Pharyngula

DI: consult a lawyer

I am amused that now the Disco Institute is reduced to complaining that Judge Jones adopted the ACLU’s findings of fact in the Dover trial. It’s true that Jones didn’t write a big chunk of his decision, because he literally accepted the opinion of the DI’s opponents.

Apparently, this is a common judicial practice. I didn’t know that, but shouldn’t the DI know about it? Don’t they have a lawyer or lawyers working for them (they sure have a scientist deficiency)? Couldn’t they have asked someone on their staff whether this was ordinary procedure before they started complaining?

Oh, wait.

Casey Luskin. No wonder they screwed up. That boy has a reputation for rank incompetence and getting the facts wrong.

Comments

  1. #1 David Marjanovi?
    December 12, 2006

    1. Because it is innate, I don’t think much about whether to do good, or why I feel good when I do good. That may be an argumentum ad lapidem, but if so, too bad.

    2. I think it works when you consider morality your own self-interest – your own long-term self-interest, to be sure. That must be, more or less, why altruism has evolved so often.

  2. #2 David Marjanovi?
    December 12, 2006

    1. Because it is innate, I don’t think much about whether to do good, or why I feel good when I do good. That may be an argumentum ad lapidem, but if so, too bad.

    2. I think it works when you consider morality your own self-interest – your own long-term self-interest, to be sure. That must be, more or less, why altruism has evolved so often.

  3. #3 Ichthyic
    December 12, 2006

    I recommend Marc Hauser’s recent Moral Minds for a fuller discussion of our innate ethical sense.

    interesting, Gerard.

    would you also recommend that as a decent counter to Collins’ ‘special creation via moral law’ argument?

    It’s easy enough for me to see the gaps in his argument, but hard to refer someone else to a reference that covers it decently.

  4. #4 Ichthyic
    December 12, 2006

    And lying. But his hair is really soft and downy. At least, that’s what Sal Cordova told me.

    hrrrm, and exactly when did Sal tell you this bit of pillow talk?
    ;)

  5. #5 Ichthyic
    December 12, 2006

    btw, andrew, when you bring up a totally OT subject, and then expect people to comment on it, you must expect people to label it as trolling, ’cause that’s exactly what it is.

    unfortunately, Pharyngula doesn’t have an OT “lounge” like PT does, where you can request a new thread to discuss OT subjects.

    however, you technically ARE trolling this thread, and should ask permission of the thread owner to continue, if you don’t want to be rude.

  6. #6 Kristine
    December 12, 2006

    Not to be too snarky, but isn’t “oleary” a bit long in the tooth to be the highest ranked user at a blog where, and I quote, “high school students can network and communicate their views on intelligent design and evolution”?

    Well, check out that pull-string Judge Jones flash fartimation and tell me how many adults you think are over there at OE anyway!

    (And this after some aging scold shook a finger in my face at UD for being a “carefree young person” who’s never had any problems! (Moi?) “Someday you’re going to have a problem, Kristine! And when you do, you’ll need Jesus!” Got news for ya. Jesus be chillin’ at my place, smoking a hookah and bitching about his followers, and reading Richard Dawkins. Big secret of mine.)

    BTW, omitting O’Leary, tell me how many women you think are over there at UD or OE. Stupid morons should have at least gotten some video of me before I stomped out for good.

  7. #7 Torbjörn Larsson
    December 12, 2006

    Oy. So much misrepresentation!

    I guess I’ll start with PZ’s post. The DI piece isn’t claiming that Jones adoption of facts is uncommon, they note that it is routine. They try to make the near total adoption a problem.

    Well, it is not since Panda’s Thumb relates a case where all of it is adopted. But DI claim they had a lawyer involved in the report behind the piece, co-author “law professor David DeWolf”. I hope he makes a better teacher.

    Then the DI piece. It is a trash piece, trying to paint a rosy glimmer over DI’s demise. Jones adoption is taken to mean he didn’t do any work of his own and that he reprinted errors.

    Errors which of course is fabricated in DI’s report. It is the usual quote-mining and misrepresentation of facts. One can have much fun with it.

    Even their old errors on the biology of bacterial flagella is still there:

    The decision.
    “In addition to failing to produce papers in peer-reviewed journals, ID also features no scientific research or testing.”

    The answer.
    “Microbiologist Scott Minnich testified in court showing slides of the genetic knock-out experiments he performed in his own laboratory at the University of Idaho which found that the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex with respect to its complement of 35 genes.”

    The Minnich paper has IIRC indeed been peer-reviewed and found unusable because it is unreproducible. It was a mistake to publish it in the first place AFAIK. I believe PT posted on this.

    It was also wrong, Matzke’s latest posting on flagella at PT has 2 remaining non-homologs.

    The IC claim is then gone I would think, since PT also has posts on papers showing outright examples of similar changes covered by evolution.

    So yes, there is still no valid results from ID. Trying isn’t enough.

    I note DI hasn’t even managed to incorporate the earlier findings on flagella. Now I know why they call it irreducible.

  8. #8 Ichthyic
    December 12, 2006

    In any case the stacks and stacks of evidence for the evolution of the flagellum piled in front of Michael Behe at the Dover trial

    minor correction; I believe the issue at hand was the evolution of the immune system, IIRC, though philosophically, Behe’s position is the same on both.

  9. #9 Torbjörn Larsson
    December 13, 2006

    irreducibly complex structures are no challenge to the ToE

    Of course. But that wasn’t the point of their paper.

    The argument against IC I like best is the algorithmic one. Irreducible complexity is local simplicity (subtractive irreducibility). But simplicity is ill defined: “given a system S, you cannot in general show that there is no smaller/simpler system that performs the same task as S.” ( http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2006/06/the_problem_with_irreducibly_c_1.php )

    Which tells us a lot, including that ‘simple’ evolutionary systems have workarounds (for genes scaffolding for example), which implies exactly your clear conclusion.

    anomalous4:

    Excellent summary. What I find revealing is that the Golden Rule is default for many games. Tit-for-tat with slight forgiveness is the best acting strategy for single players (only beaten by hierarchical gangs) in a social arena (zero sum game) where you risk ‘replay’. It is an unavoidable phenomena in social agents, and no amount of special pleading for religious views can change that.

The site is undergoing maintenance presently. Commenting has been disabled. Please check back later!