(no subject)
Dec. 21st, 2005 02:12 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
trinityvixenRemember how I was gonna marry that old dude who wrote the really awesome article on why ID supporters aren't worthy to suck Darwin's withered, rotted testicles? I am sooooo gonna marry Judge Jones (the guy who told the ID people in Dover, PA to suck failure). In his decision, he did a history of science analysis to determin ID was NOT science, and he did it with as much logic and common sense as is possible when arguing with idiots.
Ahem, a sample of this magnificent bit of law (paraphrased because I couldn't find the exact comments online yet):
Since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, "science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena," Jones writes, noting that the scientific revolution was explicitly about the rejection of "revelation" in favor of empirical evidence.
Since then, he writes, "science has been a discipline in which testability, rather than any ecclesiastical authority or philosophical coherence, has been the measure of a scientific idea's worth."
As part of that fact-based approach, Jones emphasizes, science goes out of its way to avoid a search for "meaning" or "purpose."
Still not convinced this man is marriage worthy? I direct you to his remarkably keen grasp of the nature of science, it's position in the academic pantheon, and his magnificent linguistic skills, defining the lexicon to the understanding of all, even the ID dummies:
The judge also cites several ways in which he says proponents of intelligent design failed to think logically, each example offering a take-home lesson that could prove useful to people trying to rebut challenges to evolutionary theory.
First, Jones writes, people would be well advised to remember that an argument against one thing cannot necessarily be interpreted as an argument for something else. For example, the fact that the fossil record is incomplete is not evidence that human beings must have been created in their current form.
The world, in other words, is not a zero-sum, dichotomous one in which a vote against one candidate equals a vote for another.
"Just because scientists cannot explain today how biological systems evolved does not mean that they cannot, and will not, be able to explain them tomorrow," the judge says.
Ahhhh........I think I'm in love, ladies and gents. But wait! There's more! On the issue of that hobgoblin known as "irreducible complexity" (the idea that certain complex organs/systems could not possibly have evolved because all the components are not adventitious to survival on their own):
Jones notes that just because a complex organ cannot work today with one component removed, that does not mean the component did not evolve independently to serve a different purpose and later took on a new role when combined with other parts. The judge notes multiple examples involving the immune system, the blood clotting system, and even the bacterial flagellum itself, in which this appears to have been the case.
Irreducible complexity is in many ways a theological argument -- and a rather old one. A theologian testified at the trial that Thomas Aquinas argued in the 13th century that wherever there is complex design, there must be a designer, and that because nature is complex, it must also have a designer.
Oh thank you, Judge Jones, THANK YOU. Remember kiddies, just because it doesn't seem important now doesn't mean it won't be in the future (or wasn't back in the day--hello, appendix!).
Oh, Oh God, I can't take any more of this, I'm so hot for this guy already...okay, maybe just one or two more...
Intelligent design's views on how the world got to be the way it is offer no testable facts, choosing instead to rely on authoritative statements. Adherents posit, for example, that animals were abruptly created (many in the same form in which they exist today) by a supernatural designer.
The court found that intelligent-design documents are quite open about the movement's goal of changing "the ground rules" of science to accommodate much more than natural phenomena -- a broadening so great, one witness for intelligent design testified, that science would embrace even astrology.
"Science cannot be defined differently for Dover students than it is defined in the scientific community," Jones writes.
Stop that, you bad boy! I am sooooo going to have your love babies. But let's stick it to 'em hard and good before we're done, right? Right.
"As no evidence in the record indicates that any other scientific proposition's validity rests on belief in God . . . ID is a religious and not a scientific proposition," Jones notes in his opinion.
Yesssssss, precious. That's right, IDers. If you want to rewrite one science to suit God's will, you have to rewrite others. So, it's back to alchemy for you. No, you can't have any of my physics or chemistry. You have to make your own chemicals (try boiling down your urine, the old alchemists really got a kick out of that), and you can't fly in my planes or enjoy the medicines derived from tricking bacteria into producing antibodies. You can also suck my genotyped genetic diseases, though there, I suppose, you have the upper hand. When a man goes senile at like 45 fom Huntington's, you get to have fun pretending God cursed his line or some such. Me, I'll be over here evolving.
Ahem, a sample of this magnificent bit of law (paraphrased because I couldn't find the exact comments online yet):
Since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, "science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena," Jones writes, noting that the scientific revolution was explicitly about the rejection of "revelation" in favor of empirical evidence.
Since then, he writes, "science has been a discipline in which testability, rather than any ecclesiastical authority or philosophical coherence, has been the measure of a scientific idea's worth."
As part of that fact-based approach, Jones emphasizes, science goes out of its way to avoid a search for "meaning" or "purpose."
Still not convinced this man is marriage worthy? I direct you to his remarkably keen grasp of the nature of science, it's position in the academic pantheon, and his magnificent linguistic skills, defining the lexicon to the understanding of all, even the ID dummies:
The judge also cites several ways in which he says proponents of intelligent design failed to think logically, each example offering a take-home lesson that could prove useful to people trying to rebut challenges to evolutionary theory.
First, Jones writes, people would be well advised to remember that an argument against one thing cannot necessarily be interpreted as an argument for something else. For example, the fact that the fossil record is incomplete is not evidence that human beings must have been created in their current form.
The world, in other words, is not a zero-sum, dichotomous one in which a vote against one candidate equals a vote for another.
"Just because scientists cannot explain today how biological systems evolved does not mean that they cannot, and will not, be able to explain them tomorrow," the judge says.
Ahhhh........I think I'm in love, ladies and gents. But wait! There's more! On the issue of that hobgoblin known as "irreducible complexity" (the idea that certain complex organs/systems could not possibly have evolved because all the components are not adventitious to survival on their own):
Jones notes that just because a complex organ cannot work today with one component removed, that does not mean the component did not evolve independently to serve a different purpose and later took on a new role when combined with other parts. The judge notes multiple examples involving the immune system, the blood clotting system, and even the bacterial flagellum itself, in which this appears to have been the case.
Irreducible complexity is in many ways a theological argument -- and a rather old one. A theologian testified at the trial that Thomas Aquinas argued in the 13th century that wherever there is complex design, there must be a designer, and that because nature is complex, it must also have a designer.
Oh thank you, Judge Jones, THANK YOU. Remember kiddies, just because it doesn't seem important now doesn't mean it won't be in the future (or wasn't back in the day--hello, appendix!).
Oh, Oh God, I can't take any more of this, I'm so hot for this guy already...okay, maybe just one or two more...
Intelligent design's views on how the world got to be the way it is offer no testable facts, choosing instead to rely on authoritative statements. Adherents posit, for example, that animals were abruptly created (many in the same form in which they exist today) by a supernatural designer.
The court found that intelligent-design documents are quite open about the movement's goal of changing "the ground rules" of science to accommodate much more than natural phenomena -- a broadening so great, one witness for intelligent design testified, that science would embrace even astrology.
"Science cannot be defined differently for Dover students than it is defined in the scientific community," Jones writes.
Stop that, you bad boy! I am sooooo going to have your love babies. But let's stick it to 'em hard and good before we're done, right? Right.
"As no evidence in the record indicates that any other scientific proposition's validity rests on belief in God . . . ID is a religious and not a scientific proposition," Jones notes in his opinion.
Yesssssss, precious. That's right, IDers. If you want to rewrite one science to suit God's will, you have to rewrite others. So, it's back to alchemy for you. No, you can't have any of my physics or chemistry. You have to make your own chemicals (try boiling down your urine, the old alchemists really got a kick out of that), and you can't fly in my planes or enjoy the medicines derived from tricking bacteria into producing antibodies. You can also suck my genotyped genetic diseases, though there, I suppose, you have the upper hand. When a man goes senile at like 45 fom Huntington's, you get to have fun pretending God cursed his line or some such. Me, I'll be over here evolving.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-12-21 07:51 pm (UTC)I would love to point the framers of ID to "The Plausibility of Life" by Kirschner/Gerhart. This book actually explains how complex organs could evolve. Unfortunately, I, with my chemistry degree and one molecular biology class, can barely make heads or tails of their arguments, and I'm a heck of a lot more educated than IDers. It is such a conceited thing to believe that only the things you understand can be true.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-21 07:53 pm (UTC)I'm gonna have to try and read this book, sounds like a corker.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-21 09:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-12-21 09:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-12-21 08:19 pm (UTC)I can choose to evolve or not?
This guy sounds great. Unfortunately, he's a Bush appointee, so you might wanna look into his other decisions before you bring him home to meet the parents.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-21 08:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-12-21 09:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-12-22 02:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-12-22 03:18 pm (UTC)But it would be a fun idea to let these guys know they have groupies. Everybody deserves a rich fantasy life.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-22 04:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-12-27 03:52 pm (UTC)