Nick Matzke has a terrific post up at the Panda's Thumb about the DI's complaint that the judge in the Dover trial wasn't qualified to rule on the scientific status of ID. It's quite a silly complaint and Nick gives it the sarcastic attention it deserves. First, he quotes the DI's statement:
"Moreover, based upon the extensive expertise he [Judge Jones of the Kitzmiller case] professes to have acquired in the course of a six-week trial, he defined science and determined that the scientific claims of intelligent design were invalid, neither of which are exactly legal questions best decided by a single lawyer."
And responds as his brand spankin new irony meter explodes:
BLAM! Oh, my, that was close, that shrapnel almost took my head off--hey, that's odd. What are the odds that a titanium irony meter would explode into red-hot fragments spelling "Darwin on Trial, pp. 12-13"?
He is referring, of course, to Phillip Johnson, the man credited with founding the modern ID movement, and his boast that as a lawyer he is in a better position to judge the validity of evolution than scientists who actually work in relevant fields:
I am not a scientist but an academic lawyer by profession, with a specialty in analyzing the logic of arguments and identifying the assumptions that lie behind those arguments. This background is more appropriate than one might think, because what people believe about evolution and Darwinism depends very heavily on the kind of logic they employ and the kind of assumptions they make. Being a scientist is not necessarily an advantage when dealing with a very broad topic like evolution, which cuts across many scientific disciplines and also involves issues of philosophy. Practicing scientists are of necessity highly specialized, and a scientist outside his field of expertise is just another layman.
Hilarious. There is a deeper problem with the DI's claim about the judge being unqualified to decide such matters than merely their hypocrisy. We require judges to make such decisions all the time. In medical malpractice cases, for example, judges must listen to expert testimony from both sides and make a determination on who is correct. In product liability cases, judges must do likewise and rule on all sorts of questions that require specialized knowledge. That is why the courts allow expert witnesses and the cross-examination of those witnesses, so the judge (or jury) can evaluate the relative strength of the two sides' positions.
If not the judge, who does the DI think is qualified to make such a judgement? Surely not the school board in the case, all of whom admitted they didn't really understand ID at all and most of whom admitted that they knew nothing about it. Even less so, I imagine, would they accept that the consensus of professional scientists in the relevant fields make that determination because ID would lose that battle by a staggering margin. Apparently, they believe that anyone who doesn't agree with them must be unqualified to rule on the subject.
The other real problem with the DI's argument is that it ignores the fact that the judge had no real choice but to rule on the question of whether ID is science. The defense rested almost its entire case on the claim that ID was a legitimate scientific theory and therefore encouraging kids to learn about it had a genuine secular purpose. The plaintiffs countered that position and presented multiple experts who examined this question in great detail. The defense couldn't counter those arguments effectively because the DI had pulled out their own scholars who were qualified to address the subject. So frankly, they have no one to blame but themselves. And does anyone really think we would be hearing about how unqualified the judge is to rule on that particular matter if the ruling had gone the other way?
- Log in to post comments
The activist judge label has already been mentioned, but this arguement by the Discovery Institute falls into the same category. Any decision that goes against their position must be activism, incompetence, or denial. The position takes the first chapter of Romans and writes it in secular terminology.
A tangential point that could be made is also that this is why Judge Jones was so particularly upset about possible perjury on the part of several board members. In a court of law, a judge must rule based on witness testimony, and when witnesses obfuscate, prevaricate, withold information, call it whatever you will, it makes his job more difficult.
Ed... don't you know? A qualified judge is someone who approves of ID. It's very, very simple. Just like ID itself -- when you have one answer to any and every question, that's about a simple as you can get. No need for facts, or thought, or judgment.
As for Nick's irony meter -- he could have one made from the core of a black hole and it still wouldn't survive the DI.
Copyright Control Squad (Home Office Edition):
Is it any wonder, in these constant yet, at least for me, imagined times of War, that one side finds Rapture in heaping their wrongdoings into the Zombie of an Ancient Carpenter, while the other bows in the temple of a gentle Patent Office Clerk, who in his inconceivably profound thought could never imagine the One Great Horror of the entire 20th Century? No, HE didn't do it, Jeez, man. He was a Thinker, not a Doer, after all.
Science and Religion merely (censure) each other through the compromised condom of Technology. Neither can convince themselves that One is more responsible than the Other for the murder of all the their poor, lost children. (remind me again, what is the purpose of procreation? To make sad families happy? To trick all the lazies into getting a job?)
I put on my Nostradamus Thinking Cap and make a prediction: No Man (or Lady, if you imagine virgins as the one, clean spoil of war, as both the Koran and Bible do) can ever explain away the mystery of our existence. The Destroyer of this Budding Millennium will be born in a Cubicle and will be forced to decide which documents have been copied correctly and which, because of their inherently weak or libeled structure, must be placed directly into the shredder.
Yo Mr. Brayton,
I know you are not a fan of people deleting posts without reason, but for some reason I could not figure out why your submission system kept timing out to an error screen.
Strangely, the message of my words still remains (in chillingly exact, though unintended detail), but I put the burden on you to decide whether or not I am embarrased by it.
Thanks,
--- jsc
The defense rested almost its entire case on the claim that ID was a legitimate scientific theory...
This is correct, but I wonder what its theory is. Or what evidence exists for the theory.
I don't know what the comment upthread about the "patent clerk" is supposed to mean (I know who he is referring to--Einstein) but he had more than enough evidence for his theories set forth in his papers, and he layed out protocols for acquiring more evidence for the--all of which appeared to confirm his theories. When Phillip Johnson does that--lay out a theory, provide at least a minimal amount of evidence, and suggest a protocol for acquiring more, then it might be a science. Until then, no.
Dearest Raj,
I've confused you. I apologize. But do not worry; I am ultimately confused by any of my attempts at communication, too.
On second (thousandth) reading, that post was just my own riff on the irony instrument I keep hidden so deeply within my own pockets (I'm just "fishing for my keys" after all, you know). And the funniest part of it was, that in my haste to catch up with the frantic need to express my hysterical Opinion, I forgot how to use my outdated, yet still Futuristic, Computational-Masterization Machine, and so after my Own Eureka! moment, I discovered in horror that I had managed to post my insanity like six or seven hundred times in a row. Mr. Brayton, did you find the hidden meaning in my second joke, or does your Service have an automatic moron detection system, to shield people who can't understand simple things from the tarpit of public shame? In either case, thanks once again, unless, of course, the whole episode was only a figment of my imagination.
To make it all cleaner (or fuzzier), Raj, make your own decision on the one aspect of my argument that commands you to relax your gaze. I will guide you by composing the following 30 second Pantomime, which I have decided will be entitled:
"The Folly of Resting Your Precious Argument Upon a Brittle and Crumbling Allusion"
Entering the screw ball, physical-action-comedy-arena, our robotroid Cast of Characters seek your gasps of approving laughter:
Jesus, who discovered the secret of His Universe by convincing society it must use MORE than inanimate objects to build its strong foundations, his skill honed in manipulating nails and wood as a child. (not responsible for that stupid movie Braveheart!)
Einstein, who developed his theory (that the Human Body was fundamentally unable to withstand the rigors of Deep Space Travel) while examining the inventions of others, to ensure his Government could properly affix its wondrous seal of approval. (not responsible for that crumble of Naga in your Saki!)
Captain Courageous-Inaction, Vigilant Copyright Control Squad Leader, who destroys lives, yet saves our City by Demanding all Citizens comply with the mutually beneficial agreement set forth in the Irony Liberation Act of 2026.
Billie-Jo H. Inaction, Constant and Intrepid Assistant to her Dear Savior Captain, who plucked her from her dim-witted people and let her join him in his many Exciting and Bitchin' Righteous Adventures.
ProphylGalactic TRJ, Humble servant to the Inactions, who is violently dismantled by an outraged Captain. His crime? One failure in cleaning up after his Master's many perversions and adulterous affairs.
The Ghost of Billie-Jo's Future: Our Heroine, while contemplating the colored waters of her porcelain encased throne and realizing must stop her terrifying retching and come to her final decision. No, she does not care how the jumble of her life ever began or will ever be taken away. She must fight only long enough to leave behind enough evidence of her existence...
We leave the fair maiden in her tiled prison, knowing full well (that is, assuming YOU can also travel back and forwards through time) what her decision was. Sadly, she can never quite know what our intentions were by doing nothing as we observed her in her peril, but we also know that we can't be quite sure what hers were when she decided to end her sentence.
Understand?
Me neither, thank goodness.
(Allegory is the symptom, not the cure, I assure you.)
"Evidence" is only boring when it carries the whiff of Piety with it or when it has simply been cut and then dried. Life is only boring when it all seems too contrived (or cliché).
--- jsc