precedent in, say, Kansas? I guess that it can be cited as case law but there is nothing binding, I think. It depends on how well the judge supports his decision. If he can flay the Board with a detailed analysis of their arguments it will have some influence I am sure. After all, if he can see thru their arguments and make his reasoning clear, then it would be up to another judge to go him one better if they disagree on the outcome.
Ed Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,658

10th November 2005, 08:45 AM	#465
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 34,265	Originally Posted by Ed The Board is being sued, not individuals on the board so the case goes on. Could the plaintiffs conceivably still drop the suit, even though the final arguments have already been made? I'm guessing they don't want to drop it given that (I think) they are likely to win. That would mean a win in both the courts and the polls and strengthen the social and legal arguments* against ID in the science classroom. * as opposed to merely the scientific argument
	__________________ "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes. "It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.

10th November 2005, 10:58 AM	#466
Spidey13 Pastor of Muppets Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 3,457
	__________________ "I love you like a fat kid love cake." - 50 Cent

10th November 2005, 11:32 AM	#467
KingMerv00 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Philadelphia Posts: 14,462	Originally Posted by Mojo That's the problem. It won't go up to a higher court. Will a verdict at this level be useable as a precedent in, say, Kansas? It is in federal court so it would be considered a persuasive authority rather than a mandatory authority. Still, better than nothin I say. If it DID go to trial in Kansas and they contradicted the Dover ruling, perhaps the Supreme Court would hear a new case directly to put the issue to rest once and for all.

10th November 2005, 11:47 AM	#468
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 34,265	Originally Posted by KingMerv00 to put the issue to rest once and for all. That's optimistic.
	__________________ "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes. "It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.

10th November 2005, 11:48 AM	#469
KingMerv00 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Philadelphia Posts: 14,462	Originally Posted by Upchurch That's optimistic. You're wrong. That's insane. Edit: What the hell was I thinking?

10th November 2005, 11:53 AM	#470
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 34,265	Behe made it look easy. Says so himself. Quote: As far as the "ordeal" goes, despite what the LA Times article makes it seem, it was actually all rather exhilirating. I rather enjoyed myself on the witness stand, because I got to explain in very great detail the argument for intelligent design, and the other side had to sit there and listen. The cross examination was fun too, and showed that the other side really does have only rhetoric and bluster. At one point the lawyer for the other side who was cross examining me ostentatiously piled a bunch of papers on the witness stand that putatively had to do with the evolution of the immune system. But it was obvious from a cursory examination that they were more examples of hand waving speculations, which I had earlier discussed in my direct testimony. So I was able to smile and say that they had nothing more to say than the other papers. I then thought to myself, that here the NCSE, ACLU, and everyone in the world who is against ID had their shot to show where we were wrong, and just trotted out more speculation. It actually made me feel real good about things.
	__________________ "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes. "It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.

10th November 2005, 11:57 AM	#471
KingMerv00 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Philadelphia Posts: 14,462	Originally Posted by Upchurch Could the plaintiffs conceivably still drop the suit, even though the final arguments have already been made? I'm guessing they don't want to drop it given that (I think) they are likely to win. That would mean a win in both the courts and the polls and strengthen the social and legal arguments* against ID in the science classroom. * as opposed to merely the scientific argument I believe you could drop the case, but only in theory. It would be at the discretion of the court and they would be very unlikely to grant a withdrawl at this stage since it wouldn't serve the public interest. Did I say "very unlikely"? I meant "basically impossible".

10th November 2005, 11:59 AM	#472
Bronze Dog Copper Alloy Canid Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 4,993	Originally Posted by Upchurch Behe made it look easy. Says so himself. Funny, considering that the very possibility of speculation into mechanisms destroys his argument.
	__________________ Stop Sylvia Browne Warning: Beware of contaminated water supplies! Suspected source of contamination: Sarah-I A non-Rockstar Rambler and dissector of Doggerel

10th November 2005, 12:08 PM	#473
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nor Flanden Posts: 39,476	Originally Posted by Upchurch Behe made it look easy. Says so himself. Quote: As far as the "ordeal" goes, despite what the LA Times article makes it seem, it was actually all rather exhilirating. I rather enjoyed myself on the witness stand, because I got to explain in very great detail the argument for intelligent design, and the other side had to sit there and listen. The cross examination was fun too, and showed that the other side really does have only rhetoric and bluster. At one point the lawyer for the other side who was cross examining me ostentatiously piled a bunch of papers on the witness stand that putatively had to do with the evolution of the immune system. But it was obvious from a cursory examination that they were more examples of hand waving speculations, which I had earlier discussed in my direct testimony. So I was able to smile and say that they had nothing more to say than the other papers. I then thought to myself, that here the NCSE, ACLU, and everyone in the world who is against ID had their shot to show where we were wrong, and just trotted out more speculation. It actually made me feel real good about things.
	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

10th November 2005, 12:08 PM	#474
DavidJames Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Front Range, CO Posts: 10,493	Originally Posted by Upchurch Behe made it look easy. Says so himself. His comments are unbelievable. Perhaps Behe should read the transcripts. Quite frankly, he came off as an idiot.
	__________________ For 15 years I never put anyone on ignore. I felt it important to see everyone's view point. Finally I realized the value of some views can be measured in negative terms and were personally destructive.

10th November 2005, 12:10 PM	#475
KingMerv00 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Philadelphia Posts: 14,462	Originally Posted by Upchurch Behe made it look easy. Says so himself. %&#@! You know, of all of the IDers I think Behe bothers me the most. Unlike alot of them **cough HOVIND cough** the man has a real scientific education yet the scientific method is lost on him.