PvM posted Entry 1855 on December 28, 2005 03:57 PM.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/1850

On the Discovery Instute’s EvolutionNews blog site, West presents his 3rd part: Dover in Review, pt. 3: Did Judge Jones accurately describe the content and early versions of the ID textbook Of Pandas and People?

Timothy Sandefur has already shown in depth how West erred in his understanding of the legal rules guiding Intervention so I will focus on a comment made by West and show it to be without much legal merrit by looking at the Judge’s ruling on FTE’s (Foundation for Thought and Ethics) motion to intervene:

West wrote:

Before addressing the merits of Judge Jones’ assertions regarding Pandas, something needs to be said about the legal and ethical propriety of Judge Jones placing so much weight on this early textbook in his judicial opinion. Frankly, it is astounding that Judge Jones treats Pandas as central to his decision given that he refused to grant the book’s publisher, the Foundation for Thought and Ethics, permission to intervene in the case in order to defend itself.

First, for the sake of the reader and of West, let’s first look at Judge Jones legal decision to deny the FTE to intervene. After all, understanding the legal rules is essential in understanding (the legal propriety of) Judge Jones’ ruling.

First of all in his March 10, 2005 Order, the Judge outlined the requirements for intervention:

The Judge points out that there are two types of interventions under federal rules:

Judge Jones wrote:

As FTE submits, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide for two types of intervention: intervention as of right and permissive intervention. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 24. We will discuss the two types of intervention in turn.

So let’s first look at Intervention as of right

Intervention as of Right. Upon timely application anyone shall be permitted to intervene in an action: (2) when the applicant claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action and the applicant is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practicable matter impair or impede the applicant’s ability to protect that interest, unless the applicant’s interest is adequately represented by existing parties.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a)

The Judge points out that under the rules of the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, all of the following four tests need to be satisfied

the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has instructed that Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a) entitles an applicant to intervene if the applicant establishes that all prongs of the following four-part test are satisfied: (1) the application for intervention is timely; (2) the applicant has a sufficient interest in the litigation; (3) the interest may be affected or impaired, as a practical matter by the disposition of the action; and (4) the interest is not adequately
represented by an existing party in the litigation.

The Judge found that the FTE failed the timeliness requirement

We are in agreement with the parties that the advanced stage of this litigation renders FTE’s application untimely as it will cause prejudice, delay, and added expense to the parties. In that regard, we conclude that application of the Mountain Top factors, which we previously delineated, to this case demonstrates that FTE’s Motion is untimely.

However, the judge still applies the additional three tests

Although the Applicant carries the burden of proving all four parts of the test under Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a) and has failed to do so with respect to the timeliness of intervention, in the exercise of completeness, we will analyze the remaining three prongs of the test in this narrative. See Alcan Aluminum, 25 F.3d at n.9; see

Again the Judge, in the exercise of completeness, considers all the relevant tests. Judge Jones’ ruling to deny FTE’s motion sets the standard for his thorough ruling in the Kitzmiller case.

The three other tests are

Interest in the litigation

We do not find that the scenario raised by FTE, specifically that if this Court should find IDT to be the equivalent of creation science, which will result in the loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars to FTE, constitutes a “legal interest as distinguished from interests of a general and indefinite character.” Harris, 820 F.2d at 601; see also United States v. American Telephone and Telegraph Co., 642 F.2d 1285, 1292 (D.C. Cir. 1980).

and

In addition, we find that Applicant has not demonstrated a “tangible threat to a legally cognizable interest[.]” Harris, 820 F.2d at 601. Although FTE may be quite concerned with the outcome of the litigation in this case, the afore-mentioned concern does not rise to the level of a significantly protectable interest in the
litigation warranting intervention as a party. Therefore, Applicant has not demonstrated an interest in the litigation to justify intervention as of right pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a).

Potential Impairment of the Interest

Once an applicant for intervention has established that he or she has a sufficient legal interest in the underlying dispute, the applicant must also show that the interest is in jeopardy in the lawsuit. Alcan Aluminum, 25 F.3d at 1181, n.9; see also Harris, 820 F.2d at 596. In making such a determination, the court is obligated to assess the “practicable consequences of the litigation,” and “may
consider any significant legal effect on the applicants’ interest.” Id. at 601.

As we have previously determined that seeking to intervene, to prevent potentially significant economic loss from potential decline in books sales to public educational institutions, is not a cognizable interest in the litigation which warrants intervention as of right on the part of Applicant, it logically follows that we need not determine whether Applicant’s alleged interest as so expressed is placed in jeopardy by the case sub judice. Accordingly, the Applicant has failed to prove this part of the intervention as of right test.

and

Moreover, to the extent that the stare decisis effect of an order declaring intelligent design instruction to be unconstitutional in a public school might require FTE to redirect its marketing efforts, that indirect, remote, and attenuated effect fails to “impair” FTE’s interest.

Representation by Existing Party in Litigation

After careful consideration of the parties’ submissions and the record, including but not limited to the three typical reasons constituting inadequate representation as specified by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, we do not find that any interest alleged by Applicant is not being adequately represented by Defendants in this action for the additional reasons that follow. See Hoots, 672
F.2d 1135.

Having rejected intervention as of right, the court continues to examine “Applicant’s alternative argument that the Court grant their intervention application under Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(b), which provides for permissive intervention”.

The Judge observes that:

Whether to grant permissive intervention is within the Court’s discretion, but in making this determination, courts consider whether the proposed intervenors will add anything to the litigation.

Additionally, if the interests of the proposed intervenors are already represented in the litigation, courts deny such application to intervene. Hoots, 672 F.2d at 1136.

Both the Dover School Board and the Plaintiffs were objecting to FTE’s intervention requests.

Both parties oppose permissive intervention. Plaintiffs submit that FTE’s defense would present a question of fact in common with that already asserted in the lawsuit, namely, whether intelligent design is fundamentally a religious proposition rather than a scientific one. Plaintiffs maintain that FTE will not add any defense to the instant case that Defendants have not already demonstrated that they will present. (Pls.’ Br. Opp. Mot. Intervene at 20). Likewise, Defendants oppose permissive intervention by FTE and argue that they adequately represent any generalized interest in IDT that is shared with FTE. (Defs.’ Br. Opp. Mot. Intervene at 5).

West observed that “something needs to be said about the legal and ethical propriety of Judge Jones placing so much weight on this early textbook in his judicial opinion“. Given the legal history, it should be clear that the Judge acted within legal guidelines and rules. Again, it seems to me that West could have saved himself much embarassment if he had familiarized himself with the legal history. West may disagree with the legal rulings, especially since the ruling disagree so much with the Discovery Institute’s position, but to call into question the legal and ethical propriety of the Judge without showing any familiarity with the legal landscape seems rather peculiar to me.

Finally, West seems to make a big deal about the judge limiting the FTE’s Amicus Brief submission to 5000 words. West seems to be unfamiliar with the Local Rules of the Court, especially rule LR 7.8 Contents and Length of Pretrial Briefs.

(1) Unless the requirements of Local Rule 7.8 (b)(2) and (3) are met, no brief shall exceed fifteen (15) pages in length.
(2) A brief may exceed fifteen (15) pages so long as it does not exceed 5,000 words.(3) No brief exceeding the limits described in this rule may be filed without prior authorization. Any motion seeking such authorization shall specify the length of the brief
requested and shall be filed at least two (2) working days before the brief is due.

Again, Judge Jones is following the local rules of the Court. This rule applies equally to all parties involved. Did the FTE even file a motion to exceed the length limits? I have found no record of this in the Amicus Filings.

In fact, in ruling on the filings of the DI Amicus brief, the Judge showed significant judicial restraint

Despite the fact that amici failed to formally request leave of Court before filing the submissions, we will review them absent the request of formal leave as we do not find it necessary to elevate form over substance.1

1 We do note however, that the better practice is that a motion seeking leave of Court to file an amicus brief should be filed concurrently with any future amici submissions.

Legal History
The rich legal history of the FTE intervention shows that questioning the Judge’s legal propriety in this case seems a hard one to actually support. I have yet to locate the Defendants’ oppostion to FTE’s motion to intervene. Any hints would be welcome.

  1. FTE Motions to intervene and responses
  2. 2005-05-23: FTE Application to Intervene

  3. 2005-05-23: Buell Affidavit

  4. 2005-05-25: Letter that FTE intends to ask for intervention

  5. 2005-06-14: Plaintiffs response to FTE motion

  6. 2005-06-06: FTE Memo requesting hearing on motion to intervene

  7. 2005-06-20: DI Lawyer Brown joins in motion to allow FTE intervention

    2005-06-28: Meyer’s Affidavit filed in support of FTE’s motion to intervene

  8. 2005-06-28: FTE’s reply to Defendant and Plaintiffs respone to FTE’s Motion to Intervene

  9. 2005-07-14: Oral hearing on motion to intervene

  10. 2005-11-07: FTE Amicus Curiae brief

  11. 2005-11-07: Appendix to FTE Amicus Brief

  12. 2005-11-07: FTE motion to file Amicus Brief

  13. 2005-12-07: Plaintiffs’ response to FTE/DI Amicus Brief

  14. 2005-12-12: DI/FTE response to plaintiffs response

Commenters are responsible for the content of comments. The opinions expressed in articles, linked materials, and comments are not necessarily those of PandasThumb.org. See our full disclaimer.

Comment #65443

Posted by PvM on December 28, 2005 4:36 PM (e)

I found the Defendants’ memorandum of law in Opposition to FTE dated 2005-06-06. It is clear that even the defendants did not consider FTE’s intervention supportable by law.

Comment #65444

Posted by Alexey Merz on December 28, 2005 4:41 PM (e)

Ouch.

Comment #65454

Posted by Mark Perakh on December 28, 2005 5:05 PM (e)

Kudos to the team of Pim and Tim. West’s diatribe would be good for laughs if West and Co were not so deadly serious.

Comment #65456

Posted by sir_toejam on December 28, 2005 5:12 PM (e)

Indeed, lest we forget the “vice strategy”, as proposed by Dembski et. al.

laughable, unless it becomes reality. Then we’d all be pretty screwed.

NEVER forget the motivations of these folks. They are psychologically unbalanced and are capable of anything when pressured.

Comment #65457

Posted by Steve S on December 28, 2005 5:15 PM (e)

When I think of John West I get an image of Yosimite Sam with steam shooting out his ears.

“RackafrazzinJudgegrumblemublesTarnation…”

Comment #65458

Posted by sir_toejam on December 28, 2005 5:18 PM (e)

lol

Comment #65460

Posted by Corkscrew on December 28, 2005 5:32 PM (e)

Something’s been bugging me for a while now.

The creationists on the Dover School Board wrote a policy.

That policy was ruled illegal upon application of the Lemon test.

So where are all the funny graphics of “Of Pandas And People” proclaiming that “it’s a Lemon!”? Come on, the people need humour dammit!

Comment #65500

Posted by snaxalotl on December 28, 2005 7:46 PM (e)

“…if this Court should find IDT to be the equivalent of creation science, which will result in the loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars to FTE…”

but wait, I’m confused … dembski’s latest opinion is that this ruling will have no impact on the ID movement apart from galvanizing its supporters…

Comment #65511

Posted by Russell on December 28, 2005 8:14 PM (e)

I have a theory.
My theory (which, incidentally, is mine) is that John West is an idiot. It is, however, just a theory

Comment #65513

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on December 28, 2005 8:46 PM (e)

I have a theory.
My theory (which, incidentally, is mine) is that John West is an idiot. It is, however, just a theory

Well, is your theory of West’s Idiotness actually a theory OF West’s Idiotness, or is it just a scientific argument AGAINST his Non-Idiotness.

It would seem that DI thinks there’s some sort of difference between the two …

Comment #65518

Posted by sir_toejam on December 28, 2005 8:59 PM (e)

oh, btw, since Dembski mentioned his “main site” is designinference.com… what do we see as the most recent link there but:

The Vise Strategy: Squeezing the Truth out of Darwinists.

nuff said.

these folks wish violence done to the non-believers. need i say more?

Comment #65588

Posted by Larry Fafarman on December 29, 2005 5:16 AM (e)

Please note that West’s observation was made with the benefit of hindsight. Had the defendants foreseen the emphasis that the judge’s opinion would place on the Panda book, they might very well have supported the publisher’s request to intervene.

I now see Judge Jones as a heavy-handed activist judge. Here are some of the things he did –

(1) He appointed himself to be the sole final judge of the scientific merits of irreducible complexity.

(2) In violation of attorney-client privilege, he quoted a private communication between the school board and the school board’s Solicitor and used it against the defendants.(pages 111-112 of opinion)

(3) He essentially barred the school board from ever requiring that any criticism of evolution theory be taught or discussed in the Dover Area schools.

Comment #65589

Posted by Larry Fafarman on December 29, 2005 5:29 AM (e)

Comment #65500
Posted by snaxalotl on December 28, 2005 07:46 PM

“…if this Court should find IDT to be the equivalent of creation science, which will result in the loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars to FTE…”

but wait, I’m confused … dembski’s latest opinion is that this ruling will have no impact on the ID movement apart from galvanizing its supporters…

Good grief – I cannot believe the asininity of some of the messages on this website.

Had the publisher been allowed to intervene, it might have persuaded the judge to show the Panda book in a more favorable – or less unfavorable – light.

As it is, the book and the publisher were tried and convicted in absentia.

Judge Jones is well on his way to becoming the most notorious judge in America. His statement “I am not an activist judge” will probably take a place in history alongside Nixon’s “I am not a crook” and Clinton’s “I did not have sex with that woman.”

Comment #65590

Posted by PvM on December 29, 2005 5:40 AM (e)

Had the publisher been allowed to intervene, it might have persuaded the judge to show the Panda book in a more favorable — or less unfavorable — light.

As it is, the book and the publisher were tried and convicted in absentia.

Read the Judge’s decision to deny FTE’s motion for intervention before you make such ‘silly’ comments. An understanding of the law is a pre-requisite for trying to argue against a Judge’s ruling. You same to lack even the most basic understanding on the rules guiding intervention.

Although the Judge denied the motion for intervention, he did grant the FTE status of Amicus Curiae.

But Larry does not stop here, he decides to go all out for the most mistakes in a single posting

1) He appointed himself to be the sole final judge of the scientific merits of irreducible complexity.

Nope, he did not and I encourage you to support your claim

(2) In violation of attorney-client privilege, he quoted a private communication between the school board and the school board’s Solicitor and used it against the defendants.(pages 111-112 of opinion)

No he did not. The client provided the information voluntarily. Have you learned nothing from our interchange on this topic? Do you even understand client attorney privilege and how it applies or how it is invoked?

(3) He essentially barred the school board from ever requiring that any criticism of evolution theory be taught or discussed in the Dover Area schools.

Again, no he didn’t.

So many errors. Man, Larry, it’s time to do your homework

Not bad Larry, at least you got something right: “I cannot believe the asininity of some of the messages on this website.”

Comment #65591

Posted by PvM on December 29, 2005 6:01 AM (e)

And I forgot the following:

Please note that West’s observation was made with the benefit of hindsight. Had the defendants foreseen the emphasis that the judge’s opinion would place on the Panda book, they might very well have supported the publisher’s request to intervene.

Have you read the defendants’ response to FTE’s motion to intervene?

First, the interests FTE seeks to protect are remote and speculative at best and defendants adequately represent the sort of abstract and generalized interests in Intelligent Design Theory (IDT) FTE claims as its own. Second, the motives, activities and utterances of FTE have no bearing on the defendants’ motion to make students aware of IDT and under these circumstance, introducing a new party and new issues into this litigation at this late date will needlessly complicate, delay and make more burdensome, the proper resolution of this dispute

The defendants’ memorandum then goes into the legal reasons why FTE’s motion should be rejected.

I understand that you are fully speculating here but do you have any relevant information to support your claims?
Are you saying that the defendants were not aware of the central position of the book of Pandas and People?

In April Forrest submitted her expert report including the findings on Pandas. The motion to deny FTE’s intervention was in June. The ruling that Forrest would be given access to additional Pandas’ related information was also known to the defendants. After all it was Dembski’s unfortunate reference to unpublished Pandas’ work in his expert report that opened up a whole new can of worms.

And what could FTE have done that they could not achieve in their Amicus Curiae Brief? Have you read their brief? What do you expect FTE could have done to counter the devastating evidence presented of the history of the FTE or the history of Pandas?
It’s hard to argue against cold facts… Assuming of course that one has familiarized oneself with said facts. So far Larry gives little reason for me to believe that he has read much of anything relevant to this case.

Comment #65592

Posted by Larry Fafarman on December 29, 2005 6:24 AM (e)

Comment #65590
Posted by PvM on December 29, 2005 05:40 AM

Larry said –

****Had the publisher been allowed to intervene, it might have persuaded the judge to show the Panda book in a more favorable — or less unfavorable — light. As it is, the book and the publisher were tried and convicted in absentia****

Read the Judge’s decision to deny FTE’s motion for intervention before you make such silly comments.

There is often a big difference between what is legal and what is right. You obviously do not know the difference.

Although the Judge denied the motion for intervention, he did grant the FTE status of Amicus Curiae.

That is not much consolation – there was no opportunity for cross-examination, an amicus briefs are often easy to ignore completely.

*****1) He appointed himself to be the sole final judge of the scientific merits of irreducible complexity******.

Nope, he did not and I encourage you to support your claim

See the sentence bridging pages 63-64 of the
opinion, http://www.aclu.org/images/asset_upload_file577_23137.pdf

****(2) In violation of attorney-client privilege, he quoted a private communication between the school board and the school board’s Solicitor and used it against the defendants.(pages 111-112 of opinion)****

No he did not. The client provided the information voluntarily.

Would the defendants have voluntarily provided an attorney-client communication that was very damaging to them?

*****(3) He essentially barred the school board from ever requiring that any criticism of evolution theory be taught or discussed in the Dover Area schools.*****

Again, no he didn’t.

He enjoined the board from ever requiring that teachers “denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution.” (see page 138 of opinion). That means that the board cannot even require that criticism of evolution be taught or discussed in philosophy class.

So many errors.

Yes, so many errors – and they are all yours. You got one thing right here.

Comment #65593

Posted by Larry Fafarman on December 29, 2005 6:59 AM (e)

This is the part of West’s statement that should have been quoted –

“FTE wanted to cross-examine the ACLU’s witnesses as well as present its own experts, evidence, and arguments during the trial. Yet Judge Jones rejected FTE’s motion for intervention. FTE was eventually allowed to submit a “friend of the court” brief to Judge Jones, but such briefs do not have the same status as evidence and arguments presented at trial, and the brief was limited to no more than 5,000 words (including footnotes). That’s right, Judge Jones allowed FTE a mere 5,000 words to rebut literally hundreds of pages of testimony and allegations made by the ACLU. How is that for fair and impartial justice? Given Judge Jones’ explicit refusal to allow FTE to present a defense in the Dover case, his condemnation of FTE’s textbook was grotesque.”

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/12/dover_in_review_pt_3_did_judge.html#more

This trial is increasingly looking like a travesty of justice.

Comment #65594

Posted by Corkscrew on December 29, 2005 7:06 AM (e)

Larry Fafarman wrote:

There is often a big difference between what is legal and what is right. You obviously do not know the difference.

I’d agree that there’s often a big difference. I believe that, in standard terminology, an activist Judge is one that rules on the basis of what he/she considers to be right rather than on the basis of law. You’re suggesting (if I understand correctly) that the judge be considered an activist for following the law regardless of his personal beliefs. This does not tally with what I understand to be the standard terminology.

Larry Fafarman wrote:

Would the defendants have voluntarily provided an attorney-client communication that was very damaging to them?

Yes. My understanding is that this happens regularly - minimising the size of your privilege logs is considered to be a good way to show that you’re acting in good faith to a judge.

Regardless of the motivation for handing the potentially privileged information over, it’s obvious they did so as otherwise the judge wouldn’t have been able to quote from it in his ruling. Judges don’t generally get given copies of privileged information. Is it possible that you’re confusing “privileged” and “sealed” information?

Larry Fafarman wrote:

He enjoined the board from ever requiring that teachers “denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution.” (see page 138 of opinion). That means that the board cannot even require that criticism of evolution be taught or discussed in philosophy class.

Disparaging/denigrating: ‘So this is what those “scientists” will try to say happened. Isn’t it unbelievable? Here, have a copy of “Of Pandas And People”.’

Criticising: Actually I can’t think of any valid criticisms of evolutionary theory as a whole, although of course it’s easy to criticise any sufficiently small component of it (‘some scientists believe that humans evolved on the savannah, but a better explanation may be that they moved to the beaches and evolved there.’). Can anyone help me out here?

* I think I read this in a magazine a few years back and it stuck with me. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

Comment #65595

Posted by Corkscrew on December 29, 2005 7:27 AM (e)

Regards the amount of stuff the FTE was allowed to do:

1) The judge has authority to restrict it as much as he likes. He was under no obligation to give the FTE any of his (and everyone else’s) time at all. The default position for him to take was, in fact, “no, push off” - unless the FTE could provide a sufficiently convincing reason why they should be included.

2) The judge appears to have decided that the FTE was unlikely to add any value to the case that they couldn’t summarise in 5000 words (I’d tend to agree - feel free to provide suggestions as to what all that cross-examining etc could have achieved if you disagree. Remember that we already had one party attempting to rebut the Kitzmiller lawyers’ arguments).

3) If the judge had given the FTE free rein, it would have massively increased the length of the trial, incurring considerable further costs to all parties (not least the good ol’ US of A).

3a) This is partially because the FTE waited til the last minute to file their request.

4) Therefore I provisionally conclude that the judge was in fact legally and morally correct in denying the FTE’s request. I’d need to read up in more detail to be certain of this though.

5) This means that melodramatic comments about the trial being a travesty don’t strike me as terribly convincing, and in fact only serve to feed my well-developed superiority complex. Please do not feed the complex.

Comment #65597

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on December 29, 2005 7:30 AM (e)

Larry, you are blithering again.

Tell us about the meteor showers, Larry. (snicker) (giggle)

Comment #65598

Posted by RupertG on December 29, 2005 7:30 AM (e)

He enjoined the board from ever requiring that teachers “denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution.” (see page 138 of opinion). That means that the board cannot even require that criticism of evolution be taught or discussed in philosophy class.

No, it does not mean that - and I encourage you to look the relevant words up in the dictionary, and then to examine how science and philosophy is actually done. There is a great difference between criticism and denigration/disparagement, and it is telling when people claim otherwise. In science, to criticise a theory is not to denigrate it, it is to test it and to encourage new ways of thinking about it. That might lead to faults being found in the theory, but that’s the idea. Did Einstein disparage Newton? It’s not uncommon - especially in religious and patriotic circles - for criticism to be stamped as denigration, usually (in my experience) because that’s an effective way to avoid having to address the meat of the criticism. Criticism can and often should be objective: denigration/disparagement is usually subjective.

The judge himself says, on page 136, that “To be sure, Darwin’s theory of evolution is imperfect.” which is hardly the opinion of someone who wants to exalt it above criticism.

*****1) He appointed himself to be the sole final judge of the scientific merits of irreducible complexity******.

Nope, he did not and I encourage you to support your claim

See the sentence bridging pages 63-64 of the
opinion…

This one?

Finally, we will offer our conclusion on whether ID is science not just because it is essential to our holding that an Establishment Clause Case violation has occurred in this case, but also in the hope that it may prevent the obvious waste of judicial and other resources which would be occasioned by a subsequent trial involving the precise question which is before us.

Again, your reading of English is different to that of the dictionary. I read that sentence as the judge saying that he has to determine whether ID is science in order to decide the case – which I think is unarguable – and that he then HOPES that this will remove the need to do it again. You know, like he says. Are you saying that his expression of hope is equivalent to him establishing himself as the final arbiter on the subject? What definition of ‘hope’ covers that?

These are desperate misreadings indeed, and if this is the best you can find in 139 closely-argued pages then I suggest you reconsider your original assumptions.

R

Comment #65603

Posted by stefan on December 29, 2005 7:48 AM (e)

Larry’s “should have been quoted” quote doesn’t help in the slightest. The FTE was not allowed to intervene, yes formally by the judge, but with the active and willing agreement of both plaintiffs and defendants. So constantly complaining that the FTE wasn’t “allowed” to intervene is rather bizarre. West might as well be directing his outrage at the Dover school board for not wanting FTE either.

In addition, emphasizing the “mere 5,000 words” verbiage is just fake outrage. The rules were clear and Judge Jones even could have completely rejected the brief had he wanted to.

Comment #65606

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on December 29, 2005 7:52 AM (e)

Hey, somebody ask Larry about the Holocaust ….

(snicker) (giggle)

Comment #65607

Posted by Larry Fafarman on December 29, 2005 8:05 AM (e)

Comment #65598
Posted by RupertG on December 29, 2005 07:30 AM

Larry said –

*****He enjoined the board from ever requiring that teachers “denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution.” (see page 138 of opinion). That means that the board cannot even require that criticism of evolution be taught or discussed in philosophy class.*****

No, it does not mean that - and I encourage you to look the relevant words up in the dictionary, and then to examine how science and philosophy is actually done. There is a great difference between criticism and denigration/disparagement, and it is telling when people claim otherwise.

This is nothing but meaningless semantic nitpicking.

The judge himself says, on page 136, that “To be sure, Darwin’s theory of evolution is imperfect.” which is hardly the opinion of someone who wants to exalt it above criticism.

So the judge has the right to criticize evolution theory but the school board does not ?

I read that sentence as the judge saying that he has to determine whether ID is science in order to decide the case — which I think is unarguable — and that he then HOPES that this will remove the need to do it again.

No, he did not have to determine whether ID is science – he could have decided the case solely on the basis of the religious motivations of some of the school board members.

Are you saying that his expression of hope is equivalent to him establishing himself as the final arbiter on the subject?

No – but it does establish him as wanting to be the final arbiter on the subject.

Comment #65608

Posted by RupertG on December 29, 2005 8:32 AM (e)

Ah, OK, I’m getting the picture. This is one of those irregular areas of English grammar.

I indulge in meaningless semantic nitpicking
You provide proof of a major miscarriage of justice
He appoints himself Supreme Justice by wishing really, really hard

See also…

ACTIVIST JUDGE: one with whom I disagree, but cannot fault at law
LAW: Set of rules annoyingly contrived so as not to automatically confirm my prejudices
SCIENCE: A religion, promoted for perverse reasons by power-mad liberals
RELIGION: A science that would make our schoolchildren unique in the world, were it not irrationally denied them.
GOD: See DESIGNER
DESIGNER: Oooh, look at this pretty sea shell!

R

R

Comment #65609

Posted by Larry Fafarman on December 29, 2005 8:38 AM (e)

Comment #65603
Posted by stefan on December 29, 2005 07:48 AM

Larry’s “should have been quoted” quote doesn’t help in the slightest. The FTE was not allowed to intervene, yes formally by the judge, but with the active and willing agreement of both plaintiffs and defendants. So constantly complaining that the FTE wasn’t “allowed” to intervene is rather bizarre. West might as well be directing his outrage at the Dover school board for not wanting FTE either.

OK, I will concede your point about the defendants/defense not wanting the FTE to intervene (When was the last time anyone on this website conceded a point to me? Hasn’t happened very often). But I think that the defendants/defense were mostly motivated by a desire to shorten the trial to keep costs down. That’s OK – there was nothing wrong with that. They were just looking out for their own interests.

In addition, emphasizing the “mere 5,000 words” verbiage is just fake outrage. The rules were clear and Judge Jones even could have completely rejected the brief had he wanted to.

Under the circumstances, he really had no reasonable grounds for rejecting the brief. Amicus briefs are often accepted from parties who have no direct involvement in the case at all. In the Alan Bakke Supreme Court reverse-discrimination case, there were 62 amicus briefs – it probably still holds the record (interestingly, one of the amicus briefs, from Harvard U., was central to the decision). I think that judges routinely accept amicus briefs as a courtesy – the judges have no obligation to read them (who has time to read 62 briefs?). Also, briefs exceeding the length limit are permitted with the approval of the judge.

Comment #65611

Posted by Corkscrew on December 29, 2005 8:45 AM (e)

Larry Fafarman wrote:

No, he did not have to determine whether ID is science — he could have decided the case solely on the basis of the religious motivations of some of the school board members.

Can anyone chip in as to whether the judge was actually required to consider all three prongs of the Lemon test? IIRC Larry is right that he wasn’t required to rule on all three but, if he had already been forced to check whether ID failed one, why on earth wouldn’t he write it up in his ruling?

I’d strongly disagree that the difference between disparaging and criticising is meaningless semantic nitpicking. To present a relevant example: I’m criticising, Lenny is disparaging. The difference being that the former is considered a legitimate means of disproof whereas the latter is just considered funny (at least by Lenny, anyway :P). So “isn’t that unbelievable” is not a legitimate criticism of, say, common descent, whereas “I’ve just found a magnemite fossil in precambrian rock. I can think of no way that this could have evolved from the species present at the time” is a legitimate criticism of common descent. This distinction is incredibly important to science, which relies for its integrity on the fact that scientists are constantly hurling every possible legitimate criticism at each other, and refraining from hurling illegitimate criticisms.

Comment #65612

Posted by improvius on December 29, 2005 9:02 AM (e)

Larry wrote:

No — but it does establish him as wanting to be the final arbiter on the subject.

I think that’s true in the sense that he hopes he has reached the correct decision, and that no further arbitration is needed.

Look, if you want to prove that this otherwise conservative judge is an “activist”, prejudiced against religion, in favor of atheism, or whatever, you’re free to do so. Dig into his record. Search his past rulings. You’ll find the evidence for your paranoia in his previous writings, if it exists at all. But without any of that evidence, claiming out of the blue that a conservative judge was biased against these defendants is, well, kinda crazy.

And the FTE stuff is just ridiculous. If you want to blame anyone, blame the TMLC for failing to consult with them or call them as witnesses, if you think involving them would have helped the defense. Or do you think the TMLC conspired with the judge to throw the case?

Comment #65613

Posted by Filby on December 29, 2005 9:11 AM (e)

Russell Wrote:

I have a theory.
My theory (which, incidentally, is mine) is that John West is an idiot. It is, however, just a theory

Note that this is NOT a scientific theory because it is not falsifiable!

Comment #65614

Posted by Bob Maurus on December 29, 2005 9:21 AM (e)

Larry,

A minor point, but one worth making. In your #65589 you mention “Clinton’s “I did not have sex with that woman.”” That is a misquote. He said, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman,” which was a truthful statement.

Comment #65615

Posted by Stephen Elliott on December 29, 2005 9:21 AM (e)

Posted by Larry Fafarman on December 29, 2005 05:29 AM (e) (s)


Good grief — I cannot believe the asininity of some of the messages on this website.

Well if you object to them, why not refrain from posting in the first place?

Comment #65616

Posted by Louis on December 29, 2005 9:24 AM (e)

Larry Fafarman wrote:

When was the last time anyone on this website conceded a point to me? Hasn’t happened very often”

When was the last time you made a correct argument?

Dare I say it hasn’t happened very often.

Comment #65619

Posted by Moses on December 29, 2005 10:02 AM (e)

Comment #65589

Posted by Larry Fafarman on December 29, 2005 05:29 AM (e) (s)

Good grief — I cannot believe the asininity of some of the messages on this website.

Actually, everything was going along fine until you showed up.

Had the publisher been allowed to intervene, it might have persuaded the judge to show the Panda book in a more favorable — or less unfavorable — light.

And if frogs had wings… Seriously, Pandas is a piece of garbage as a science book and is clearly a search-and-replaced creation science religious tract. That’s all that happened here, Larry. They showed the early draft and then the subsequent changes to remove “creation science” and replace it with “intelligent design.”

As it is, the book and the publisher were tried and convicted in absentia.

The book wasn’t tried. It was evidence. Like any lying corporation, FTE wanted to suppress information about their product being defective. But as a piece of evidence, it was evaluated by an expert witness and the whom the defense cross-examined and tried to re-butt.

Judge Jones is well on his way to becoming the most notorious judge in America. His statement “I am not an activist judge” will probably take a place in history alongside Nixon’s “I am not a crook” and Clinton’s “I did not have sex with that woman.”

Now that’s a joke. Judicial activism means expanding or broadening the interpretation of the Constitution and/or precedent and/or common law. Not following the Constitution, precedent and common law. There is absolutely nothing “activist” about the judge’s opinion except the idiots who try to make it seem that way because they LOST fair-and-square. No matter how much you conflate it with Clinton’s penis or Nixon’s criminal activities.

Comment #65621

Posted by Moses on December 29, 2005 10:13 AM (e)

Comment #65588

Posted by Larry Fafarman on December 29, 2005 05:16 AM (e) (s)

I now see Judge Jones as a heavy-handed activist judge. Here are some of the things he did —

(1) He appointed himself to be the sole final judge of the scientific merits of irreducible complexity.

Excuse me, but have you no clue… that’s what the courts are for. To make decisions about the law and the Constitutionality of laws. As for there being one judge, this was a district court and he was assigned the case. Trial courts at the Federal District level have one judge. If it were the tax court, it’d be 3 judges. I can’t remember if the Claims Court has 1 or 3 at the trial level, but I think it’s just one.

(2) In violation of attorney-client privilege, he quoted a private communication between the school board and the school board’s Solicitor and used it against the defendants.(pages 111-112 of opinion)

First, attorney-client privilege is not what most people think and must be jealously guarded from anyone not the direct client of the attorney. The slightest defect can render it invalid. Second, the communications were submitted voluntarily so they waived the privilege anyway.

(3) He essentially barred the school board from ever requiring that any criticism of evolution theory be taught or discussed in the Dover Area schools.

No. He said you couldn’t criticize it through religious apologetics in the science classroom. As soon as someone comes up with a valid scientific theory to replace evolution, people will teach it. Just as the “Big Bang” universe model replaced the “Steady State” universe model. Or as the heliocentric model of the solar system replaced the geocentric model of the solar system.

We’re still waiting for creationism’s “big bang.”

Comment #65623

Posted by Corkscrew on December 29, 2005 10:20 AM (e)

Corkscrew wrote:

So where are all the funny graphics of “Of Pandas And People” proclaiming that “it’s a Lemon!”? Come on, the people need humour dammit!

No-one has taken me up on this so I’ve been forced to employ my own extremely sucky graphics skills. Don’t say I didn’t warn you. Clicky.

Anyone fancy doing a better version for posterity?

Comment #65624

Posted by yellow fatty bean on December 29, 2005 10:26 AM (e)

It would be quite amusing to see the publishers of OP&P interviewed on a national program.

How do you think they would react to the “here are all the places you did a search and replace of ‘creationism’ with ‘intelligent design’ “ ?

“When we said ‘creationism’, we didn’t mean God or nuthin,…..”
“The intelligent designer could be anyone (wink,wink)”
“We think the Earth is somwhere between 6,000 and 4,500,000,000 years old, it’s an open question”
“As my good friend the president of the Southern Baptist Convention just explained, ID is NOT about religion”

The more the IDiots/YECtards talk, the dumber they look.

Attacked by the “Intelligent, educated segment of society” indeed.

Comment #65625

Posted by Moses on December 29, 2005 10:35 AM (e)

Larry Fafarman wrote:

He enjoined the board from ever requiring that teachers “denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution.” (see page 138 of opinion). That means that the board cannot even require that criticism of evolution be taught or discussed in philosophy class.

Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a
constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial.
The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal
maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.

To preserve the separation of church and state mandated by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Art. I, § 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, we will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID. We will also issue a declaratory judgment that Plaintiffs’ rights under the Constitutions of the United States and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have been violated by Defendants’ actions.

Defendants’ actions in violation of Plaintiffs’ civil rights as guaranteed to them by the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 subject Defendants to liability with respect to injunctive and declaratory relief, but also for nominal damages and the reasonable value of Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ services and costs incurred in vindicating Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. Case 4:04-cv-02688-JEJ Document 342 Filed 12/20/2005 Page 138 of 139

139
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. A declaratory judgment is hereby issued in favor of Plaintiffs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 such that
Defendants’ ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and Art. I, § 3 of
the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

2. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 65, Defendants are permanently enjoined
from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area
School District.

3. Because Plaintiffs seek nominal damages, Plaintiffs shall file with the Court and serve on Defendants, their claim for damages and a verified statement of any fees and/or costs to which they claim entitlement. Defendants shall have the right to object to any such fees and costs to the extent provided in the applicable statutes and court rules.

Larry, you got called on your dog-and-pony show. You went Scopes and lost. Now you’re quote mining and selectively editing the opinion and reading into it conclusions not made and leaving out your own blatant religiosity.

Evolution is the ONLY scientific theory routinely and widely criticized by America’s Christian Taliban. Because of singular nature of those attacks vis the beliefs, in the context of our society and the Dover case, that’s the ONLY reason some teachers are forced to criticize evolution. To deny it is to be a disingenuous liar.

And, as you can see in the order, he struck down the ID policy. The ID policy included the SCIENCE teacher having to criticize the SCIENCE of Evolution to satisfy the religious views of some people. It did NOT prohibit (as you claim) a philosophical or comparative religions class in which ID is discussed as the political/religious movement that it is.

That, Larry, is a fairly narrow ruling. He struck down the POLICY, which included the things he mentioned in the pre-amble to his ORDER. That you CONFUSED his CONCLUSION with his actual ORDER isn’t the fault of anyone but yourself.

Comment #65626

Posted by Flint on December 29, 2005 10:44 AM (e)

He enjoined the board from ever requiring that teachers “denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution.” (see page 138 of opinion). That means that the board cannot even require that criticism of evolution be taught or discussed in philosophy class.

While the objections to this statement are entirely on target, it’s interesting to understand why Larry would make this absurd claim in the first place.

Consider that Larry is making fundamentally religious objections. He phrases them to *sound* like legal objections, but they are not. The above quote is a good case in point: in science, there is a vast difference between denigration and criticism, and yes, science progresses through the continuous application of valid criticism while denigration accomplishes nothing but distraction.

But within any faith, valid criticism in the scientific sense is simply not possible. Doctrine isn’t provisionally true according to best understandings of currently-available evidence, doctrine is true by FIAT. And because of this, ANY criticism is denigration; the two are necessarily the same. Within the religious mindset, these are entirely synonymous.

It’s much like the repeated complaint that origin of life differs from origin of species. In the creationist model, these two phrases describe precisely the same supernatural act; they cannot be distinguished.

RupertG has very much nailed Larry’s position in saying

ACTIVIST JUDGE: one with whom I disagree, but cannot fault at law
LAW: Set of rules annoyingly contrived so as not to automatically confirm my prejudices
SCIENCE: A religion, promoted for perverse reasons by power-mad liberals
RELIGION: A science that would make our schoolchildren unique in the world, were it not irrationally denied them.
GOD: See DESIGNER
DESIGNER: Oooh, look at this pretty sea shell!

Larry’s reaction is quite like West’s in this regard. Only results matter, not following established procedures. If the judge’s decision violates Larry’s faith, the judge MUST have been in error somewhere. If the evidence violates Larry’s faith, then our interpretation of the evidence MUST be in error somewhere. Sure is obvious when you start with the answers…

Comment #65627

Posted by KL on December 29, 2005 10:45 AM (e)

Larry, I still need to know what your alma mater(s) is(are). I spent the morning writing letters of recommendation, and I really need to know if I am sending any of my students down your path.

I am amazed. Some of you have been busy all night!

Comment #65628

Posted by Corkscrew on December 29, 2005 10:49 AM (e)

All night? I’m British, you insensitive clod! :P

Comment #65630

Posted by KL on December 29, 2005 10:57 AM (e)

Okay then, Corkscrew! You must think some of us Yanks are crazy, yes?

Wait, maybe you shouldn’t answer that. My Brit relatives call us “savage Americans”… ;)

Comment #65631

Posted by Stephen Elliott on December 29, 2005 11:11 AM (e)

Posted by KL on December 29, 2005 10:45 AM (e) (s)


I am amazed. Some of you have been busy all night!

Oh you crazy colonials.
Are you guilty of assuming a priori that all posters are in your time-zone?
;)

Comment #65632

Posted by KL on December 29, 2005 11:18 AM (e)

Are you guilty of assuming a priori that all posters are in your time-zone?

Yup

Guilty as charged

Embarrassing, considering that what we Americans are so guilty of is seeing things only from our own point of view! Shame on me… thirty lashes with His noodly appendage.

(on top of proving my UK relatives correct)

Comment #65633

Posted by Stephen Elliott on December 29, 2005 11:31 AM (e)

Posted by KL on December 29, 2005 11:18 AM (e) (s)

Shame on me… thirty lashes with His noodly appendage….

LOL. Ensure you have your pirate outfit on, or it wont count.

Comment #65634

Posted by Corkscrew on December 29, 2005 11:35 AM (e)

What is it with you americans and your kinky fetishes?

Comment #65635

Posted by Steve S on December 29, 2005 11:51 AM (e)

Posted by yellow fatty bean on December 29, 2005 10:26 AM (e) (s)

“As my good friend the president of the Southern Baptist Convention just explained, ID is NOT about religion”

LOL. Too often, that’s exactly what we’re treated to.

Comment #65636

Posted by Stephen Elliott on December 29, 2005 11:53 AM (e)

Posted by Larry Fafarman on December 29, 2005 05:16 AM (e) (s)

Please note that West’s observation was made with the benefit of hindsight. Had the defendants foreseen the emphasis that the judge’s opinion would place on the Panda book, they might very well have supported the publisher’s request to intervene.

I now see Judge Jones as a heavy-handed activist judge. Here are some of the things he did —…

Larry,
Why do you persist? The Dover school board have been found “guilty as hell”, yet you keep erroneously searching for little tiny tidbits to object to.

So far, every single thing you have brought up has been answered vigorously. Have you not noticed a pattern yet?

This may come as a shock, but maybe you are on the wrong side.

Oops, I retract that! Having seen your views on the actions of the Nazi party, you are probably exactly where you should be.

Comment #65637

Posted by gwangung on December 29, 2005 11:57 AM (e)

Thinking about Keira Knightly in a pirate outfit is not THAT kinky…

Comment #65638

Posted by Stephen Elliott on December 29, 2005 12:01 PM (e)

Another point Larry,
Why do you not start objecting to Newtonian gravity being taught? After all that has already been proven incorect, and you could find loads of scientific papers (even experimental evidence) to back you up.

Scientists and the whole (technically) educated population know Newton is not quite right. Perhaps it is an evil conspiracy.

So why pick on evolution? What on Earth could your motivation be?

Comment #65641

Posted by Mr Christopher on December 29, 2005 12:10 PM (e)

Judges are always ruling in cases where they are not themselves an expert witness. We see judges rule in medical malpractice cases all the time yet they themselves are not doctors. They must listen to the expert medial witnesses and decide what is a legitimate medical procedure or treatment and what is not. We see judges rule in business cases yet they do not own or manage businesses. We see them rule in construction disputes yet they are not home builders. So Jones’ ruling that intelligent design creationism is not science does not in any way suggest he overstepped his bounds.

Judges are concerned with the application of the law and they rely on *expert* testimony to base their conclusions. The best intelligent design creationists represented spoke for the defense and gave it their best shot. Their best shot proved intelligent design creationism is not science.

It has already been noted that in the Dover trail the best witness for the plaintiff were the defense expert witnesses. This is because intelligent design creationism is NOT science. if you let intelligent design creationist speak their cause they cannot hide the fact that it is not science and is in fact warmer over creationism.

A side note -
Word to the wise, Larry Farma posts over on the LJWorld site (Kansas) and to put it in laymans terms he is crazy and unable to comprehend certain ideas.

Good luck trying to ‘reason’ with him.

Comment #65643

Posted by Corkscrew on December 29, 2005 12:11 PM (e)

gwangung wrote:

Thinking about Keira Knightly in a pirate outfit is not THAT kinky…

Yes it is kinky, at least when there’s perfectly good woad to be imagining her in.

Comment #65645

Posted by Mr Christopher on December 29, 2005 12:17 PM (e)

That one is worth repeating…

…we will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID

Comment #65646

Posted by Alexey Merz on December 29, 2005 12:21 PM (e)

Hey Larry, tell us about how meteor showers caused the Holocaust. Or is it the other way around?

Comment #65647

Posted by Steve S on December 29, 2005 12:25 PM (e)

With this decision, people like Larry can sense the impending demise of ID as a cryptocreationist strategy, and they’re lashing out. Not surprising. Dembski closing his blog is probably another sign.

He would have closed it anyway, or farmed out the comments censorship to DaveScot or Salvador. By now, as someone else on this site put it, getting up every 15 minutes to remove all criticism was probably gettin real old.

Comment #65652

Posted by Larry Fafarman on December 29, 2005 1:56 PM (e)

Comment #65628 posted by Corkscrew on December 29, 2005 10:49 AM
All night? I’m British, you insensitive clod! :P

Comment #65634 posted by Corkscrew on December 29, 2005 11:35 AM
What is it with you americans and your kinky fetishes?

Corkscrew, you are British? LOL ROFLMAO You hypocrite! You fraud! (sorry for the rudeness – that is just a line from the play, “Inherit the Wind,” loosely based on the 1925 Scopes Monkey trial)

Britain has no separation of church and state ! England and Scotland have official state religions ! Daily prayer is required in the public schools (I guess you don’t call them “public” – I don’t know what you call them) ! The government funds church schools !
See —http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/features/mike_baker/1199054.stm

And you accuse us of having “kinky fetishes”?

So – the pot is calling the kettle black !

Why don’t you clean up your own house first before you condemn the USA for allegedly trying to introduce “religion” (your name for irreducible complexity) into the public schools?

Physician, heal thyself !

Comment #65653

Posted by yellow fatty bean on December 29, 2005 2:02 PM (e)

funny how UK schools still manage not to throw religiously motivated psuedo-scientific nonsense into the mix.

Was the line “LOL ROFLMAO” really in “Inheret the Wind” ?

Comment #65657

Posted by PvM on December 29, 2005 2:22 PM (e)

“FTE wanted to cross-examine the ACLU’s witnesses as well as present its own experts, evidence, and arguments during the trial. Yet Judge Jones rejected FTE’s motion for intervention. FTE was eventually allowed to submit a “friend of the court” brief to Judge Jones, but such briefs do not have the same status as evidence and arguments presented at trial, and the brief was limited to no more than 5,000 words (including footnotes). That’s right, Judge Jones allowed FTE a mere 5,000 words to rebut literally hundreds of pages of testimony and allegations made by the ACLU. How is that for fair and impartial justice? Given Judge Jones’ explicit refusal to allow FTE to present a defense in the Dover case, his condemnation of FTE’s textbook was grotesque.”

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/12/dover_in_re…

This trial is increasingly looking like a travesty of justice.
Comment #65594

Now the reality: The FTE got involved after one of its directors, William Dembski, referenced a working draft of the lastest ‘Pandas’. When the Judge ruled that the plaintiffs were allowed to look at the draft, although the draft itself needed to be kept confidential. Buell then filed a motion to intervene and both the plaintiffs and defendants submitted their memorandum explaining their opposition to said motion. The judge ruled on all points that the motion to intervene failed. First of all it was not filed timely but the judge also looked at the other aspects of the motion and found the interest of the FTE to be minimal and protected by the defendants lawyers.
The judge applied the law, how is that for a fair and impartial justice. Nevertheless, the judge allowed the FTE to submit an Amicus Brief. The brief’s limit of 5000 words is set by the local court rules but anyone can file a motion to exceed the size. As far as I can tell the FTE did not file such motion.
Thus, the FTE got to file its Amicus Brief and present its arguments.

So, Larry, tell us what the FTE could have done to counter the strong factual evidence presented about the copies of Pandas, the find/replace of creationism with intelligent design, the fact that the foundation’s own forms submitted for incorporation mentioned its Christian motives and so on.

There was just no legal reason why the FTE should be allowed to intervene. It’s that simple. And if you consider this a travesty of justice then I’d hope you can present your legal arguments appropriately.

Until then, the unsupported whining about the Judge’s motives, biases only serve to strengthen the ruling’s impact.

Also, briefs exceeding the length limit are permitted with the approval of the judge.

Yes, but one has to petition for such approval. Did the FTE petition the judge?

No, he did not have to determine whether ID is science — he could have decided the case solely on the basis of the religious motivations of some of the school board members.

On the contrary, common practice in the court and in the 3rd Circuit is to look at both endorsement and the three prong lemon test since the case law on the Establishment clause is so much in flux. In other words, if the Judge had ruled on just one aspect and the appeals court had overruled, it would have returned for additional rulings. Many courts when addressing the establishment clause present a complete argument

We are free to apply any or all of the three tests, and to invalidate any measure that fails any one of them. The Supreme Court has not repudiated Lemon; in Santa Fe, it found that the application of each of the three tests provided an independent ground for invalidating the statute at issue in that case; and in Lee, the Court invalidated the policy solely on the basis of the coercion test. Although this court has typically applied the Lemon test to alleged Establishment Clause violations, see, e.g., Am. Family Ass’n, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco, 277 F.3d 1114, 1120-21 (9th Cir. 2002), we are not required to apply it if a practice fails one of the other tests. Nevertheless, for purposes of completeness, we will analyze the school district policy and the 1954 Act under all three tests.

Judge Jones:

Although ID’s failure to meet the ground rules of science is sufficient for the Court to conclude that it is not science, out of an abundance of caution and in the exercise of completeness, we will analyze additional arguments advanced regarding the concepts of ID and science.

and

Finally, we will offer our conclusion on whether ID is science not just because it is essential to our holding that an Establishment Clause violation has occurred in this case, but also in the hope that it may prevent the obvious waste of judicial and other resources which would be occasioned by a subsequent trial involving the precise question which is before us.

Comment #65658

Posted by Mr Christopher on December 29, 2005 2:35 PM (e)

Hey Larry what is your take on the Raelian “atheist intelligent design” theory? I mean if we are going to teach the controversy shouldn’t their theory be taught as well?

Although they make no mention of mouse traps, or Mt Rushmore, or similar scientific principles of intelligent design creationism, the Raelians claim to not only know who the designers are, they claim to be in contact with them. We’re talking about a smoking gun here, fella.

Behe and Dembski propose the intelligent designer could be a space man or alien and it not neccesarily a God. If this is true why has neither Behe nor Dembski written about or explored the Raelian theory and evidence? The Raelians support intelligent design creationism yet Behe and Dembski seem to be ignoring them.

I mean the Raelians are saying “hey we are in touch with the intelligent designers” yet Behe and Dembski ignore them. What kind of science is that where they completley ignore a threory (or in this case evidence) that supports and sheds light on their own?

The intelligent design creationists say the designer may be a space man, the Raelians say they are in contact with the intelligent designing space men yet Behe and Dembski ignore them? How utterly unscientific of the IDC camp.

What up wif dat, Larry? Looks like Behe and Dembski really mean the intelligent designer IS God, otherwise they would be hooking up with the Raleians and doing some serious science with them.

I wonder if Behe and Dembski are simply jealous of Raelian “atheist intelligent design theory” and that’s why they make no mention of it?

From what I can tell it appears the Raleians have scooped the intelligent design creationists.

What’s your take on it?

Comment #65659

Posted by PvM on December 29, 2005 2:39 PM (e)

Larry wrote:

Would the defendants have voluntarily provided an attorney-client communication that was very damaging to them?

Yes. In this case the defendants seem to believe that their solicitor’s comments would support their case. Also, the defendants released the email to those present at the meeting, including some teachers. In other words, they let the proverbial cat out of the bag

*****(3) He essentially barred the school board from ever requiring that any criticism of evolution theory be taught or discussed in the Dover Area schools.*****

Again, no he didn’t.

He enjoined the board from ever requiring that teachers “denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution.” (see page 138 of opinion). That means that the board cannot even require that criticism of evolution be taught or discussed in philosophy class.

The denigrate and disparage comments are in reference to the ID policy. It’s a common term which hardly can be construed as preventing teachers from discussing ID or scientific arguments against evolutionary hypotheses. The judge is clear that scientific criticisms would pass muster.

Judge Jones wrote:

With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an
alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.

It’s important to read the judgement in light of its argument lest one runs the risk of creating strawmen.

Denigrate:
1. To attack the character or reputation of; speak ill of; defame.
2. To disparage; belittle: The critics have denigrated our efforts.

Disparage
1. To speak of in a slighting or disrespectful way; belittle. See synonyms at decry.
2. To reduce in esteem or rank.

Hard to argue that scientific criticisms would fall into this category.

Judge Jones

We have been presented with a wealth of evidence which reveals that the District’s purpose was to advance creationism, an inherently religious view, both by introducing it directly under the label ID and by disparaging the scientific theory of evolution, so that creationism would gain credence by default as the only apparent alternative to evolution, for the reasons that follow.

Comment #65660

Posted by Steve S on December 29, 2005 2:40 PM (e)

to add to PvM’s comment, the FTE’s book was listed in a catalog under the category “Creation Science.”

Comment #65664

Posted by yellow fatty bean on December 29, 2005 2:53 PM (e)

Mr Christopher wrote:

Hey Larry what is your take on the Raelian “atheist intelligent design” theory? I mean if we are going to teach the controversy shouldn’t their theory be taught as well?

Although they make no mention of mouse traps, or Mt Rushmore, or similar scientific principles of intelligent design creationism, the Raelians claim to not only know who the designers are, they claim to be in contact with them. We’re talking about a smoking gun here, fella.

Raelian “atheist intelligent design” has the same scientific merit as the Disco Institute variety.

Teach the controversy.

Comment #65665

Posted by PvM on December 29, 2005 2:56 PM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'quote'

Comment #65667

Posted by minimalist on December 29, 2005 3:04 PM (e)

Larry, you know what’s really great about the church/state entwinement in Europe? It fosters apathy, if not the complete rejection of religion. The UK, Spain, France, Germany, and many other nations: they’ve all had precipitously falling rates of belief and church attendance, and they have institutional religion to thank for it. (The collaboration between churches and the darker aspects of European history [Franco-era Spain, you-know-what-era Germany] didn’t help either.)

Daily school prayers become nothing more than empty words, recited while young minds wander to the more important topics of football and the opposite gender. An adolescent becoming aware of politics sees the church’s ties to a demonstrably corrupt government. In becoming all-pervasive, religion just slips into the background noise of daily life.

The marriage of church and state will probably be the thing that kills fundamentalism for good in America. I’ve yet to decide if it would be worth the intervening decades of regression and barbarity.

Comment #65669

Posted by Larry Fafarman on December 29, 2005 3:06 PM (e)

Comment #65653
Posted by yellow fatty bean on December 29, 2005 02:02 PM

Was the line “LOL ROFLMAO” really in “Inheret the Wind” ?

No – neither was “Corkscrew, you are British?”

Ask a stupid question and you get a stupid answer.

Comment #65671

Posted by FastEddie on December 29, 2005 3:06 PM (e)

Jones had no choice but to address the question “Is ID science?” BOTH parties agreed that the Lemon Test was appropriate to this case (see p. 9 of Jones’ opinion).

The first prong of the Lemon Test requires a government action related to the First Amendment to have a valid secular purpose. Despite the school board’s overt religious motive for the ID policy, it still might have passed this first prong of the Lemon Test had ID been shown to be a scientific concept, since the inclusion of a scientific concept in a science curriculum is obviously a valid secular purpose.

However, the testimony of the **ID experts** themselves clearly dictated Jones’ finding that ID is NOT science. Consider what the ID expert witnesses revealed in their testimony on this question:

1. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) states that science is limited to natural explanations about observable natural phenomena. Supernatural explanations are excluded because such forces cannot be observed, measured, or tested. Both plaintiffs and defendants recognize the NAS as the “most prestigious” scientific organization in the country (pp. 65-66).

2. ID experts Behe and Minnich testified that it is “implausible that the designer is a natural entity” and that ID does not exclude the possibility that the designer is supernatural (p. 67).

3. Defense experts Fuller and Minnich agreed that one goal of the ID movement is to change the ground rules of science to allow supernatural explanations. William Dembski, a prominent member of the ID movement, and the Discovery Institute agree. The Supreme Court recognizes supernatural explanations as “an inherently religious concept” (pp. 67-68).

4. Behe stated that if his broader definition of science were used, ID could be considered science. However, he admitted that his definition of science would also include astrology (p. 68).

5. Behe, Fuller, and Minnich concede that ID is not a theory by the NAS definition and that at most it is fringe science with no acceptance in the scientific community (p. 70).

6. Behe admitted there are no peer-reviewed scientific articles advocating ID. Nor is there any peer-reviewed scientific research to support his assertion that certain biological structures are irreducibly complex (p. 88).

In addition, every major scientific organization in the country which has taken a position on the scientific merits of ID has concluded that ID is not science (pp. 69-70).

Given this, Jones had no choice but to conclude that ID is not science and therefore the board’s ID policy had no valid secular function. Thus, the ID policy fails the first prong of the Lemon Test. Game, set, match.

Comment #65672

Posted by PvM on December 29, 2005 3:15 PM (e)

Well stated Fast Eddie

Comment #65675

Posted by Larry Fafarman on December 29, 2005 3:21 PM (e)

Comment #65626
Posted by Flint on December 29, 2005 10:44 AM

Larry said –

*****He enjoined the board from ever requiring that teachers “denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution.” (see page 138 of opinion). That means that the board cannot even require that criticism of evolution be taught or discussed in philosophy class.*****

While the objections to this statement are entirely on target, it’s interesting to understand why Larry would make this absurd claim in the first place.

“Absurd claim”? OK, we don’t even need to look at the judge’s above statement – let’s just look at the rest of the ruling –

“we will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID.” (from page 38 of the ruling)

Note how the judge treated irreducible complexity, the foremost concept of intelligent design. He did not say that it is OK to teach IC in the Dover schools if it is done in philosophy class, or if it is not called “intelligent design” (which implies the existence of an “intelligent designer”), or if it is done in a manner that does not directly denigrate or disparage evolution theory, etc.. He just banned ID – and consequently IC – from the Dover schools completely, period. No ifs, ands, buts, or maybes.

His ruling against anything that “denigrate[s] or disparage[s] the scientific theory of evolution” makes it clear that this policy applies to other criticisms of evolution as well.

Comment #65678

Posted by roger Tang on December 29, 2005 3:26 PM (e)

Note how the judge treated irreducible complexity, the foremost concept of intelligent design. He did not say that it is OK to teach IC in the Dover schools if it is done in philosophy class

Actually, I think he did. There are references to doing just that in other type classes, that included philosophy.

Comment #65679

Posted by KL on December 29, 2005 3:28 PM (e)

Larry! You’re back!

I still need to know your alma mater(s). Gotta get these letters posted.

Comment #65680

Posted by sir_toejam on December 29, 2005 3:31 PM (e)

oh god, no! larry has invaded another thread?

don’t we have containment protocols for infectious disease?

His mind really belongs in the after the bar closes area.

Comment #65681

Posted by Greg H on December 29, 2005 3:33 PM (e)

Larry Fafarman wrote:

Ask a stupid question and you get a stupid answer.

Now that that’s taken care of, could you perhaps spend some time addressing the intelligent questions that have been posed? Or is “ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer” you final word on the subject?

Let’s leap back a bit to the question of semantics. You used that term in the following quote:

Larry Fafarman wrote:

This is nothing but meaningless semantic nitpicking.

It was used in reference to someone else in the thread pointing out the difference between serious scientific criticism and meaningless drivel spouted with the intent of defaming the topic of discussion. Since semantics is the science of the meaning of words, and since this meaning is exactly what you’re trying to convey when you communicate, it seems to me that semantics is more that just nitpicking. Making sure your message is clearly understood is very important, and choosing the correct words is the only way to insure that the meaning you intend is the one that is received. By doing the “semantics” hand wave and attempting to lump valid scientific criticism in with disparagement, you’re the one being dishonest to the people that will read your comments and believe them. Far from being semantic nitpicking, as you like to call it, it is a very precise clarification of the meaning of the statement in question.

But then you knew that already, which is why the semantic nitpicking bothers creationists and ID’ers so much. Because it actually sheds light on all that quote mining that they do. So that the reader actually gets meaning of the message, rather than your interpretation of the meaning of the message.

Did anyone ever stop to think that maybe the reason people get so fed up with the whole creation/ID movement is that rather than doing honest research and posting honest results, they seem content to simply mislead the rest of us into going along with them?

-Greg H

Comment #65682

Posted by FastEddie on December 29, 2005 3:36 PM (e)

Jones also wrote on p. 137: “Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school **science** classroom.”

He does NOT prohibit ID from other parts of the curriculum, only the science curriculum.

Moreover, Jones’ denigrate-disparage comment when read in the context of the whole narrative does NOT mean criticisms of evolution cannot be taught. The history of the Dover situation, particularly Bonsell’s and Buckingham’s 2004 comments on evolution as well as the crafting of the actual ID statement, makes it clear the school board took scientifically unfounded pot shots at evolution. Bonsell and Buckingham also used strong-arm tactics to cow the science teachers into reducing the amount of classroom time allocated to evolution. THIS is what Jones was referring to with his denigrate-disparage injunction.

Comment #65683

Posted by PvM on December 29, 2005 3:40 PM (e)

Note how the judge treated irreducible complexity, the foremost concept of intelligent design. He did not say that it is OK to teach IC in the Dover schools if it is done in philosophy class, or if it is not called “intelligent design” (which implies the existence of an “intelligent designer”), or if it is done in a manner that does not directly denigrate or disparage evolution theory, etc.. He just banned ID — and consequently IC — from the Dover schools completely, period. No ifs, ands, buts, or maybes.

His ruling against anything that “denigrate[s] or disparage[s] the scientific theory of evolution” makes it clear that this policy applies to other criticisms of evolution as well

Not at all. It applies to religiously motivated criticisms which fail as science and have the purpose of denigrating or disparaging evolutionary theory to further creationism.
IC may be the ‘foremost concept of ID’ but as the Judge has shown and ruled, ID is not science and is entangled with religion and creationism.

And no, he did not ban ID or IC, he just banned the Board from requiring teachers to teach ID or disparage/denigrate evolution.
A subtle difference but very relevant.

Comment #65684

Posted by PvM on December 29, 2005 3:41 PM (e)

Again, Fast Eddie, well said

Jones also wrote on p. 137: “Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school **science** classroom.”

He does NOT prohibit ID from other parts of the curriculum, only the science curriculum.

I understand that 139 pages may be a lot for anyone to read but the decisions cannot be seen seperately from the total ruling.

Comment #65685

Posted by gregonomic on December 29, 2005 3:43 PM (e)

Larry.

Over on another thread, you argued that Dover citizens shouldn’t have to foot the “exorbitant legal bill” incurred by the attorneys for the plaintiffs.

But now you’re arguing that the FTE should have been given the opportunity to defend “Of Pandas and People” during the case, which would surely have made the case even longer (but without affecting the outcome), and would therefore have cost the citizens of Dover even more?

Comment #65686

Posted by James Taylor on December 29, 2005 3:44 PM (e)

Greg H wrote:

Did anyone ever stop to think that maybe the reason people get so fed up with the whole creation/ID movement is that rather than doing honest research and posting honest results, they seem content to simply mislead the rest of us into going along with them?

Knowledge is a sin to these people. It is contrary to their entire belief system to actually possess knowledge. In order to be a good fundamentalist, one can only argue and never learn. Science is the pursuit of Knowledge, therefore science is sin.

Comment #65687

Posted by sir_toejam on December 29, 2005 3:46 PM (e)

A side note -
Word to the wise, Larry Farma posts over on the LJWorld site (Kansas) and to put it in laymans terms he is crazy and unable to comprehend certain ideas.

Good luck trying to ‘reason’ with him.

indeed. having spent 4 or more days trying to reason with the thing that is larry, I see no further point to it.

any more “reasoning” with larry is just stoking his fire.

he’s a troll. nothing more can be gained by arguing with him

Comment #65688

Posted by Steviepinhead on December 29, 2005 3:47 PM (e)

I don’t care about “Larry” anymore at all. He’s demonstrated himself to be a maroon many times over.

However, for the rest of the curious readers out there, please note the one word that “Larry” keeps overlooking everytime he goes after Judge Jones’s proscriptions–the board may not require the district’s science teachers to foist ID’s psuedoscience on their students.

There’s a big difference between telling this mendacious board what it cannot impose upon the science curriculum (what the judge actually did) and telling the science teachers themselves what they can and cannot appropriately teach (what the judge did not do).

Comment #65689

Posted by cogzoid on December 29, 2005 3:50 PM (e)

Larry, let’s take a look at what you cite with open eyes. I’ll even highlight the important words in case your eyes are bad.

“we will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID.”

Does that help? Do you see how teachers can still bring up ID or IC in classes? Yes, all of them. Even science class. But, the school board cannot require them to do so. There’s no restriction of free speech here, since ID and IC have not been banned. There is an unholding of free speech.

-Dan

Comment #65690

Posted by gregonomic on December 29, 2005 3:52 PM (e)

PvM wrote:

And no, he did not ban ID or IC, he just banned the Board from requiring teachers to teach ID or disparage/denigrate evolution.

That’s right, PvM. I wasn’t sure if anyone had raised that point yet, and was about to do it myself. That word “requiring” is the key. Sounds like teachers are totally free to discuss any valid, scientific, secular criticisms of the theory of evolution.

Comment #65691

Posted by sir_toejam on December 29, 2005 3:54 PM (e)

btw, didn’t the new pro-science Dover school board even say that they intend ID will be discussed in social studies class?

Judge didn’t rule against them doing that now, did he.

Comment #65692

Posted by sir_toejam on December 29, 2005 4:06 PM (e)

teachers are totally free to discuss any valid, scientific, secular criticisms of the theory of evolution

er, not that there are any.

the arguments are within evolutionary theory, not about the theory itself.

someone in another thread mentioned a rather appropriate analogy of a married couple who visits a marriage counselor.

If they say they have problems in their marriage, that is a whole different thing to saying they have problems with their marriage.

In the former, these are problems that can be addressed to help make the marriage better. In the latter, they are talking about whether or not to salvage the marriage altogether.

There are NO extant scientific criticisms of evolutionary theory in general. period.

there are however, many hot arguments about specific issues wrt to the evolutionary pathways of specific traits, about genomic evolution, about linked traits, the role of sexual selection, etc., etc. It’s the little arguments that make the whole of evolutionary biology such a huge and fascinating subject.

there are at least as many debates (probably many more) within evolutionary theory as there are within modern quantum theory. These end up “making the marriage better”, and that IS the function of good science.

Unlike religious dogmatists, science does not dogmatically protect theories. quite the opposite, in fact, scientists progress their careers by making respectable attempts to disprove theories. In the attempts to disprove hypotheses, we learn. Evolutionary theory has had 150 plus years of scientists attempting to test every nuance of it, and it has survived. That makes it one of the most durable theories ever conceived of.

It never ceases to amaze me how commonly religious dogmatists project their own philosophy on to those around them. I so often see the term “dogma” applied to evolutionary theory I can only come to the conclusion that there are a great many folks suffering from projection disorder.

EOS.

Comment #65693

Posted by gregonomic on December 29, 2005 4:30 PM (e)

I wrote:

teachers are totally free to discuss any valid, scientific, secular criticisms of the theory of evolution

sir_toejam wrote:

er, not that there are any.

Yeah, I was going to add that last bit, but I thought it would be more “fun” to leave the door open for Larry to jump in with his “evidence against evolutionary theory”, or carol with her “SCIENCE IS NOT THE ONLY WAY TO THE TRUTH” line. One of them should be along any minute now…

Comment #65694

Posted by sir_toejam on December 29, 2005 4:33 PM (e)

One of them should be along any minute now…

ok, er, have, uh, fun with that…

;P

Comment #65695

Posted by Mr Christopher on December 29, 2005 4:35 PM (e)

According to recent quotes from current (new) Dover board members not only does the Dover school plan on having intelligent design covered in a social studies class they are keeping that collection of garbage known as “of Pandas and People” in the school library. They do plan to get rid of the other 58 copies and keep just one.

So much for Larry’s conspiracy to stifle free speech theory. Larry whether you like it or not intelligent design creationism is alive and well in Dover, just not as science and it’s out of the science class (where it never had any business in the first place).

Hey Larry do you work for the Discovery Institute? If you don’t already you probably should. When I read your comments and “unique” insight and compare it to John West I see a match made in an intelligently designed heaven.

Do you have any theology or English degrees? If so maybe you could get a job as a scientist at the DI?

Comment #65696

Posted by Larry Fafarman on December 29, 2005 4:40 PM (e)

Comment #65626
Posted by Flint on December 29, 2005 10:44 AM

Larry said –

*****He enjoined the board from ever requiring that teachers “denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution.” (see page 138 of opinion). That means that the board cannot even require that criticism of evolution be taught or discussed in philosophy class.*****

While the objections to this statement are entirely on target, it’s interesting to understand why Larry would make this absurd claim in the first place.

“Absurd claim”? OK, we don’t even need to look specifically at the judge’s above statement – let’s just look at the rest of the ruling –

“we will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID.” (from page 138 of the ruling)

Note how the above ruling treats irreducible complexity, the foremost concept of intelligent design. The judge did not say that it is OK to teach IC in the Dover schools if it is done in philosophy class, or if it is not called “intelligent design” (which implies the existence of an “intelligent designer”), or if it is done in a manner that does not directly denigrate or disparage evolution theory, etc.. He simply banned ID – and consequently IC – from the Dover schools completely, period. No ifs, ands, buts, or maybes.

In this context, his ruling against anything that “denigrate[s] or disparage[s] the scientific theory of evolution” may be interpreted as applying this absolute ban to other criticisms of evolution theory as well.

Comment #65697

Posted by sir_toejam on December 29, 2005 4:43 PM (e)

I’m gonna hate myself in the morning, but I have what i think is an interesting question for Larry about the role of government in morality:

why is polygamy illegal, Larry?

should it be?

What is the theory behind the value of monogomy? Is it religious or scientific?

Comment #65698

Posted by sir_toejam on December 29, 2005 4:45 PM (e)

Larry, didn’t you post that exact same post in the other thread?

that’s a big no-no. cross posting can get you ousted as a spammer.

Comment #65699

Posted by Steviepinhead on December 29, 2005 4:45 PM (e)

Son, we already know you’re a maroon.

Lacking your learning disability, however, it’s really not necessary for you to remind us every half hour or so.

We get it already: you’re a maroon!.

(Sigh.)

Comment #65700

Posted by Steve on December 29, 2005 4:47 PM (e)

Larry:

You say: “In this context, his ruling against anything that “denigrate[s] or disparage[s] the scientific theory of evolution” may be interpreted as applying this absolute ban to other criticisms of evolution theory as well.”

No. It. Can’t.

It’s clear that you *want* to interpret it this way so you can complain about it. But no reasonable reading of the entire ruling could be interpreted that way.

Larry, the horse is dead. Stop beating it.

Comment #65701

Posted by gregonomic on December 29, 2005 4:48 PM (e)

Posted by Larry Fafarman on December 29, 2005 04:40 PM

Right on schedule, and as vacant as ever.

Comment #65702

Posted by Mr Christopher on December 29, 2005 4:49 PM (e)

Larry, are you not aware that Dover plans to have intelligent design creationism in a social studies class? Jones did not forbid intelligent design creationism from the classroom.

And were you not aware that criticizing and denigrating/disparaging are not the same? They can criticize all day long they cannot be *required* to denigrate and disparage.

Dude, try www.dictionary.com

And I was serious, if you have an English or Theology degree you should contact the DI and apply for a job as a scientist. I mean at the DI ther eis no0t must dinstinction between theology and biology so what the heck, give it a shot! I bet you’d get an interview.

Comment #65703

Posted by sir_toejam on December 29, 2005 4:51 PM (e)

Right on schedule, and as vacant as ever.

now i see why someone accused him of being a bot in disguise!

amazing.

Comment #65704

Posted by gregonomic on December 29, 2005 4:56 PM (e)

Can someone CTRL-C Larry? I think he’s stuck in an infinite loop.

Comment #65705

Posted by sir_toejam on December 29, 2005 4:56 PM (e)

why is polygamy illegal, Larry?

nevermind, I’ve thought better of it. I appropriately don’t care what you think.

*whew*

Comment #65706

Posted by Mr Christopher on December 29, 2005 5:02 PM (e)

Larry, are you not aware that Dover plans to have intelligent design creationism in a social studies class? Jones did not forbid intelligent design creationism from the classroom.

And were you not aware that criticizing and denigrating/disparaging are not the same? They can criticize all day long they cannot be *required* to denigrate and disparage.

Dude, try www.dictionary.com

And I was serious, if you have an English or Theology degree you should contact the DI and apply for a job as a scientist. I mean at the DI there is not much dinstinction between theology and biology (they’re practically the same at the DI) so what the heck, give it a shot! I bet you’d get an interview.

Comment #65708

Posted by Alexey Merz on December 29, 2005 5:06 PM (e)

Hey Larry, you might want to go here and see how you score. When your index finger gets tired from pressing the keys on your calculator, come on back and let the rest of us know how you did.

Comment #65709

Posted by sir_toejam on December 29, 2005 5:08 PM (e)

ah, there it is. thanks alexey.

Comment #65710

Posted by Larry Fafarman on December 29, 2005 5:15 PM (e)

Comment #65689
Posted by cogzoid on December 29, 2005 03:50 PM

Larry, let’s take a look at what you cite with open eyes. I’ll even highlight the important words in case your eyes are bad.

“we will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID.”

Does that help? Do you see how teachers can still bring up ID or IC in classes? Yes, all of them. Even science class. But, the school board cannot require them to do so. There’s no restriction of free speech here, since ID and IC have not been banned. There is an unholding of free speech.

No, that does not help. The judge only enjoined the school board from requiring that ID be taught – the judge did not enjoin the school board from requiring that anything else be taught. The school board is still free to require that anything else be taught (within reason).

Furthermore, the judge did not expressly rule here that science teachers or other teachers are free to bring up the subject on their own. Any teacher who might want to do so will be intimidated by the above ruling.

How many people are going to bother searching the whole 139 pages of this long-winded opinion in the hope of finding an exception to the above ruling? The above statement was the judge’s final ruling. He should have chosen his words very carefully. He did not.

Comment #65711

Posted by sir_toejam on December 29, 2005 5:18 PM (e)

No, that does not help

of course it doesn’t help you, Larry. You are beyond help. I highly suggest you seek counseling for your mental disability.

good luck.

Comment #65712

Posted by Mr Christopher on December 29, 2005 5:28 PM (e)

Well if they are so intimidated why are they planning to talk about intelligent design creationism in social studies class in Dover?

Astonishingly they seem to have been able to not only read all 139 pages but also understand what Judge Jones’ intent was.

The current Dover board gets it, the Dover teachers get it, you seem to be the only one who desn’t get it. Well you and the Discovery Institute.

Comment #65713

Posted by Ubernatural on December 29, 2005 5:31 PM (e)

[Judge Jones] should have chosen his words very carefully. He did not.

Irony meter straining, straining…

Comment #65714

Posted by Bill Gascoyne on December 29, 2005 5:32 PM (e)

OK, guys, at what point do we post a “Do Not Feed The Trolls” sign on Larry’s stuff?

Comment #65715

Posted by Steviepinhead on December 29, 2005 5:42 PM (e)

Bill Gascoyne asked:

at what point do we post a “Do Not Feed The Trolls” sign on Larry’s stuff?

Could we retroactively agree on, um, yesterday?

Comment #65716

Posted by ben on December 29, 2005 5:44 PM (e)

OK, guys, at what point do we post a “Do Not Feed The Trolls” sign on Larry’s stuff?

December 29, 2005 05:16 AM

Comment #65719

Posted by Bing on December 29, 2005 6:04 PM (e)

Larry the F-man wrote:

Ask a stupid question and you get a stupid answer.

Bing’s Corollary: Ask a stupid person and you get a stupid answer.

Comment #65720

Posted by Corkscrew on December 29, 2005 6:17 PM (e)

Larry Fafarman wrote:

Corkscrew, you are British? LOL ROFLMAO You hypocrite! You fraud! (sorry for the rudeness — that is just a line from the play, “Inherit the Wind,” loosely based on the 1925 Scopes Monkey trial)

Britain has no separation of church and state ! England and Scotland have official state religions ! Daily prayer is required in the public schools (I guess you don’t call them “public” — I don’t know what you call them) ! The government funds church schools !
See —-http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/features/mi…

And you accuse us of having “kinky fetishes”?

Well, personally I don’t consider that a fetish. But I guess it takes all sorts…

Yes, it’s true that we have state religion in the UK. We’ve had it since before America was discovered by Europeans. Happily, the majority of schools behave in true apathetic British fashion* by completely ignoring it. School inspectors have been instructed not to rate schools based on spiritual criteria (incidentally, the requirement is for an “act of spirituality” a day, not for prayers) because no-one, not even the bloody seminaries, is up to scratch on that front.

The result is a system that’s probably slightly less secular, on average, than schooling in the US. All achieved in true British style.

* I read a hypothesis once that this was the fault of the weather - it’s never too hot and never too cold and usually too damp so no-one ever feels like playing silly buggers. My alternative hypothesis is that we’ve had so many religious wars in our time that the tendency to stick one’s neck out in the name of faith has been bred out of the population. It’s got to the point that as a nation we couldn’t be zealous to save our collective life.

Comment #65722

Posted by cogzoid on December 29, 2005 6:24 PM (e)

First it was “essentially barred”:

Larry Fafarman wrote:

(3) He essentially barred the school board from ever requiring that any criticism of evolution theory be taught or discussed in the Dover Area schools.

Now it’s only intimidation:

Larry Fafarman wrote:

Any teacher who might want to do so will be intimidated by the above ruling.

I’ll count that as progress in changing Larry’s mind. And since the Dover school board is willing to teach ID in social studies class his intimidation idea is quite moot.

Comment #65732

Posted by Ed Darrell on December 29, 2005 7:14 PM (e)

Larry said:

How many people are going to bother searching the whole 139 pages of this long-winded opinion in the hope of finding an exception to the above ruling?

People interested in improving education, people interested in improving science education, people interested in protecting the Constitution, people interested in protecting freedom of religion – all those groups will read the entire 139 pages to understand it.

If you don’t know anyone in any of those categories, I can give you references to people in each category who will be pleased to interpret the ruling for you. I’ll even do it for you, for a fee.

Comment #65734

Posted by Vampyrotheuthis infernalis on December 29, 2005 7:39 PM (e)

I bet I can read it to anyone for an even better rate than Ed. I’m a starving student! If you like I’ll even use funny voices like a mother reading “Go, Dog, Go!”

This is a nice forum, or “virtual pub”, by the way. Anyone know where I can get a “virtual Jack and Coke”?

Comment #65735

Posted by Sir_Toejam on December 29, 2005 7:45 PM (e)

OT, but important to anyone who uses windows XP:

I just got nailed by some very nasty spyware that utilizes a newly found exploit in WMF files specifically under windows XP. I’ts all over the tech news right now.

anywho, if you want to avoid having to spend the rest of your day trying to restore your system, I highly suggest avoiding any new internet sites until MS posts a fix.

I think good anti-spyware detectors might catch this, but maybe not (didn’t work for me).

just thought you should know.

Comment #65739

Posted by Steve S on December 29, 2005 7:52 PM (e)

Larry didn’t know the basics of what communications are priveledged before calling the judge a “jackass” on the issue. To expect him to read the judge’s full opinion is bordering on insane.

Comment #65741

Posted by Flint on December 29, 2005 8:08 PM (e)

Larry:

His ruling against anything that “denigrate[s] or disparage[s] the scientific theory of evolution” makes it clear that this policy applies to other criticisms of evolution as well.

After some dozens of posts (I lost count) carefully explaining that a disparagement is VERY different from a criticism, and even after my post you’re referring to, analyzing why you can’t tell the difference, here you are again!

So once again, disparagement is not criticism. Valid criticisms of evolution are not precluded by this decision. Please consult a dictionary or alternatively, read ANY of the several dozen posts correcting your error.

I’m reminded of the joke about the child who said “I have went to the store.” The teacher made him stay after school and write 100 times on the blackboard, “I have GONE to the store.” The child did it, and at the end left a note for the teacher: “I finished the assignment, and I have went home.” Larry works that same way: after dozens of corrections, he repeats the exact same error. I mean, the EXACT same error. Yes, folks, the educability of a creationist, demonstrated once again.

Comment #65742

Posted by Moses on December 29, 2005 8:09 PM (e)

Comment #65675

Posted by Larry Fafarman on December 29, 2005 03:21 PM (e) (s)

“Absurd claim”? OK, we don’t even need to look at the judge’s above statement — let’s just look at the rest of the ruling —

“we will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID.” (from page 38 of the ruling)

Note how the judge treated irreducible complexity, the foremost concept of intelligent design. He did not say that it is OK to teach IC in the Dover schools if it is done in philosophy class, or if it is not called “intelligent design” (which implies the existence of an “intelligent designer”), or if it is done in a manner that does not directly denigrate or disparage evolution theory, etc.. He just banned ID — and consequently IC — from the Dover schools completely, period. No ifs, ands, buts, or maybes.

His ruling against anything that “denigrate[s] or disparage[s] the scientific theory of evolution” makes it clear that this policy applies to other criticisms of evolution as well.

Larry, you jacknapes, you don’t even understand the ruling. The opinion is 139 pages and pretty much follows the normal decision structure. Only at the very end is the decision which is the ORDER to which the parties must comply. Everything you’ve been citing IS NOT THE ORDER. THIS IS THE ORDER:

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. A declaratory judgment is hereby issued in favor of Plaintiffs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 such that Defendants’ ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and Art. I, § 3 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

2. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 65, Defendants are permanently enjoined from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District.

3. Because Plaintiffs seek nominal damages, Plaintiffs shall file with the Court and serve on Defendants, their claim for damages and a verified statement of any fees and/or costs to which they claim entitlement. Defendants shall have the right to object to any such fees and costs to the extent provided in the applicable statutes and court rules.

Everything you’ve blathered on about is meaningless because it doesn’t address the decision which is:

1. ID = religion and thus violates the Constitution of the US and Pennsylvania.

2. The District can’t continue the ID policy and is barred from implementing another ID policy to take the place of this one.

3. They board must pay damages.

That’s it. Everything else relates to the issues, facts, research, analysis of the preceding and the conclusion he arrived to execute his ORDER.

Comment #65743

Posted by roger Tang on December 29, 2005 8:13 PM (e)

How many people are going to bother searching the whole 139 pages of this long-winded opinion in the hope of finding an exception to the above ruling?

Folks who want to know what they’re talking about.

This obviously excludes you, or else you wouldn’t have pulled that howler about privileged communications or a “total” ban of ID.

The above statement was the judge’s final ruling. He should have chosen his words very carefully. He did not.

Actually, he did. But since you can’t be bothered to either read the whole thing or understand the legal context of the decision, I can see why made such mind numbingly stupid statements.

He DID write 139 pages. He expected folks to read ALL of it to understand his decision. You CAN’T take shortcuts. You CAN’T get lazy. Or you’re going to get scorched in any discussion (like what’s happening now)

Do it right, or don’t do it at all.

Comment #65746

Posted by Alexey Merz on December 29, 2005 8:25 PM (e)

Larry is willing contribute hundreds of lines of ignorant blather to a comment thread but is too lazy to read 139 pages of big type. He clearly can read. He clearly doesn’t want to. Maybe he’s afraid of reading things that will prove him wrong. Poor lazy Larry. Poor, poor cowardly Larry.

Poor Larry.

Comment #65748

Posted by Larry Fafarman on December 29, 2005 8:45 PM (e)

Comment #65722
Posted by cogzoid on December 29, 2005 06:24 PM

First it was “essentially barred”:

Larry Fafarman wrote:

***(3) He essentially barred the school board from ever requiring that any criticism of evolution theory be taught or discussed in the Dover Area schools.****

Now it’s only intimidation:

Larry Fafarman wrote:

****Any teacher who might want to do so will be intimidated by the above ruling.****

I’ll count that as progress in changing Larry’s mind. And since the Dover school board is willing to teach ID in social studies class his intimidation idea is quite moot.

No, it is not moot. Somewhere in the USA, some school board or school board legal advisor is going to take a cursory look at the opinion, read the final-ruling statement that I cited, and conclude that the opinion says that ID must be excluded entirely from the schools. They are not likely to bother to search the whole 139-page opinion in the hope of finding an exception to that final-ruling statement. That statement is by far the most important single statement in the whole opinion, and the judge blew it. It shows that he did not even fully understand the key points of his own ruling.

And nowhere does the opinion expressly say that science teachers may introduce ID into the classroom on their own. What Dover science teacher would dare to do that now?

Comment #65749

Posted by Larry Fafarman on December 29, 2005 9:07 PM (e)

Comment #65743
Posted by roger Tang on December 29, 2005 08:13 PM

Larry wrote –
****How many people are going to bother searching the whole 139 pages of this long-winded opinion in the hope of finding an exception to the above ruling?****

Folks who want to know what they’re talking about.

The final-ruling statement is misleading. Many if not most people are just going to read the final-ruling statement and conclude that they have everything that they need to know and that they do not need to search further. The final-ruling statement does not say, “warning – this is not a complete statement of the final ruling. Search the rest of this 139-page opinion for exceptions to this final-ruling statement.” Also, a large part of the opinion is very dry reading, and it would not be long before a lot of readers forget what they were looking for, even if they knew that they were supposed to be looking for something in the first place.

Comment #65751

Posted by Alexey Merz on December 29, 2005 9:19 PM (e)

Also, a large part of the opinion is very dry reading,

How would you know?

and it would not be long before a lot of readers forget what they were looking for, even if they knew that they were supposed to be looking for something in the first place.

Speak for yourself.

Comment #65752

Posted by Steve S on December 29, 2005 9:22 PM (e)

so earlier the judge should be blamed for not considering as priveledged information that didn’t qualify two (possibly three) ways, and then larry said the judge should be blamed for deciding whether ID is science like both parties asked, and now the judge should be blamed for how someone else will misinterpret a sentence out of context.

It is easy to see why ID isn’t accomplishing anything.

Comment #65757

Posted by gregonomic on December 29, 2005 9:33 PM (e)

Bill Gascoyne wrote:

OK, guys, at what point do we post a “Do Not Feed The Trolls” sign on Larry’s stuff?

Could you give us another month, maybe two? I feel like we’re making real progress here.

Comment #65758

Posted by bill on December 29, 2005 9:36 PM (e)

Any science teacher who introduced ID into her classroom would be larridotic.

Comment #65760

Posted by Larry Fafarman on December 29, 2005 9:41 PM (e)

Comment #65742
Posted by Moses on December 29, 2005 08:09 PM

Larry, you jacknapes, you don’t even understand the ruling. The opinion is 139 pages and pretty much follows the normal decision structure. Only at the very end is the decision which is the ORDER to which the parties must comply. Everything you’ve been citing IS NOT THE ORDER. THIS IS THE ORDER:

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. ***********

2. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 65, Defendants are permanently enjoined from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District.

3.************

What happened to the other two prohibitions that he was planning to put in the order ? (shown in bold below)

“we will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID.” (from page 138 of the ruling)

OK, so according to the official ORDER, the school board may still require teachers to read a statement saying that evolution theory is the biggest hoax in the history of science, so long as ID is not mentioned.

Comment #65761

Posted by PvM on December 29, 2005 9:46 PM (e)

Sigh… LArry, stop blaming others for your inability to read the Judge’s ruling.

Comment #65766

Posted by cogzoid on December 29, 2005 10:06 PM (e)

Larry Fafarman wrote:

No, it is not moot. Somewhere in the USA, some school board or school board legal advisor is going to take a cursory look at the opinion, read the final-ruling statement that I cited, and conclude that the opinion says that ID must be excluded entirely from the schools.

Somewhere, someone, somehow will misconstrue his decision. What can he do about it? The language is clear to anyone with a 4th grade reading level.

Larry Fafarman wrote:

They are not likely to bother to search the whole 139-page opinion in the hope of finding an exception to that final-ruling statement. That statement is by far the most important single statement in the whole opinion, and the judge blew it. It shows that he did not even fully understand the key points of his own ruling.

Your laziness does not equal his misunderstanding. I read all 139 pages and he has a very lucid style. It was acutually an interesting read. Although, I’m actually interested in the matter at hand. Perhaps you can back up your claim that he didn’t understand his own ruling?

Larry Fafarman wrote:

And nowhere does the opinion expressly say that science teachers may introduce ID into the classroom on their own. What Dover science teacher would dare to do that now?

He didn’t say that science teachers could teach geology either!!! Holy smokes, he didn’t outline every possible thing that a science teacher can do!!! What an outrage!!! Sorry for the sarcasm, but this is probably the lamest argument I’ve heard in a while.

Comment #65768

Posted by cogzoid on December 29, 2005 10:10 PM (e)

Larry Fafarman wrote:

OK, so according to the official ORDER, the school board may still require teachers to read a statement saying that evolution theory is the biggest hoax in the history of science, so long as ID is not mentioned.

Nope, try again, that’s still just denigrating the theory, and not actually criticizing it. But, at least you understand the requiring part. (Who says Larry can’t learn?)

Comment #65770

Posted by UnMark on December 29, 2005 10:11 PM (e)

I keep seeing Judge Jones called all sorts of names, given all sorts of labels, and generally denigrated and disparaged as both a person and a Judge. Couldn’t some of the more egregious accusations, such as those from West, be considered libel and prosecuted as such?

Larry, you, like most ID/C peddlers, are *far* too arrogant and weak (in mind, body, and spirit) to ever believe that you aren’t Divinely Inspired. I, however, have a rather bad upper back and neck ache right now due to the Designer’s total Incompetence at designing the human body….

Furthermore, do you have evidence that the Theory of Evolution is a hoax? If not, retract your claim.

Best regards.

Comment #65771

Posted by Steve S on December 29, 2005 10:12 PM (e)

Bill Gascoyne wrote:

OK, guys, at what point do we post a “Do Not Feed The Trolls” sign on Larry’s stuff?

A large percentage of what happens here is troll feeding. It often dominates threads, necessitating a Bathroom Wall. Serious questions in comments get one or two responses, troll comments can get dozens.

Comment #65776

Posted by bill on December 29, 2005 10:27 PM (e)

Tip for Larry: ride the new horse, Sudden Appearance Theory

Creationism Horse died.

Scientific Creationism Horse died.

Intelligent Design Horse died.

And a piece of advice. Contact your pals at FTE and have them write an entirely new book. Be very careful to destroy all copies of all drafts. Start with SAT and stay with SAT.

Mull this over for at least 20 years, then return.

I think it’s a winning strategy.

Comment #65778

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on December 29, 2005 10:32 PM (e)

A large percentage of what happens here is troll feeding. It often dominates threads, necessitating a Bathroom Wall. Serious questions in comments get one or two responses, troll comments can get dozens.

Now that ID is dead, of course, there won’t BE any serious questions anymore, there being no more IDers to ask them of.

Alas, it is my unfortunate experience that, once the enemy is dead, armies like ours tend to turn on each other as a substitute.

Comment #65782

Posted by Tice with a J on December 29, 2005 10:39 PM (e)

Steve S wrote:

A large percentage of what happens here is troll feeding. It often dominates threads, necessitating a Bathroom Wall. Serious questions in comments get one or two responses, troll comments can get dozens.

It seems we just can’t help ourselves. It’s much easier to address people who get you worked up than people who are just curious.

Say, does anyone remember when a serious question was last posted? All this troll-feeding has covered up genuine inquiry. How about a nice good question to get the ball rolling?

If Mr. Fafarman posts again, ignore him. Don’t respond to his future posts in any way. Don’t refer to them in your replies to other people’s posts. Just don’t acknowledge them in any way. Larry Fafarman has given ample demonstration here and elsewhere that he is not worth your time trying to persuade.

Comment #65787

Posted by Flint on December 29, 2005 10:56 PM (e)

While I’m not a lawyer and I don’t read legal decisions for a living, I’ve read a few hundred, and I found Judge Jones’ decision one of the most entertaining I’ve ever seen. If it has any dry parts, I can’t find them. Instead, the temptation is to quote paragraph after paragraph, page after page. Jones is clear, complete, and dead nuts accurate with every sentence in the whole 140 pages.

I can’t see any confusing or hair-splitting coming out of this decision, because no matter what argument the IDologists make, it’s possible to extract half a dozen direct quotes that answer the argument unambiguously and with no confusion about context.

And as a result, West and the DI (and fellow travellers) are having a particularly hard time misconstruing the decision. Instead, they are reduced to raising points about “ethics” and “propriety” and other hazy denigrations and disparagements, rather than genuine criticism. Hilariously, some apologists are even reduced to claiming that denigrations and disparagements ARE genuine criticism.

I find it most gratifying that in response to all of this kvetching, the response is a direct quote from the decision. Those quotes invariably make it clear exactly how transparently dishonest the complaints are. There is simply no plausible argument that someone has innocently misunderstood anything anywhere in the decision.

Comment #65788

Posted by Steve on December 29, 2005 11:00 PM (e)

OK, *I* have a question. I’ve been trying to think of a way to ask this for awhile, but UnMark’s last post gave me the opening. I teach anatomy to college students, and for a long time now (since even before the masking of creationism as “intelligent design”) I’ve been telling my students that if they want any evidence of how humans weren’t the product of divine creation that they didn’t have to look any further than the flaws in the human design itself. Let’s face it, with spinal columns that curve in a way to guarantee that an upright biped would have back problems, arches that fall, wisdom teeth that get impacted, and collar bones that don’t serve any function in an animal that doesn’t swing from tree to tree, not to mention male nipples, the human body is anything but evidence of an all-wise creator.

My question is: Does anyone know of a site that has compiled all the really imperfect characteristics of the human body that argue more for our common ancestry with tree-dwelling primates than for our creation in some divine being’s image? If not, does anyone have any other contributions for the list? My students will forever be grateful.

Comment #65792

Posted by Tice with a J on December 29, 2005 11:36 PM (e)

Steve, I did a bit of looking for such a site, but as far as I can tell, no one’s posted a really thorough look at all our imperfections. Several people make the argument, but they’re too lazy to assemble all the evidence. It may exist, or you may have to do it yourself, in which case, go forth and conquer. On an amusing note, when I googled imperfect human body, the first thing that came up was Gray’s Anatomy.

However, I have to dispute your philosophical point. I believe in an all-wise creator, but I also believe that suffering is an important part of this life. Part of my philosophy/theology is that we cannot know true joy without knowing true suffering. God wants us to know true joy, so he has given us a life of suffering. Once this life is over, we will get perfect bodies and I’m sure we’ll appreciate them.

Incidentally, I also believe that God only gives obvious signs of his existence to those that already believe, so he will never allow irrefutable evidence of him to exist. Christian though I may be, ID is against my religion.

Comment #65793

Posted by KL on December 29, 2005 11:39 PM (e)

To Steve:

My better half, a professor of psychology (he teaches a neurophysiology course) is compiling such a list. I’ll see if I can get it. If I am allowed to give an email address on this forum, I can get you linked up tomorrow.

To Larry:

Do you ever sleep? I am still waiting on that alma mater(s). I’ve got more letters to write tomorrow.

Comment #65794

Posted by Flint on December 29, 2005 11:52 PM (e)

Seems to me that the way biology works, EVERY structure in EVERY organism must be considered suboptimal to some degree. So what’s being asked is, just how suboptimal does something need to be, before we should consider it a “flaw”. So this doesn’t strike me as a profitable enterprise.

Tice wrote:

I also believe that God only gives obvious signs of his existence to those that already believe

I think I just had a Doh! moment. This is much like saying the voices in the walls only make themselves audible to those who already hear them! In fact, come to think of it, this is EXACTLY the same. And perhaps for the same reason.

Part of my philosophy/theology is that we cannot know true joy without knowing true suffering.

I’d have to agree here. Contrast matters.

Comment #65795

Posted by Tice with a J on December 29, 2005 11:57 PM (e)

KL: Who is this ‘Larry’ person you speak of? (see Comment #65782)

Comment #65797

Posted by jim on December 30, 2005 12:04 AM (e)

There’s a section in the TalkOrigins site that covers this. The specific page is Evidence for Jury-Rigged Design in Nature.

I think there are abundant additional examples available. Here are some (mostly taken from the TalkOrigins pages) that I composed for a blog.

How about the design of having the testes form inside the abdomen of men, then have to pass through the abdominal wall and down to the scrotum, thereby leaving a weak spot (two, actually) in the wall. This spot, called the inguinal canal, can herniate, allowing the intestines to slop out under the skin. Herniation both screws up the intestine and cuts off/slows the blood flow to the affected testis. This will affect 1 in 3 men. What a great “Intelligent Design.”

In human males, the urethra passes right through the prostate gland, a gland very prone to infection and subsequent enlargement. This blocks the urethra and is a very common medical problem in males. Putting a collapsible tube through an organ that is very likely to expand and block flow in this tube is not good design. Any moron with half a brain (or less) could design better male “plumbing”.

And how about the vagina, aren’t women lucky? There’s an old joke going around about this poor design: what kind of designer would route the sewer pipes right through the center of the entertainment center?

How about our vestigal tail (coccyx)? Why would any designer put in the skeleton of a tail if we didn’t need one?

And since you brought it up, how about the widom teeth? Did your mouth have room for them or did you have to have yours pulled like I did?

While we’re talking about teeth, without modern dentistry, the “design” of your teeth would cause you to have to do without them past the age of about 30… Would you care to tell me how that is a good design?

How about the appendix? How many people have died from having this vestigal (serves no purpose) organ get infected? Doesn’t seem like an Intelligent Design to me…

It can hardly be said that the human knee is well designed for kneeling. Prolonged kneeling can lead to an expansion of the bursa in front of the patella, a condition known as housemaid’s knee. Doesn’t seem like an good idea for a Designer to not equip its creations with the ability to perform the very actions that “he” wishes them to perform - bend their knees in prayer.

What about the clever “Design” of the human elbow. At the knob on the lower end of the humerus the ulnar nerve is exposed just under the skin. A sharp blow by a hard object causes that numbing, painful sensation called “striking the funny bone” (a pun on the name of the bone).

There are some additional design flaws that appear in the manufacturing process of humans: the fetal lanugo, the grasping reflex, the Moro reflex, and the fontanelles (areas of the brain only protected by skin, not hard bone). Even the adult human skull is too thin to provide adequate protection to the gigantic brain and the absence of brow ridges leaves the eyes poorly protected.

Need I go on?

When can we expect issuance of the recall notice on “his” defective engineering skills?

All in all, your “Intelligent Designer” would have his PE license revoked and have his butt sued off if he lived in this country.

(note, I borrowed heavily from posts at both PT and TO for this “composite”. I have, alas, lost the references).

Comment #65799

Posted by Steve on December 30, 2005 12:11 AM (e)

OK, point taken. Just because something is suboptimal doesn’t necessarily make it a flaw. I guess I’m thinking of characteristics of the human body that just don’t make sense if the basis of the body is the image of a creator god (with all the associated omnipotence that’s supposed to come with that). If the suboptimal characteristic results in a greater likelihood of having health problems, I guess I’d call it a flaw, but I’m not feeling too picky on that requirement.

As for it being a profitable exercise… I use it as a pedagogical tool to get my students to think about anatomy in a historical (= evolutionary) context. They would prefer to just memorize the names of bones so they’ll do better in med school. *I* want them to think about how the bones got to be the way they are, and hitting them with an assessment of “suboptimality” pulls some of them out of their complacency a little bit. Verbal tricks, I know, but a teacher has to do whatever he or she can.

Comment #65800

Posted by Larry Fafarman on December 30, 2005 12:12 AM (e)

Comment #65768
Posted by cogzoid on December 29, 2005 10:10 PM

Larry said –
****OK, so according to the official ORDER, the school board may still require teachers to read a statement saying that evolution theory is the biggest hoax in the history of science, so long as ID is not mentioned.*****

Nope, try again, that’s still just denigrating the theory, and not actually criticizing it. But, at least you understand the requiring part.

What is the matter with you? Can’t you read? My message (Comment #65760) clearly showed that the part about denigrating or disparaging evolution theory is not in the official ORDER.

Comment #65801

Posted by KL on December 30, 2005 12:14 AM (e)

To jim: great list!

Add: muscles to move the ears, hackles on the back of our necks that “rise” in response to a threat, our sparse body hair and going into “goosebumps” when we are cold.

To Tice with a j:

huh? #65782? I’m sorry, but I’m afraid I don’t understand. I assume the failing is mine. Can you explain?

To Larry:

I’m still waiting…

Comment #65802

Posted by KL on December 30, 2005 12:15 AM (e)

To jim: great list!

Add: muscles to move the ears, hackles on the back of our necks that “rise” in response to a threat, our sparse body hair and going into “goosebumps” when we are cold.

To Tice with a j:

huh? 65782? I’m sorry, but I’m afraid I don’t understand. I assume the failing is mine. Can you explain?

To Larry:

I’m still waiting…

Comment #65803

Posted by Sir_Toejam on December 30, 2005 12:18 AM (e)

So what’s being asked is, just how suboptimal does something need to be, before we should consider it a “flaw”. So this doesn’t strike me as a profitable enterprise.

indeed, it begins to sound more and more the the mirror image of “irreducible complexity”, which is to say it’s pretty much an entirely subjective endeavor.

Next we should try defining what makes something “cute”.

Comment #65805

Posted by Sir_Toejam on December 30, 2005 12:20 AM (e)

This spot, called the inguinal canal, can herniate, allowing the intestines to slop out under the skin

yup. happened to me; had to have surgery when i was just months old.

Comment #65810

Posted by Flint on December 30, 2005 12:39 AM (e)

I think if I were created in the image of the Christian God, I’d at a very minimum be immortal, invulnerable to trauma, aches and pains, disease or aging, have wisdom out the wazoo, be able to perform miracles up through Class 2 (creating whole universes being Class 1), and have constant ready access to 72 virgins of AT LEAST movie actress moxie (and be able to service them all without any thought of performance anxiety). All of which should be child’s play for anyone with Class 2 miracle qualifications.

Anything short of that ought to be considered a flaw. Especially aging and death. Bummer, man.

Comment #65811

Posted by Flint on December 30, 2005 12:43 AM (e)

I should think if I were created in the image of the Christian God, I’d be immortal and invulnerable to aches and pains, trauma and disease, aging and death. I should be able to perform nothing less than Class 2 miracles (Class 1 being the ability to create whole universes). I should have ready access to 72 virgins of at least movie actress moxie, and be able to service them all without any thought of performance anxiety. (these should all be inherent in Class 2 miracle qualifications anyway)

Anything short of this should be flaws, big time.

Comment #65812

Posted by Flint on December 30, 2005 12:44 AM (e)

I should think if I were created in the image of the Christian God, I’d be immortal and invulnerable to aches and pains, trauma and disease, aging and death. I should be able to perform nothing less than Class 2 miracles (Class 1 being the ability to create whole universes). I should have ready access to 72 virgins of at least movie actress moxie, and be able to service them all without any thought of performance anxiety. (these should all be inherent in Class 2 miracle qualifications anyway)

Anything short of this should be flaws, big time.

Comment #65813

Posted by Flint on December 30, 2005 12:45 AM (e)

I should think if I were created in the image of the Christian God, I’d be immortal and invulnerable to aches and pains, trauma and disease, aging and death. I should be able to perform nothing less than Class 2 miracles (Class 1 being the ability to create whole universes). I should have ready access to 72 virgins of at least movie actress moxie, and be able to service them all without any thought of performance anxiety. (these should all be inherent in Class 2 miracle qualifications anyway)

Anything short of this should be flaws, big time.

Comment #65814

Posted by Flint on December 30, 2005 12:45 AM (e)

I should think if I were created in the image of the Christian God, I’d be immortal and invulnerable to aches and pains, trauma and disease, aging and death. I should be able to perform nothing less than Class 2 miracles (Class 1 being the ability to create whole universes). I should have ready access to 72 virgins of at least movie actress moxie, and be able to service them all without any thought of performance anxiety. (these should all be inherent in Class 2 miracle qualifications anyway)

Anything short of this should be flaws, big time.

Comment #65816

Posted by Flint on December 30, 2005 12:46 AM (e)

I should think if I were created in the image of the Christian God, I’d be immortal and invulnerable to aches and pains, trauma and disease, aging and death. I should be able to perform nothing less than Class 2 miracles (Class 1 being the ability to create whole universes). I should have ready access to 72 virgins of at least movie actress moxie, and be able to service them all without any thought of performance anxiety. (these should all be inherent in Class 2 miracle qualifications anyway)

Anything short of this should be flaws, big time.

Comment #65817

Posted by Flint on December 30, 2005 12:49 AM (e)

I should think if I were created in the image of the Christian God, I’d be immortal and invulnerable to aches and pains, trauma and disease, aging and death. I should be able to perform nothing less than Class 2 miracles (Class 1 being the ability to create whole universes). I should have ready access to 72 virgins of at least movie actress moxie, and be able to service them all without any thought of performance anxiety. (these should all be inherent in Class 2 miracle qualifications anyway)

Anything short of this should be flaws, big time.

Comment #65818

Posted by Flint on December 30, 2005 12:50 AM (e)

I should think if I were created in the image of the Christian God, I’d be immortal and invulnerable to aches and pains, trauma and disease, aging and death. I should be able to perform nothing less than Class 2 miracles (Class 1 being the ability to create whole universes). I should have ready access to 72 virgins of at least movie actress moxie, and be able to service them all without any thought of performance anxiety. (these should all be inherent in Class 2 miracle qualifications anyway)

Anything short of this should be flaws, big time.

Comment #65821

Posted by Flint on December 30, 2005 12:55 AM (e)

I should think if I were created in the image of the Christian God, I’d be immortal and invulnerable to aches and pains, trauma and disease, aging and death. I should be able to perform nothing less than Class 2 miracles (Class 1 being the ability to create whole universes). I should have ready access to 72 virgins of at least movie actress moxie, and be able to service them all without any thought of performance anxiety. (these should all be inherent in Class 2 miracle qualifications anyway)

Anything short of this should be flaws, big time.

Comment #65823

Posted by Flint on December 30, 2005 12:58 AM (e)

I should think if I were created in the image of the Christian God, I’d be immortal and invulnerable to aches and pains, trauma and disease, aging and death. I should be able to perform nothing less than Class 2 miracles (Class 1 being the ability to create whole universes). I should have ready access to 72 virgins of at least movie actress moxie, and be able to service them all without any thought of performance anxiety. (these should all be inherent in Class 2 miracle qualifications anyway)

Anything short of this should be flaws, big time.

Comment #65824

Posted by Larry Fafarman on December 30, 2005 12:59 AM (e)

Comment #65766 posted by cogzoid on December 29, 2005 10:06 PM

Larry Fafarman wrote:

****They are not likely to bother to search the whole 139-page opinion in the hope of finding an exception to that final-ruling statement. That statement is by far the most important single statement in the whole opinion, and the judge blew it. It shows that he did not even fully understand the key points of his own ruling.****

Your laziness does not equal his misunderstanding. I read all 139 pages and he has a very lucid style. It was actually an interesting read. Although, I’m actually interested in the matter at hand. Perhaps you can back up your claim that he didn’t understand his own ruling?

Why should people have to read the whole goddam opinion to find what is supposed to be in the order? Why should people believe that anything outside the order makes valid additions or exceptions to the order? Why should people go on a wild-goose chase to find something that they do not even know that they are supposed to look for? It does not matter whether his writing style is as lucid as Dick and Jane. Why do I have to explain common sense to you in such excruciating detail?

Also, the order was missing two prohibitions that he said he intended to put in the order (enjoining the school board from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID). See pages 138 and 139 of the opinion. That is the kind of thing I mean when I say that he did not understand his own ruling.

===========================
“ I may be lazy, but at least I am not stupid.” —- Pres. Kennedy’s press secretary Pierre Salinger, when declining to participate in Kennedy’s physical fitness program

Comment #65825

Posted by Sir_Toejam on December 30, 2005 1:00 AM (e)

OT followup:

7 hours after infection by the latest trojan exploit of XP; I’m finally getting a handle on the last traces of it.

I have spent a lot of time repairing PC’s and networks for money for many years, and this is the worst infection I have ever seen.

It’s documented here:

http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=175701152

fair warning - make sure your anti-spyware AND anti-virus proggies are up to date, and avoid any strange websites until MS releases a patch.

again, this only applies to those using XP; other MS OS’s and other OS’s in general don’t apply.

cheers

Comment #65826

Posted by Sir_Toejam on December 30, 2005 1:00 AM (e)

OT followup:

7 hours after infection by the latest trojan exploit of XP; I’m finally getting a handle on the last traces of it.

I have spent a lot of time repairing PC’s and networks for money for many years, and this is the worst infection I have ever seen.

It’s documented here:

http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=175701152

fair warning - make sure your anti-spyware AND anti-virus proggies are up to date, and avoid any strange websites until MS releases a patch.

again, this only applies to those using XP; other MS OS’s and other OS’s in general don’t apply.

cheers

Comment #65827

Posted by Flint on December 30, 2005 1:01 AM (e)

I should think if I were created in the image of the Christian God, I’d be immortal and invulnerable to aches and pains, trauma and disease, aging and death. I should be able to perform nothing less than Class 2 miracles (Class 1 being the ability to create whole universes). I should have ready access to 72 virgins of at least movie actress moxie, and be able to service them all without any thought of performance anxiety. (these should all be inherent in Class 2 miracle qualifications anyway)

Anything short of this should be flaws, big time.

Comment #65828

Posted by Sir_Toejam on December 30, 2005 1:01 AM (e)

OT followup:

7 hours after infection by the latest trojan exploit of XP; I’m finally getting a handle on the last traces of it.

I have spent a lot of time repairing PC’s and networks for money for many years, and this is the worst infection I have ever seen.

It’s documented here:

http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=175701152

fair warning - make sure your anti-spyware AND anti-virus proggies are up to date, and avoid any strange websites until MS releases a patch.

again, this only applies to those using XP; other MS OS’s and other OS’s in general don’t apply.

cheers

Comment #65829

Posted by Sir_Toejam on December 30, 2005 1:01 AM (e)

test

Comment #65830

Posted by Flint on December 30, 2005 1:02 AM (e)

I should think if I were created in the image of the Christian God, I’d be immortal and invulnerable to aches and pains, trauma and disease, aging and death. I should be able to perform nothing less than Class 2 miracles (Class 1 being the ability to create whole universes). I should have ready access to 72 virgins of at least movie actress moxie, and be able to service them all without any thought of performance anxiety. (these should all be inherent in Class 2 miracle qualifications anyway)

Anything short of this should be flaws, big time.

Comment #65831

Posted by Flint on December 30, 2005 1:04 AM (e)

I should think if I were created in the image of the Christian God, I’d be immortal and invulnerable to aches and pains, trauma and disease, aging and death. I should be able to perform nothing less than Class 2 miracles (Class 1 being the ability to create whole universes). I should have ready access to 72 virgins of at least movie actress moxie, and be able to service them all without any thought of performance anxiety. (these should all be inherent in Class 2 miracle qualifications anyway)

Anything short of this should be flaws, big time.

Comment #65832

Posted by Sir_Toejam on December 30, 2005 1:05 AM (e)

OT followup:

7 hours after infection by the latest trojan exploit of XP; I’m finally getting a handle on the last traces of it.

I have spent a lot of time repairing PC’s and networks for money for many years, and this is the worst infection I have ever seen.

It’s documented here:

http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=175701152

fair warning - make sure your anti-spyware AND anti-virus proggies are up to date, and avoid any strange websites until MS releases a patch.

again, this only applies to those using XP; other MS OS’s and other OS’s in general don’t apply.

cheers

Comment #65833

Posted by Flint on December 30, 2005 1:08 AM (e)

I should think if I were created in the image of the Christian God, I’d be immortal and invulnerable to aches and pains, trauma and disease, aging and death. I should be able to perform nothing less than Class 2 miracles (Class 1 being the ability to create whole universes). I should have ready access to 72 virgins of at least movie actress moxie, and be able to service them all without any thought of performance anxiety. (these should all be inherent in Class 2 miracle qualifications anyway)

Anything short of this should be flaws, big time.

Comment #65834

Posted by Larry Fafarman on December 30, 2005 1:08 AM (e)

Comment #65766 posted by cogzoid on December 29, 2005 10:06 PM

Larry Fafarman wrote:
*****They are not likely to bother to search the whole 139-page opinion in the hope of finding an exception to that final-ruling statement. That statement is by far the most important single statement in the whole opinion, and the judge blew it. It shows that he did not even fully understand the key points of his own ruling.*****

Your laziness does not equal his misunderstanding. I read all 139 pages and he has a very lucid style. It was actually an interesting read. Although, I’m actually interested in the matter at hand. Perhaps you can back up your claim that he didn’t understand his own ruling?

Why should people have to read the whole goddam opinion to find what is supposed to be in the order? Why should people believe that anything outside the order makes valid additions or exceptions to the order? Why should people go on a wild-goose chase to find something that they do not even know that they are supposed to look for? It does not matter if his writing style is as lucid as Dick and Jane. Why should I have to explain common sense to you in such excruciating detail?

Also, the order was missing two prohibitions that he said he intended to put in the order (enjoining the school board from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID). See pages 138 and 139 of the opinion. That is the kind of thing I mean when I say that he did not understand his own ruling.

“ I may be lazy, but at least I am not stupid.” —- Pres. Kennedy’s press secretary Pierre Salinger, when declining to participate in Kennedy’s physical fitness program

Comment #65835

Posted by Larry Fafarman on December 30, 2005 1:09 AM (e)

Comment #65766 posted by cogzoid on December 29, 2005 10:06 PM

Larry Fafarman wrote:
*****They are not likely to bother to search the whole 139-page opinion in the hope of finding an exception to that final-ruling statement. That statement is by far the most important single statement in the whole opinion, and the judge blew it. It shows that he did not even fully understand the key points of his own ruling.*****

Your laziness does not equal his misunderstanding. I read all 139 pages and he has a very lucid style. It was actually an interesting read. Although, I’m actually interested in the matter at hand. Perhaps you can back up your claim that he didn’t understand his own ruling?

Why should people have to read the whole goddam opinion to find what is supposed to be in the order? Why should people believe that anything outside the order makes valid additions or exceptions to the order? Why should people go on a wild-goose chase to find something that they do not even know that they are supposed to look for? It does not matter if his writing style is as lucid as Dick and Jane. Why should I have to explain common sense to you in such excruciating detail?

Also, the order was missing two prohibitions that he said he intended to put in the order (enjoining the school board from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID). See pages 138 and 139 of the opinion. That is the kind of thing I mean when I say that he did not understand his own ruling.

“ I may be lazy, but at least I am not stupid.” —- Pres. Kennedy’s press secretary Pierre Salinger, when declining to participate in Kennedy’s physical fitness program

Comment #65836

Posted by Larry Fafarman on December 30, 2005 1:09 AM (e)

Comment #65766 posted by cogzoid on December 29, 2005 10:06 PM

Larry Fafarman wrote:
*****They are not likely to bother to search the whole 139-page opinion in the hope of finding an exception to that final-ruling statement. That statement is by far the most important single statement in the whole opinion, and the judge blew it. It shows that he did not even fully understand the key points of his own ruling.*****

Your laziness does not equal his misunderstanding. I read all 139 pages and he has a very lucid style. It was actually an interesting read. Although, I’m actually interested in the matter at hand. Perhaps you can back up your claim that he didn’t understand his own ruling?

Why should people have to read the whole goddam opinion to find what is supposed to be in the order? Why should people believe that anything outside the order makes valid additions or exceptions to the order? Why should people go on a wild-goose chase to find something that they do not even know that they are supposed to look for? It does not matter if his writing style is as lucid as Dick and Jane. Why should I have to explain common sense to you in such excruciating detail?

Also, the order was missing two prohibitions that he said he intended to put in the order (enjoining the school board from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID). See pages 138 and 139 of the opinion. That is the kind of thing I mean when I say that he did not understand his own ruling.

“ I may be lazy, but at least I am not stupid.” —- Pres. Kennedy’s press secretary Pierre Salinger, when declining to participate in Kennedy’s physical fitness program

Comment #65837

Posted by Flint on December 30, 2005 1:11 AM (e)

This site has gone nuts again. Genuinely terrible software.

Comment #65839

Posted by Ed Darrell on December 30, 2005 1:13 AM (e)

Not necessarily bad design, but there was a bright and inventive high school biology teacher in Austin, Texas, who came up with a list of questions that intelligent design cannot answer, but that evolution can.

Now, if only I can find that list …

Comment #65842

Posted by Larry Fafarman on December 30, 2005 1:15 AM (e)

SORRY, FOLKS, MY MULTIPLE POSTS (THREE) WERE NOT INTENTIONAL. SOMETHING IS WRONG WITH THE WAY THE SYSTEM IS OPERATING. I AM CAREFUL TO CLICK JUST ONCE ON THE “POST” BUTTON, BUT SOMETIMES I GET MORE THAN ONE POST.

Comment #65843

Posted by PvM on December 30, 2005 1:16 AM (e)

Also, the order was missing two prohibitions that he said he intended to put in the order (enjoining the school board from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID). See pages 138 and 139 of the opinion. That is the kind of thing I mean when I say that he did not understand his own ruling.

While Larry initially was arguing that no comments critical to evolution could be taught or required to be taught, he now has reached the opposite conclusion.

Did Larry not realize that the the through the ID policy teachers were required to disparage and denigrate evolutionary theory?

If Larry believes that requiring to teach that evolution is the greatest hoax would not run afoul of the courts, then he may be in for a surprise.

But if Larry believes that the judge’s ruling only extends to the final page then he may be in for a surprise. Does Larry have any case law to support his views?

I find it still fascinating that Larry finds the ruling hard to read.

Comment #65845

Posted by PvM on December 30, 2005 1:20 AM (e)

The software is being upgraded right now. Some functionality may be lacking and some instability may be observed.

Comment #65849

Posted by Sir_Toejam on December 30, 2005 1:40 AM (e)

again, this only applies to those using XP; other MS OS’s and other OS’s in general don’t apply.

ack! another quick update - all MS OS’s from 2000 on up are affected by this.

there is no quick-fix at the moment, so keep on your toes. this one’s bad.

Comment #65850

Posted by Sir_Toejam on December 30, 2005 1:42 AM (e)

I find it still fascinating that Larry finds the ruling hard to read

Larry is only fascinating like checking out a car accident is “fascinating”.

Comment #65854

Posted by Ed Darrell on December 30, 2005 1:55 AM (e)

Here’s the list.

Stephen Bratteng of Austin put this together: Here are questions that evolution can answer, but intelligent design cannot:

13 Questions

1. Why does giving vitamin and mineral supplements to undernourished anemic individuals cause so many of them to die of bacterial infections.
2. Why did Dr. Heimlich have to develop a maneuver to dislodge food particles from people’s wind pipes?
3. Why does each of your eyes have a blind spot and strong a tendency toward retinal detachment? But a squid whose eyesight is just as 10 sharp does not have these flaws?
4. Why are depression and obesity at epidemic levels in the United States.
5. When Europeans came to the Americas, why did 90 percent of the Native Americans die of European diseases but not many Europeans died of American diseases?
6. Why do pregnant women get morning sickness?
7. Why do people in industrialized countries have a greater tendency to get Crohn’s disease and asthma?
8. Why does malaria still kill over a million people each year?
9. Why are so many of the product Depends sold each year.
10. Why do people given antidiarrheal medication take twice as long to recover from dysentery as untreated ones?
11. Why do people of European descent have a fairly high frequency of an allele that can make them resistant to HIV infection?
12. And close to home: Why do older men often have urinary problems?
13. And why do so many people in Austin get cedar fever?

Comment #65859

Posted by Arden Chatfield on December 30, 2005 2:26 AM (e)

Ed:

Is there a list of answers to those questions available somewhere on the web? I tried googling that list and couldn’t find anything. I’m curious to hear all the answers.

Comment #65865

Posted by roger tang on December 30, 2005 2:52 AM (e)

Why should people have to read the whole goddam opinion to find what is supposed to be in the order?

Because not everyone are lazy idiots like you. This is how legal opinions are written

Don’t like that answer? How about this one—Not everyone is a dishonest hack like you who like to quote mine parts of the decision to try to distort it.

Stop being a lazy ass and do your homework.

Comment #65866

Posted by Larry Fafarman on December 30, 2005 2:54 AM (e)

Comment #65843
Posted by PvM on December 30, 2005 01:16 AM

Larry wrote –

****Also, the order was missing two prohibitions that he said he intended to put in the order (enjoining the school board from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID). See pages 138 and 139 of the opinion. That is the kind of thing I mean when I say that he did not understand his own ruling.****

While Larry initially was arguing that no comments critical to evolution could be taught or required to be taught, he now has reached the opposite conclusion.

The judge said in the conclusion that he was going to put three particular prohibitions in the official order (see page 138), but he put only one of them in the official order. If you think that there is nothing wrong with that, then you are going to stop at nothing to defend this judge.

But if Larry believes that the judge’s ruling only extends to the final page then he may be in for a surprise.

The opinion contains the official order (“NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT:”). Just read the goddam opinion, like you are always asking me to.

Who are you anyway, PvM? How come I see your name as the author of so many of the opening comments of these comment threads? Why is there apparently no way for me to start a new thread if I am so inclined? On the AOL message boards, any AOL member can start a new thread. In a Google group I belong to, any registered user can start a new thread. Does Panda’s Thumb have members who have special privileges?

Comment #65867

Posted by roger tang on December 30, 2005 3:01 AM (e)

Who are you anyway, PvM? How come I see your name as the author of so many of the opening comments of these comment threads? Why is there apparently no way for me to start a new thread if I am so inclined? On the AOL message boards, any AOL member can start a new thread. In a Google group I belong to, any registered user can start a new thread. Does Panda’s Thumb have members who have special privileges?

Yes. They’re called owners and People Who Run This Blog. You do know what a blog is, right? And you know the different ways they operate, right?

Comment #65868

Posted by Sir_Toejam on December 30, 2005 3:02 AM (e)

Why is there apparently no way for me to start a new thread if I am so inclined

It’s a common thing on many blogs that posting is by invitation only. the original contributer posts on PT are done in similar fashion.

it allows for a measure of control that is absent from AOL or google message boards.

you might also try reading the disclaimer and site rules listed on this very site.

there’s that laziness again, lalalarry.

doesn’t it bother you that everbody here thinks your pathetic?

who are you trying to convince, anyway?

you probably would have a more agreeable time over at arn.org.

Comment #65869

Posted by Flint on December 30, 2005 3:06 AM (e)

Ed Darrell:

I’m not sure I see the distinction. Why isn’t “goddidit” as adequate an ID answer to these questions as to any other questions? Granted, evolutionary theory provides *detailed, coherent* answers to these questions, but surely that’s not a requirement.

Meanwhile, I see Larry is still struggling to misconstrue the decision in his favor. Apparently this is easier in his mind if he reads only a single page of the decision. After all, all those other pages don’t actually mean or say anything, do they? Of course not. That’s all noise. The actual *decision* says only what Larry wants to believe it says. That’s all that’s required, right? Maybe if Jones weren’t a Lutheran, he’d have some clue what he wrote, eh?

Comment #65870

Posted by Flint on December 30, 2005 3:09 AM (e)

sir toejam:

Please, make an effort to understand the difference between your and you’re. Hint: the second is two words. If you were to spell them out rather than attempt a contraction, you wouldn’t bungle the contraction so regularly.

Comment #65871

Posted by Sir_Toejam on December 30, 2005 3:15 AM (e)

oh please, flint. it’s late. surely you can find something more productive to comment on than my typos? especially when you automatically make the assumption i don’t know the difference.

I can understand if it’s a personal pet peeve of yours, but assuming i don’t know the difference borders on insulting.

don’t go there.

Comment #65873

Posted by Flint on December 30, 2005 3:20 AM (e)

sir toejam:

Yes, I confess it’s a pet peeve. It is NOT a typo on your part, however; you’ve been in flagrant violation of the rules of apostrophe usage for some while now. If you DO know the difference, then you are merely admitting to carelessness. Is that what you really want to do?

Here’s a proposal: make no contractions. Spell them out. This will protect you against the deadly “it’s” (which is NOT a possessive, it’s a contraction), which you haven’t got right yet.

Incidentally, I think nearly every point you make is right on target. No rational person can fault your content. So why demean it with carelessness? Language and presentation matter.

Comment #65875

Posted by Sir_Toejam on December 30, 2005 3:29 AM (e)

I admit I’m guitly of the sloppy typing that comes from internet posting. I’ll agree to focus more on my typing skills if you agree to be less sensitive about it.

not for nothing, but i do have a graduate degree in biology from berkeley, and several articles published, so i DO know how to write, typos aside.

It is NOT a typo on your part

…and stop making assumptions about what i know and don’t know about grammar and punctuation. It really is quite offensive to me. you could consider it a pet peeve if you like ;)

cheers

Comment #65876

Posted by Sir_Toejam on December 30, 2005 3:30 AM (e)

er, change guitly to guilty :p

Comment #65882

Posted by Larry Fafarman on December 30, 2005 4:12 AM (e)

Comment #65865
Posted by roger tang on December 30, 2005 02:52 AM

Larry said –

****Why should people have to read the whole goddam opinion to find what is supposed to be in the order?****

Because not everyone are lazy idiots like you. This is how legal opinions are written.

Don’t like that answer? How about this one—-Not everyone is a dishonest hack like you who like to quote mine parts of the decision to try to distort it.

Stop being a lazy ass and do your homework.

I am going to explain this just one more time, you stupid moron.

What guarantee is there that a statement in the opinion outside the official order would be officially accepted as a modification of the official order? Such a statement might just be considered to be dicta – just a thought that the judge made in passing that he did not intend to be binding upon his decision. So why should people bother searching for such modifications?

Furthermore, the opinion’s conclusion section listed three specific prohibitions that the judge said he was going to put in the official order, but he put only one of them in. The judge obviously did not know what he was doing.

Don’t go crying to the site monitors that I was the one who started the name-calling, you stupid moron.

Comment #65885

Posted by Larry Fafarman on December 30, 2005 5:09 AM (e)

Comment #65868
Posted by Sir_Toejam on December 30, 2005 03:02 AM

Larry said –
****Why is there apparently no way for me to start a new thread if I am so inclined****

It’s a common thing on many blogs that posting is by invitation only. the original contributer posts on PT are done in similar fashion.

it allows for a measure of control that is absent from AOL or google message boards.

you might also try reading the disclaimer and site rules listed on this very site.

there’s that laziness again, lalalarry.

doesn’t it bother you that everbody here thinks your pathetic?

who are you trying to convince, anyway?

you probably would have a more agreeable time over at arn.org.

Why can’t you give a civil answer to a civil question? Is it really that hard?

I could not find the “site rules,” and the “disclaimer” section did not have the information that you gave above.

Why doesn’t PvM post under his real name? And how come so many of the other commenters here do not use their real names? What are they hiding from?

Yeah, everybody here thinks I am pathetic. So they keep desperately trying to counter my arguments by using straw men, making ad hominem attacks, quoting me out of context, making nitpicking criticisms, etc., etc..

As I said, PT is obviously mainly a place where evolutionists come for mutual backscratching.

Comment #65889

Posted by k.e. on December 30, 2005 6:18 AM (e)

Larry time for an update
What is the mental disease where reality in not properly processed by the mind?
By the way you lost, stop crying and go home.

Comment #65891

Posted by Tim Hague on December 30, 2005 6:22 AM (e)

Nice to see some irrational criticism of the UK in the depths of this thread. No, the UK does not have a separation of the church and the state, yet - bizarrely - the UK is a lot less religious than the US.

I’ve said this before, but for those who might have missed it, I think the less fundamental part of the US populace should be pushing very hard to have religion taught in public schools - comparative religion that is. Teach all the religions on an equal footing. Turn all the ‘teach the controversy’ and ‘it is only fair to hear all sides’ arguments around and stuff them back down the throats of the fundies.

Comment #65896

Posted by Paul Flocken on December 30, 2005 7:07 AM (e)

Larry,
PvM is PvM’s real name. They are the initials of Pim van Meurs. Something you would know if you had bothered to learn something of the website you have polluted with so much manure.

Comment #65899

Posted by Paul Flocken on December 30, 2005 7:13 AM (e)

Tim,
I’ve always thought that it’s because Americans had their religious freedom handed to them on a silver platter, where Europeans had to earn theirs by blood. Oceans of it. Therefore fundametalist types don’t really know what religious oppression truly is and by extension don’t know what freedom really is. Well, off to work. Check in this afternoon.
Sincerely,
Paul

Comment #65900

Posted by Corkscrew on December 30, 2005 7:14 AM (e)

Regards Sir Toejam’s off-topic info about spyware infections that use the new WMF vulnerability:

You don’t have to use a different operating system to be immune, you just have to use the firefox browser. Which currently is far better than IE on other grounds too*. Plus you’d be helping Open Source gain popularity and contributing to the death of the evil Microsoft empire (my pet causes #32 and #47 respectively).

I should point out that it is possible to be infected if you’re using firefox, but only by actually downloading the .wmf file and opening it manually. If you’re dumb enough to do this despite knowing about the exploit, you’re on your own :P

*usability, functionality, extensibility, standards compliance, innovation (the new CANVAS tag, for example), security, non-evilness etc

Comment #65907

Posted by Grey Wolf on December 30, 2005 7:37 AM (e)

Larry wrote:

Why can’t you give a civil answer to a civil question? Is it really that hard?

Given that, in the process of this thread, you have been asked over 20 questions, none of which you have actually answered (like, do you know the difference between disparaging and criticizing?), doesn’t this comment strike you as more than a little hypocritical, Larry?

Get over yourself, go back through the thread and carefully answer all questions put to you.

Larry wrote:

I could not find the “site rules,” and the “disclaimer” section did not have the information that you gave above.

They are in the right hand side of the main page of this blog. Did you even look for them? I mean, right in the main, welcome page to the site, in prime space, and can’t find it? Are you allowed out unsupervised, Larry? Because you might hit a lamppost you didn’t notice.

Larry wrote:

Why doesn’t PvM post under his real name? And how come so many of the other commenters here do not use their real names? What are they hiding from?

PvM are his initials. His full name is regularly spelled out - something close to Pim van Meuer, but probably not exactly that (sorry, PvM). Again, it is staring at you right there and you are unable to see it, Larry. This is a big problem you have - you should admit it and do something about it, instead of lashing at others for your shortcomings.

Other commenters will have their own reasons. Mine? My real name doesn’t fit in the “name” box, nor does it display properly in most computers due to the strange characters used. Besides, I have used Grey Wolf for as long as I have been on the Internet, and thus is a perfectly good name - you can email me, etc, and it is always the same person behind it. All I hide are from spam bots and idiots. Welcome to the Internet.

Larry wrote:

Yeah, everybody here thinks I am pathetic. So they keep desperately trying to counter my arguments by using straw men, making ad hominem attacks, quoting me out of context, making nitpicking criticisms, etc., etc..

What arguments, Larry? Your only point has mutated from “the judge has forbidden criticism of Evolution” to “The Judge has cowered teachers into submission”. You call “nitpicking” the fact that there is a difference between criticism and disparagement (while remaining completely unaware of the difference between them). You fail to present evidence for your own ad hominems (“Evolution is the biggest hoax EVER!” - yawn, heard that one before, never saw the evidence). And of course, you are criticizing a document you have not even read - doesn’t that strike you as odd, Larry? Mind you, there is a good chance you are defending ID because a book you have not read supposedly told you so, so maybe is not that strange.

Grow up, Larry. That last post was a very childish lash out of a person who, lacking any real substance, is reduce to crying “unfair” when his arguments are shown to be empty and/or wrong.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf

Comment #65908

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on December 30, 2005 7:39 AM (e)

not for nothing, but i do have a graduate degree in biology from berkeley, and several articles published, so i DO know how to write, typos aside.

I’ve had seven books published. Alas, since I can think much more quickly than I can type, I do tend to make lots and lots of typos.

Drove my poor copy editors nutso. :>

Comment #65934

Posted by jim on December 30, 2005 9:13 AM (e)

I’ve had a book published too. Well only 4 copies were made, but one of those copies made it into the Library of Congress :).

Of course my book has nothing to do with biology!

Numerical Investigation of Equilibrium Chemistry of Hydrogen Injection into a Supersonic Combustion Ramjet

Comment #65946

Posted by AC on December 30, 2005 10:23 AM (e)

Larry wrote:

How many people are going to bother searching the whole 139 pages of this long-winded opinion in the hope of finding an exception to the above ruling?

139 pages is hardly long-winded. I downloaded and read it the day it became available as a PDF in various places on the ‘net; i.e., the day of the ruling. I found it to be a clearly-written document despite the detail it goes into, and thus a relatively quick read.

Furthermore, the order (as the name implies) is merely the action(s) that the court rules must be carried out. The preceeding 138 pages give the history of the case, background information needed to follow the process, and a detailed account of how the trial progressed, what evidence was considered, how it affected the ultimate decision, etc. If you don’t read those 138 pages, you probably won’t know the information they contain, especially if you haven’t been closely following the case. As a result, the order may not make complete sense. In this case though, I assure you, if you read the entire document, the order will be crystal clear - even if you don’t like it.

How you behave as a result, of course, is up to you.

Paul Flocken wrote:

…fundametalist types don’t really know what religious oppression truly is and by extension don’t know what freedom really is.

Such lack of perspective seems rampant in America, and it’s not exclusive to fundies - though they do tend to be the most melodramatic and humorous (in a black comedy sort of way). Every time I hear someone, in total seriousness, say that Christians are oppressed by “the evil atheists”, it reminds me of just how much times have changed, as well as how much work still lies ahead.

Comment #65967

Posted by Larry Fafarman on December 30, 2005 11:28 AM (e)

Comment #65907 posted by Grey Wolf on December 30, 2005 07:37 AM

Given that, in the process of this thread, you have been asked over 20 questions, none of which you have actually answered (like, do you know the difference between disparaging and criticizing?), doesn’t this comment strike you as more than a little hypocritical, Larry?

Wrong. I have tried to answer reasonable questions. One of the problems is that I get so many (and many are of course not reasonable). And that does not justify not giving a civil answer to a civil question.

They are in the right hand side of the main page of this blog. Did you even look for them?

I am not responsible for a poorly designed website, where important stuff is buried in a lot of junk.

PvM are his initials. His full name is regularly spelled out - something close to Pim van Meuer, but probably not exactly that (sorry, PvM).

The last guy I know to go by initials was “Evil Dr. P,” Paul Mirecki, the Kansas University religious studies professor who became a national laughingstock for posting on an atheist Internet forum that a course labeling ID as a mythology was a “nice slap in the big fat face of the fundies.” Under pressure, he withdrew the course and resigned as department chairman. Hear about him? Anyway, I could not find Meuer on the “crew” list in the disclaimer.

Besides, I have used Grey Wolf for as long as I have been on the Internet, and thus is a perfectly good name - you can email me, etc, and it is always the same person behind it.

How can I email you when I don’t know your email address?

Your only point has mutated from “the judge has forbidden criticism of Evolution” to “The Judge has cowered teachers into submission”.

There was no such “mutation” – I always believed that the judge had cowered teachers into submission, I just did not say it. And what caused my actual “mutation” was a serious ambiguity in the Dover opinion — the opinion’s conclusion said that three specific prohibitions were going to be included in the official order, but only one was actually included.

You call “nitpicking” the fact that there is a difference between criticism and disparagement

Criticism is disparagement by definition – even constructive criticism.

You fail to present evidence for your own ad hominems (“Evolution is the biggest hoax EVER!”

You don’t even know what “ad hominem” means – it means an attack on the person (motives, character, etc.) rather than the person’s arguments. I spend far more time here answering ad hominem attacks (like your present post) than I spend actually discussing the topics. And my statement about evolution was just an extreme example of disparagement (or “criticism,” if you prefer)

And of course, you are criticizing a document you have not even read - doesn’t that strike you as odd, Larry?

What strikes me as odd is when people claim that a 139-page document says something specific but do not quote or cite the page(s) of the document passage where it is said – and when asked for the information just say, “read it yourself.”

That last post was a very childish lash out of a person who, lacking any real substance, is reduce to crying “unfair” when his arguments are shown to be empty and/or wrong.

Your post was exactly the kind of post I described in my last post.

By the way, as for this system where only the site owners may initiate threads – a serious disadvantage is that this tends to result in an inordinate number of off-topic posts.

I think that any “lurkers” here – and there are probably very few if any — would get a very bad impression of those who have responded to my posts. Furthermore, I am not a lurker, but I am also getting a bad impression of evolutionists. Seeing the behavior of some of the evolutionists on this website has only increased my doubts about evolution.

Comment #65982

Posted by Mark Decker on December 30, 2005 12:06 PM (e)

[quote]
Criticism is disparagement by definition — even constructive criticism.[/quote]

No it isn’t. Read a dictionary.

Ever heard of literary criticism? The use of the word in no way implies disparagement.

Criticism in the academic sense is not about disparagement. It’s about “The practice of analyzing, classifying, interpreting, or evaluating literary or other artistic works.” Or “A critical article or essay; a critique.” or “The investigation of the origin and history of literary documents; textual criticism.” It can be entirely positive criticism.

Stop blaming the judge for your failure to comprehend English.

Comment #65983

Posted by KL on December 30, 2005 12:14 PM (e)

Larry! You’re back! Need to know your alma mater(s), Buddy. Got another batch of recommendation letters going out.

Comment #65985

Posted by Gav on December 30, 2005 12:17 PM (e)

Tim Hague commented the “the UK does not have a separation of the church and the state”.

More picky than relevant, but it does: despite the forces of antidisestablishmentarianism the Anglican church was disestablished in Ulster around 1870 and in Wales some 50 years later.

[Apologies Tim but I couldn’t miss an opportunity to use the word antidisestablishmentarianism. There, I’ve done it again. Hooray!]

Comment #65986

Posted by Alexey Merz on December 30, 2005 12:17 PM (e)

Seeing the behavior of some of the evolutionists on this website has only increased my doubts about evolution.

That’s o.k., Larry. Your behavior here has not improved my opinion of holocaust deniers.

Comment #65987

Posted by MaxOblivion on December 30, 2005 12:27 PM (e)

Guys the troll is obviously just laughing and has no intention of addressing any of the points made to him. Dont waste your time here. Its typical creationist strategy,

10 IGNORE arguments against claims
20 MAKE new claims
30 GOTO 10

Comment #65990

Posted by SteveF on December 30, 2005 12:30 PM (e)

He’s a holocaust denier? I wonder if he is a kinist too?

Comment #65993

Posted by pough on December 30, 2005 12:34 PM (e)

Larry, all you need to do is read the first two pages of the decision (to know what’s being referred to by “the ID Policy”) and the last two pages (to know what’s been decided). Or, I could spell it out for you. This is the first time I’ve bothered to read any of the decision, so who knows if I’ll get it right?

P. 2:

…the October 18, 2004 resolution and November 19, 2004 press release (collectively, “the ID Policy”).

What’s referred to as the ID Policy includes two main features: 1) including a requirement to teach ID and 2) requiring the teachers to read a statement that disparages evolution in the 9th grade biology class. (The full details are on pages one and two.)

P. 138:

we will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID.

That’s not three things. That’s one thing and a description of it (which includes two things).

The ID Policy
1) requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution
2) equiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID

So… P. 139:

2. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 65, Defendants are permanently enjoined from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District.

That order does, by stopping the ID Policy, stop the school board from requiring teachers to teach ID and it also stops the school board from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage evolution. Note that the ID Policy was really on pertaining to science classes, in particular 9th grade biology.

And here’s my opinion: anyone who’s willing to be cowed (not cowered) by a legal decision without first taking the time to really know what that decision has decided deserves to be cowed. But that’s just my opinion.

And the above was just my interpretation of the decision. It seems to make sense to me.

Comment #65995

Posted by Mr Christopher on December 30, 2005 12:44 PM (e)

Liesure Suit Larry Wrote:

Seeing the behavior of some of the evolutionists on this website has only increased my doubts about evolution.

My final comments to our leading intelligent design creationism expert and resident troll -

Larry, your doubts of evolution are justified. I’ll level with you - It’s all lies told by atheists, satan worshippers and those who do not wash their hands after going potty. And you saw right through it the whole time! Your keen insight is something to be proud of.

I suspect Judge Jones is a closet Satanist himself. Heck, he practically outlawed even mentioning the words “intelligent” and “design” in the same sentence.

Do the world a favor and go spread the Word. Shout it from the mountain tops evolution is a lie! Start with all the AOL forums.

I hope you will go to every forum on the internet and educate them on this sinister Satanic plot also known as evolution. And if anyone doubts the sinister roots of evolution watch what happens when I change one single letter - evilution See what I mean? Who needs more proof than that I ask you.

Have you been in contact with the Discovery Institute? Go to their web site and click on the Contact page where you will find a few email addresses.

Man oh man they could use a man of your caliber and insight right now. Theirs is a theory in crisis and someone such as yourself could really help their scientific cause. You can do it, Larry, the whole world is counting on you.

Do not waste your time here trying to save those who worship Satan. Now go, Christian Soldier, and warn the masses!

Comment #65997

Posted by Larry Fafarman on December 30, 2005 12:45 PM (e)

Comment #65946
Posted by AC on December 30, 2005 10:23 AM

139 pages is hardly long-winded. I downloaded and read it the day it became available as a PDF in various places on the ‘net; i.e., the day of the ruling. I found it to be a clearly-written document despite the detail it goes into, and thus a relatively quick read.

Let’s get this straight, the length and clarity of the opinion are irrelevant – it should not be necessary to search back through the opinion for possible express or implied modifications (additions, exceptions) to the official order. Reasonable people would not even expect to find such modifications. It is OK to require a search for background information that does not change the meaning of the official order.

One of the supposed modifications of the order is that teaching ID in non-science classes is permissible. I found no such express permission in the opinion. I found something that implied such permission, but I also found something that implied the opposite. Another supposed modification is that it is OK for individual science teachers to teach ID on their own. I found no such express permission, and in fact I found quite the opposite – “our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.” (page 137) And the teaching of ID in a science class is likely to be interpreted as the presentation of ID as an alternative to evolution, even if ID is not taught in that way.

Furthermore, as I have already pointed out umpteen times, the opinion is especially ambiguous because the conclusion says that three specific prohibitions were going to be included in the official order but only one of them was actually included.

People should stop trying to make excuses for a careless and incompetent judge.

I hope this is the last I will need to say on this subject, but I know that that hope is just wishful thinking (in other words, I can’t even hope).

Comment #66001

Posted by i like latin on December 30, 2005 12:50 PM (e)

Mark already posted the definition of criticism.

Here are the other two definitions needed.

Disparagement: To speak of in a slighting or disrespectful way; belittle.
To reduce in esteem or rank

Denigrate
to attack the character or reputation of; speak ill of; defame

Oh and on the Evolution is a hoax thingy and the whole rest of this long discussion. Perhaps, in Larry’s case this could all be classifed as Argumentum Ad Consequentiam.

Comment #66011

Posted by Mark Decker on December 30, 2005 1:10 PM (e)

That’s o.k., Larry. Your behavior here has not improved my opinion of holocaust deniers.

For me, his Holocaust denial just further reinforces my low opinion of Creationists.

I missed this disgusting behavior from him…links?

Comment #66014

Posted by k.e. on December 30, 2005 1:14 PM (e)

Larry another update

Larry said:
What strikes me as odd is when people claim that a 139-page document says something specific but do not quote or cite the page(s) of the document passage where it is said — and when asked for the information just say, “read it yourself.”

What strikes ME as odd is your fantasy understanding of the English language let alone Law and Science. Do you live in a dreamworld removed of all value for quality understanding ? Where is your Honor man ?
You have run around trying to find weakness in the Judges rulings and tripped over revealing your weakness plainly in front of those remaining shown yourself to be a lazy and pathetic reader let alone thinker.
Are you just going through the motions so that you can bask in ridicule ?

Another said

You call “nitpicking” the fact that there is a difference between criticism and disparagement

Larry said:
Criticism is disparagement by definition — even constructive criticism.

*Criticism is disparagement by definition*
Only if you can’t (or don’t wish) understand English

You now go into martyr mode.

Seeing the behavior of some of the evolutionists on this website has only increased my doubts about evolution.

Boo hoo hoo sticks and stones

That’s right Larry evolution is a crime OK we get it.
I completely 100% agree with you why have I been so stupid !
Can I now have your alternative please ?

Before I asked Larry to define “irreducible complexity” and Larry said that was impossible. Like I asked him to define god or something.

Again Larry shows ignorance

I’ll show you now Larry

I’ll go v.e.r.y v.e.r.y. s.l.o.w.ly.

What does each word mean ?

When combined what do they mean.

I’m not going to use “irreducible complexity” exactly because I want you to tell me what they mean together.

Here is my example

“reducible simplicity”

Adjective noun eg white house

reducible=To separate into orderly components by analysis

simplicity=”a quality of being simple”

or
“Clarity of expression”

Together

To separate “clarity of expression” into orderly components by analysis.

I’ll just give one component of clear expression (Simplicity):- using as few simple words as possible to communicate an idea where there is a common world view among the recipients.

EG 1. “Defeaticrats”, “Activist Judge”
EG 2. The opposite of enlightenment is obscurantism.

Here is a short history of obscurantism.
http://home.btclick.com/scimah/obscurantism.htm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A640207

Now Larry armed with those simple hints you can give me
a simple clear description for “irreducible complexity”

Comment #66020

Posted by Arden Chatfield on December 30, 2005 1:21 PM (e)

Numerical Investigation of Equilibrium Chemistry of Hydrogen Injection into a Supersonic Combustion Ramjet

Cool title, by the way…

Comment #66021

Posted by Ubernatural on December 30, 2005 1:24 PM (e)

Larry wrote

the opinion is especially ambiguous because the conclusion says that three specific prohibitions were going to be included in the official order but only one of them was actually included.

said conclusion was written as:

“we will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID.”

said order was written as:

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. ***********

2. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 65, Defendants are permanently enjoined from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District.

3.************

Larry, The Judge didn’t need to specify the “other two” prohibitions because they are both already covered by the simple English sentence that is the main part of the order (#2 above).

The Judge explains in his body of his decision that he found that:

1) the ID Policy “denigrate[d] or disparage[d] the scientific theory of evolution” and

2) the ID Policy is a religious, alternative theory known as ID.

>>>> THEREFORE all he had to do was prohibit the school board from maintaining the ID Policy.

Simple, simple, SIMPLE!

Comment #66026

Posted by AC on December 30, 2005 1:28 PM (e)

This is the order in its entierty (final page of the document):

Judge Jones wrote:

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. A declaratory judgment is hereby issued in favor of Plaintiffs pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 such that
Defendants’ ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and Art. I, § 3 of
the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

2. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 65, Defendants are permanently enjoined
from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area
School District.

3. Because Plaintiffs seek nominal damages, Plaintiffs shall file with the
Court and serve on Defendants, their claim for damages and a verified
statement of any fees and/or costs to which they claim entitlement.
Defendants shall have the right to object to any such fees and costs to
the extent provided in the applicable statutes and court rules.

The “ID Policy” referenced is the school board resolution and accompanying statement to be read by the ninth grade biology teacher(s) to the students of that class:

Resolution

Students will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin’s theory and of other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent design. Note: Origins of Life is not taught.

Statement

The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.

Because Darwin’s Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.

Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves.

With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the Origins of Life to individual students and their families. As a Standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on Standards-based assessments.

The first 138 pages do not modify the order. They lead to the order. Their content may get refered to by other lawyers/jurists in other, future cases. However, I reiterate, the order issued in this case, which applies only to the Dover, PA public school system, is wholly contained on the last page of the document and is not open to interpretation by the school board, the police, or the citizens. The statement can no longer be read, and the resolution can no longer be followed.

Comment #66029

Posted by John C. on December 30, 2005 1:31 PM (e)

I am a friend of Larry Fafarman. I am posting this message on his behalf. He wrote the message.
John C.

=============================================

From Larry Fafarman –

My last post has been “temporarily” blocked because I am an alleged “abusive” commenter.

There is definitely a double standard here. On this website, I am regularly called an idiot, lazy, a fundy, pathetic, etc.. A large percentage of the responses I get are not polite. I try to stay polite myself, but there is just so much of this stuff that I can take lying down. I was not given the exact reason why I was bumped, but I suspect it was because I called another commenter a “stupid moron.” But that commenter had called me lazy, an idiot, and a dishonest hacker. How many commenters have been bumped for sending abusive posts to me?

Furthermore, bumping me might have caused the loss of a lot of text if I were not in the habit of saving my text before submitting it.

I was considering sending my last post under a different name and email address, but it would have been obvious who it was from and that would have gotten me into even more trouble.

I would like to know when I can start posting again so I can send the rebuttal that was blocked.

I will make a deal – I will be civil in my posts if others will be civil in their responses to my posts. Is that unreasonable?

Comment #66041

Posted by k.e. on December 30, 2005 1:52 PM (e)

Larry whined
Furthermore, bumping me might have caused the loss of a lot of text if I were not in the habit of saving my text before submitting it.

add incompetent

Comment #66043

Posted by Mr Christopher on December 30, 2005 1:55 PM (e)

Guys here is something to think about. At this point the majority of posts are directed at Larry or by Larry. Larry has demonstrated he has no intention of understanding the issue at hand. He demonstrates a lack of fundamental reading/comprehension skills and he obviously has an agenda. He is not here to learn or share information or use reason to find a worthwhile conclusion. Nor has he offered any credible criticisms.

I saw him over at LJWord prior to him showing up here and people went round and round with him for days/weeks over the identical issues and complaints. He didn’t “get it” over there any more than he is getting it here.

I fed him a few times and you are free to feed him as well. But you’d be wise to hold a funeral for any fantasies you might have that Larry is going to at some point understand what you are saying.

Some of the well written and thought out responses to Larry would be easy for a 9 year old to comprehend. We’re talking about intelligent design creationism here and a court ruling, not rocket science. Larry is still having a hard time distinguishing between terms like “criticise” and “denigrate or disparage”.

He lacks an ability to see the flaw in his own arguement(s) and finds a simple 139 page document intellectually overwhelming. Then he claims his doubts about evolution are being magnified because people aren’t treating his idiotic notions with more respect.

Read his posts and the many responses. This is not someone who is seeking a better understanding or even bringing up good points or criticisms, this is someone who is trolling for reactions. If anything in his delusional world he is convincing us that we are mistaken.

His notion that some of the conduct here makes him doubt evolution is even more is quite revealing. What does he want us to do, get on our knees and beg him to give evolution a chance? Who cares what Larry believes or doubts? What difference does his opinion make?

I’m glad we don’t have people like Larry on our side. I am glad he is an intelligent design creationist.

Anyhow…Based on what I have seen of Larry at another site this back and forth with him will go on for weeks if not months if we keep feeding him.

As I said, who cares what he thinks? He is one grain of sand on a beach the size of California. Only a hard core intelligent design creationist could stand more than 5 minutes with him. Does anyone have the ARN forum link we could point him to where he could find his intellectual equals?

Don’t get me wrong, there is a weird pleasure in making fun of the intelligent design creationist ideas, but keep in mind this guy is never going to get it no matter how simple it is explained to him.

No one here is going to “save” Larry or convince him of anything. He is not going to ever “come around”. If he was looking for intellectual “truth” he would have found it in the first couple of responses.

If we are not careful he will end up in every thread here and post the same intellectual feces that he was expelled in this one.

Anyhow…

Comment #66048

Posted by Alexey Merz on December 30, 2005 2:07 PM (e)

I missed this disgusting behavior from him…links?

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/12/activist_judge.html#comment-65514

Comment #66054

Posted by gregonomic on December 30, 2005 2:18 PM (e)

I wouldn’t be surprised if the moderators (PvM, in particular) were also a bit miffed about this thinly-veiled threat (from comment #65967 in this thread):

Larry Fafarman wrote:

The last guy I know to go by initials was “Evil Dr. P,” Paul Mirecki, the Kansas University religious studies professor who became a national laughingstock for posting on an atheist Internet forum that a course labeling ID as a mythology was a “nice slap in the big fat face of the fundies.” Under pressure, he withdrew the course and resigned as department chairman. Hear about him?

As if it wasn’t already clear enough what kind of person we’re dealing with.

Comment #66055

Posted by MaxOblivion on December 30, 2005 2:18 PM (e)

Mr Christopher is 100% correct This larry dude is a typical internet troll. He exhibits all aspects of trollism.

By feeding him you are wasting your time and giving him satsisfaction.

Dont waste your time.

Comment #66056

Posted by Mr Christopher on December 30, 2005 2:19 PM (e)

Larry Farma bings us this insight:

…I believe that the Jewish holocaust was exaggerated. A “systematic” Jewish holocaust was impossible because the Nazis had no reliable way of identifying Jews and non-Jews…

There is certainly a parallel between persecution of Holocaust deniers and persecution of evolution deniers.

I’ll avoid feeding our man Larry by NOT responding to his ideas above, but you can plainly see from Larry’s comments he faces some challenges in life.

Instead of wasting his time convincing us we are all wrong about evolution and intelligent design creationism, what can we do to help Larry find his own people and thus more happiness in his life?

To bad uncommon descent has been “mothballed’ I don’t think Larry ever had the opportunity to meet his own kind there. Dembski would have loved Larry.

Comment #66057

Posted by Sir_Toejam on December 30, 2005 2:20 PM (e)

You don’t have to use a different operating system to be immune, you just have to use the firefox browser

actually, they’ve discovered the exploit can now be couched into jpgs and gifs as well.

besides which, a wmf file is just another image format, so most folks think they are just looking at a picture.

The standard PC user still is getting used to thinking about being carefull when checking out .exe or .com files.

However, you are right that the behavior of firefox and mozilla out of the box is to ask before downloading any image file, while the opposite is true for IE. All of them can be modified to ask/not ask depending on file extension tho.

It’s more prudent, I think, to inform folks about the advantages of decent spyware and antiviral protection, and to always be careful when visiting new sites.

Oh, and to also make sure they keep all their progams, including their OS, up to date with the latest patches.

Comment #66058

Posted by Sir_Toejam on December 30, 2005 2:24 PM (e)

Dembski would have loved Larry.

actually, i rather doubt that, but Dave Scott certainly would have.

I suggested Larry check out ARN, but I doubt he has yet.

Larry; go HERE:

http://www.arn.org/

and stay there, would ya?

Comment #66065

Posted by UnMark on December 30, 2005 2:29 PM (e)

Regarding a list of “issues” with human physiology, this was posted to a forum I frequent:

http://www.felbers.net/fa/2005/11/25/designing-women-and-men/

To attempt to bring this thread back closer to the original topic, I had asked in my previous post, and recieved no reply, whether or not all this slandering of Judge Jones by the likes of the DI is grounds for libel charges. I’m not a lawyer by any stretch of the imagination, so I don’t know what constitutes legal grounds for such charges. (Although I do realize that libel and slander charges usually only make the lawyers rich….)

Best regards.

Comment #66068

Posted by drakvl on December 30, 2005 2:39 PM (e)

Everyone’s calling Judge Jones a great man, a sage beyond his time, because he made a rational decision on this one case. This is something which I am finding slightly annoying, and have decided to speak about. Really, he did his job. Besides, with such a thorough job the attorneys for the plaintiffs did of making their case, combined with bad decisions on the part of the defense attorneys, it seems that Judge Jones made the only decision which was rational in light of the evidence.

I’m trying to think of an example of an issue which seems obvious (at least to me) what the rational decision is, and on which we do not know Judge Jones’s opinions, but sadly, I can only think of those politically charged issues, such as gay marriage and the humanness of an embryo (as it relates to abortion, stem-cell research, and the morning-after pill). So, going with the latter topic: we don’t know what, before a huge case in which it is pointed out that the fetus doesn’t even have a brain for a month (I think that’s the timescale) – or that fertilization of the egg doesn’t even occur for a couple days! (thank you, Discovery Health Channel), Judge Jones’s opinions on such a topic would be. At best, we can really only credit Judge Jones for making a rational decision based on the information given by the attorneys on both sides – that is, we can only credit him for being good at his job. I personally think the status of “real hero(es) of this case” would be more properly bestowed on, say, the attorneys for the plaintiffs. Though I will give the judge kudos for compiling a work which pulls together all sorts of arguments against evolutionary theory, along with well-reasoned refutations.

Comment #66072

Posted by Steviepinhead on December 30, 2005 2:45 PM (e)

Ah, the myths that abound about lawyers, not that West is helping things out here! In any event, no one is going to get rich trying to sue West–for free speech-vigorous public debate purposes, the Supreme Court has made it very difficult to libel or slander a public figure involved in a controversial, newsworthy topic.

It would be like trying to sue me for suggesting that Bush (or Clinton, or Reagan, or Carter, or Ford, or Nixon, or Johnson, or Kennedy, or…) was a consummate idiot.

Assuming a basic lack of integrity on the part of the loser, the most predictable thing that the losing side says about a judge is to accuse him or her of bias, “activism,” etc.

I can assure you that Judge Jones is inured to this kind of behavior. Indeed, he expected it and predicted it in his opinion.

The more West whines, lies, exaggerates, evades, and goes through every stage of a fit of the vapors, the more he reveals himself and his associates for the losers that they are. The point of unmasking his petulance is not to lay the groundwork for suing him, but just to confirm to any doubters that West is indeed what we have always claimed him to be–a dishonest and morally repugnant scam artist.

Comment #66074

Posted by Larry Fafarman on December 30, 2005 2:47 PM (e)

Comment #66021
Posted by Ubernatural on December 30, 2005 01:24 PM

Larry, The Judge didn’t need to specify the “other two” prohibitions because they are both already covered by the simple English sentence that is the main part of the order (#2 above).

The Judge explains in his body of his decision that he found that:

1) the ID Policy “denigrate[d] or disparage[d] the scientific theory of evolution” and

2) the ID Policy is a religious, alternative theory known as ID.

>>>> THEREFORE all he had to do was prohibit the school board from maintaining the ID Policy.

I disagree. The ID policy concerned only a school-board requirement that ID be presented in science classes as an alternative to evolution. The two prohibitions in the opinion’s conclusion that were strangely omitted from the official order — i.e., permanently enjoining the school board from (1) “requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution” and (2) “from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID” — would also be applicable to (1) any requirement for teaching ID in non-science classes and (2) any requirement for teaching criticisms of evolution other than ID. Also, though teachers were not defendants in the lawsuit, it is not clear how the opinion could be applied to science and non-science teachers who might wish to teach ID or other criticisms of evolution theory on their own (i.e., without being required to do so by the board). And even if the rest of the opinion is used to interpret the conclusion section and the official order, the rest of the opinion is silent or ambiguous on these additional issues. This is what I mean when I say that the opinion is ambiguous.

Comment #66076

Posted by gwangung on December 30, 2005 2:51 PM (e)

Everyone’s calling Judge Jones a great man, a sage beyond his time, because he made a rational decision on this one case. This is something which I am finding slightly annoying, and have decided to speak about. Really, he did his job.

Which really DOES deserves all the praise, given the haphazard record of appointees of this administration.

Comment #66078

Posted by Sir_Toejam on December 30, 2005 2:54 PM (e)

Larry; go HERE:

http://www.arn.org/

and stay there, would ya?

Comment #66087

Posted by RupertG on December 30, 2005 3:22 PM (e)

Anyone who thinks criticism is indistinguishable from denigration is incapable of rational argument, which requires one without the other. It would be unfair to them to pretend otherwise.

R

Comment #66090

Posted by Arden Chatfield on December 30, 2005 3:24 PM (e)

Everyone’s calling Judge Jones a great man, a sage beyond his time, because he made a rational decision on this one case. This is something which I am finding slightly annoying, and have decided to speak about. Really, he did his job. Besides, with such a thorough job the attorneys for the plaintiffs did of making their case, combined with bad decisions on the part of the defense attorneys, it seems that Judge Jones made the only decision which was rational in light of the evidence.

Sure. But I think you’re forgetting that after 5 years of seeing the kind of people Bush appoints, most of us are quite unused to rational decisions.

Comment #66093

Posted by Mr Christopher on December 30, 2005 3:37 PM (e)

I think probably most reasonable people expected intelligent design creationism to lose in the Dover trial. Anyone who read the testimony could see how flawed and un-scientific the IDC “theory” is and also how underhanded the Board had been.

I think the “shock and awe” (extensive Jones praise) regarding Jones’s ruling has to do with how thorough and well crafted the ruling was. That was not something I had expected.

Evolution and biology are not easy topics to follow for us laymen, we have to read some parts a few times :-) Yet Jones displayed an exceptional grasp and understanding of complex subjects in addition to his legal expertise.

True, he was only doing his job but I don’t think many people expected such a thorough and well thought out ruling thus the new Jones Fan Club.

Maybe one day if West tires of his campaign of character assasination or runs out of nasty things to say about Jones he might actually read the ruling. Maybe.

Comment #66099

Posted by AC on December 30, 2005 3:58 PM (e)

Those “two prohibitions” are not “strangely omitted” from the order. The statement itself is nothing but a denigration of evolution, and the order prohibits the “ID Policy”, which is both religiously motivated and not an alternative scientific theory. It is unreasonable to expect the order to be a copy-and-paste of the preceeding 138 pages. The order boils them down to actions which must result from them. It is the sum, the bottom line.

These prohibitions do not apply to “teaching ID in non-science classes”, in the sense of presenting the idea of ID the way religions are presented in a comparative religion class. They also don’t apply to “teaching criticisms of evolution other than ID”, because scientific criticism of any theory belongs in a science class. If ID were scientific, and if the Dover “ID Policy” was not tantamount to character assassination, there wouldn’t be a problem.

I emphasize “scientific criticism” to note the contrast between science and non-science, and between criticism and denigration. The Dover “ID Policy” aimed to blur both distinctions in an unconstitutional way. Thus the ruling.

Judge Jones did his job well. This is a comment on law and legal procedure - nothing more. You can disagree with the law, or the procedure, or snotty atheists, or science, et cetera, ad infinitum. They are separate issues, and they do not refute the simple fact: Judge Jones did his job well.

Comment #66130

Posted by Mark Decker on December 30, 2005 5:33 PM (e)

The problem seems to really be that, despite his not being a lawyer nor having any clue as to what constitutes a good or bad legal decision, Larry is pontificating to us as if he had a clue. This is exactly what West, also not a lawyer, is doing. But Larry doesn’t have a clue, as it has been demonstrated by numerous people numerous times how clear and unambiguous this ruling is (and he doesn’t even have a clue about the meaning of basic words).

Furthermore, lawyers who have examined the ruling (minus DI shills) have not had any such reservations about its meaning. Were it really that ambiguous, you can bet that legal experts from all over the map would be jumping on it. They’re clearly not doing so.

Comment #66162

Posted by Moses on December 30, 2005 7:20 PM (e)

Let’s get this straight, the length and clarity of the opinion are irrelevant — it should not be necessary to search back through the opinion for possible express or implied modifications (additions, exceptions) to the official order. Reasonable people would not even expect to find such modifications. It is OK to require a search for background information that does not change the meaning of the official order.

No, let’s get this straight. You have clearly demonstrated you have no familiarity or expertise with legal opinions. Whereas, in my case, and possibly some others here, reading legal opinions, black-letter law, etc., is part and parcel of our professional lives.

This is one of clearest and most intelligently written opinions I’ve read in a decade. The judge clearly went out of his way to write a clear and unambiguous opinion and discuss the rel event facts, arguments and precedents in a clear and even-handed way.

And then, like most judges who see the rampant stupidity and the costs to society (direct & indirect), he chastised the gang of idiots that made this case necessary by implementing an unconstitutional and divisive co-mingling of church and state.

That you are arrogant enough to think the opinion needs to pander to your ignorance, laziness and lack of education is hubris of the first water. This is a LEGAL opinion, not some piece of crap creation-science religious tract for the semi-literate. It is structured the way it is structured because it if for educated, intelligent people who take the time and effort to understand it, and not for the Fox News crowd.

Your criticisms are just plain ignorant. So just shut your pie-hole and move on.

Comment #66190

Posted by John C. on December 30, 2005 8:21 PM (e)

Comment #66099 posted by AC on December 30, 2005 03:58 PM
Those “two prohibitions” are not “strangely omitted” from the order. The statement itself is nothing but a denigration of evolution, and the order prohibits the “ID Policy”, which is both religiously motivated and not an alternative scientific theory. It is unreasonable to expect the order to be a copy-and-paste of the preceding 138 pages.

Here again are the two omitted prohibitions — permanently enjoining the school board from (1) “requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution” and (2) “from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID”

The judge did not even bother to “cut and paste” these two prohibitions into the official order, contrary to what he said he was going to do. As I explained (Comment #66074, of this thread), these two prohibitions would have changed the meaning of the order. The opinion is now especially ambiguous because the conclusion section does not agree with the official order.

These prohibitions do not apply to “teaching ID in non-science classes”, in the sense of presenting the idea of ID the way religions are presented in a comparative religion class.

These two prohibitions do not distinguish between science classes and non-science classes. And public opinion polls have shown that a lot of people want ID to be kept out of non-science classes, too.

They also don’t apply to “teaching criticisms of evolution other than ID”, because scientific criticism of any theory belongs in a science class.

The first of these two prohibitions does not distinguish between scientific, unscientific, and pseudoscientific criticisms of evolution. And who decides what is scientific and what isn’t? Also, there is no constitutional reason for keeping non-religious unscientific and peeudoscientific criticisms out of science classes (though I am not necessarily proposing that such criticisms be taught in science classes).

I emphasize “scientific criticism” to note the contrast between science and non-science, and between criticism and denigration.

Some people are so hypersensitive about criticism of evolution theory that the mere hint of any kind of such criticism is enough to trigger a lawsuit. That is what happened in the case of the Cobb County, Georgia evolution-disclaimer textbook sticker lawsuit. So court opinions in lawsuits concerning criticism of evolution theory need to spell out in the finest detail what is allowed and what isn’t.

As for commenters who have disparaged my knowledge of the law – I have appealed to the US Supreme Court twice as a pro se (self-represented) litigant. If you think that is easy, I suggest that you try it.

Also, Judge Jones now has no grounds for a libel lawsuit against West – that is ridiculous.

Comment #66209

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on December 30, 2005 8:53 PM (e)

Numerical Investigation of Equilibrium Chemistry of Hydrogen Injection into a Supersonic Combustion Ramjet

My titles were, uh, a lot shorter. ;)

Comment #66211

Posted by Larry Fafarman on December 30, 2005 8:58 PM (e)

If you think that West’s defamation of Judge Jones was bad, what about Pat Buchanan’s reference to Jones as a “Neanderthal” ? LOL

http://realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-12_28_05_PB.html
“The Dover defeat notwithstanding, the pendulum is clearly swinging back. Darwinism is on the defensive. For, as Tom Bethell, author of ‘The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science,’ reminds us, there is no better way to make kids curious about ‘intelligent design’ than to have some Neanderthal forbid its being mentioned in biology class.”

Comment #66223

Posted by Steviepinhead on December 30, 2005 9:15 PM (e)

Ugh. It’s ba-aa-aa-ck!

Comment #66230

Posted by Tice with a J on December 30, 2005 9:26 PM (e)

KL wrote:

To Tice with a j:

huh? #65782? I’m sorry, but I’m afraid I don’t understand. I assume the failing is mine. Can you explain?

Of course I’ll explain. That was the number of a previous comment I had made in which I laid out my policy for dealing with trolls - ignore them. If someone insists on refusing to listen to what you say, continuously pontificates on things he/she/it knows nothing about, repeatedly and unapologetically confuses the meaning of words, whines and complains, dishes out insults and ad hominems with glee but gets angry when you use them, threatens not to listen to you but keeps responding anyway, and occasionally says something really, really stupid and offensive, that person is a troll. Larry is a troll. And everyone knows that trolls don’t exist, so why talk to something that doesn’t exist? :)
If someone is arguing with you and ignoring what you say (not to mention ignoring good sense), return the favor double by ignoring them entirely. Larry Fafarman? I know no such fellow.

KL wrote:

I think I just had a Doh! moment. This is much like saying the voices in the walls only make themselves audible to those who already hear them! In fact, come to think of it, this is EXACTLY the same. And perhaps for the same reason.

Well, what if there were voices in the wall? I’m sure that in your experience, the wall doesn’t have voices, so if you did hear voices, you’d try to explain them as something else (pipes clanging, house settling, people in the other room, etc.), and the voices might grow tired of trying to talk to you. We humans tend to perceive what we want to perceive and not much else. That’s part of the problem at the heart of the ID mess: people want to see obvious signs where there aren’t any. The basic belief is that God will only reveal himself to those who are truly ready to accept the consequences of his existence.
Of course, I’d rather talk about other things here, since this is a science blog, but if you have further questions, comments, or criticisms, I’m listening.

Let me say it plain one more time: DON’T DO TROLLS THE FAVOR OF RESPONDING TO THEM. JUST WALK AWAY. JUST WALK AWAY.

Comment #66241

Posted by Larry Fafarman on December 30, 2005 9:43 PM (e)

Comment #66087
Posted by RupertG on December 30, 2005 03:22 PM (e) (s)

Anyone who thinks criticism is indistinguishable from denigration is incapable of rational argument, which requires one without the other. It would be unfair to them to pretend otherwise.

I never said that. You are putting words in my mouth. This is just another straw man that is typical of many of the responses I am getting here. In general, “denigration” is too severe to be connoted just by the word “criticism.” The word “criticism” itself can have different meanings, depending on the context. For example, it can mean just review or evaluation, or it can mean fault-finding. In the sense of fault-finding, “criticism” is similar to “disparagement,” another word used in the Dover opinion.

Comment #66243

Posted by Flint on December 30, 2005 9:46 PM (e)

The basic belief is that God will only reveal himself to those who are truly ready to accept the consequences of his existence.

Do you ever find it depressing, the infinite number of really kewl gods who unfortunately have never had the opportunity to make themselves known, for no better reason than that nobody believes in them enough to let them strut their stuff? What a terrible, undeserved limbo those gods must inhabit, waiting for someone to come along and set them loose. Why, if we didn’t know better, it would almost seem like they didn’t even exist until someone made them up! I guess the universe can be a cruel place. I should be grateful that while I lack godlike powers, at least my existence is easily verified. Nobody needs to dream me up before I can exist.

And I notice that a discouragingly large number of gods have been banished right back to that same limbo, no longer able to reveal themselves because their believers died off and have not been replaced. I’m not aware of a single case of a “lost” god returning to existence. No wonder once they glom onto a mind, it’s so very difficult to scrape them off. They’re probably pretty desperate.

Comment #66261

Posted by Arden Chatfield on December 30, 2005 10:20 PM (e)

Larry Farma bings us this insight:

…I believe that the Jewish holocaust was exaggerated. A “systematic” Jewish holocaust was impossible because the Nazis had no reliable way of identifying Jews and non-Jews…

There is certainly a parallel between persecution of Holocaust deniers and persecution of evolution deniers.

I couldn’t successfully google this. Can someone tell me where Larry dropped this little bon mot?

Comment #66263

Posted by jim on December 30, 2005 10:25 PM (e)

Thank goodness someone had the sense to believe in the FSM. Otherwise as we cleaned up piracy, we’d doom the Earth to become a run-away hothouse (think Venus).

Comment #66313

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on December 31, 2005 12:32 AM (e)

Do you ever find it depressing, the infinite number of really kewl gods who unfortunately have never had the opportunity to make themselves known, for no better reason than that nobody believes in them enough to let them strut their stuff? What a terrible, undeserved limbo those gods must inhabit, waiting for someone to come along and set them loose.

I always liked the old Dungeons and Dragons system of gods and goddesses, in which the strength of a god depended upon the number of followers it had. The more worshippers a god had, the more powerful it became. Gods who no longer had ANY worshippers, winked out of existence until they gained new followers.

All I ever really needed to know about life, I learned playing D&D. :)

Comment #66315

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on December 31, 2005 12:35 AM (e)

Darwinism is on the defensive

Waterloo !!!! Waterloo !!!!! Waterloo !!!!!!!

Gee, that sounds awfully familiar ……

(snicker) (giggle) BWA HA H AHA HA H AH A !!!!!!

Comment #66318

Posted by Sir_Toejam on December 31, 2005 12:40 AM (e)

I couldn’t successfully google this. Can someone tell me where Larry dropped this little bon mot?

someone posted the links to lalalarry’s musings either in this thread or the other one lalalarry beat himself senseless in.

quick check reveals it must be in the other thread; just look for the thread with the most posts in the last week.

Comment #66319

Posted by Sir_Toejam on December 31, 2005 12:42 AM (e)

Larry; go HERE:

http://www.arn.org/

and stay there, would ya?

Comment #66320

Posted by Sir_Toejam on December 31, 2005 12:44 AM (e)

All I ever really needed to know about life, I learned playing D&D. :)

do you still play?

I think the ruleset is up to version 3.5 now.

Comment #66322

Posted by jim on December 31, 2005 12:54 AM (e)

I just bought 4 of the v3.5 books for my eldest child. I still have the original v1.0 AD&D hardbound books and even one of the paper (D&D) copies printed before that.

Comment #66324

Posted by Sir_Toejam on December 31, 2005 12:58 AM (e)

I still have the original v1.0 AD&D hardbound books

i think those are considered collectors items now.

I haven’t played dnd PnP for over 25 years now, but eat up just about every PC version that comes out.

I spent quite a bit of time enjoying Neverwinter Nights; folks just keep releasing new modules for it every day.

If you’re kid’s into DnD, i highly recommend checking it out. it’s a few years old now, so it should be had for a very cheap price.

Comment #66325

Posted by Sir_Toejam on December 31, 2005 1:01 AM (e)

god, i’m getting tired. make that YOUR kid, not you’re kid. i think someone’s gonna hit me for typing that.

Comment #66328

Posted by Alexey Merz on December 31, 2005 2:03 AM (e)

Whap.

Comment #66329

Posted by Sir_Toejam on December 31, 2005 2:13 AM (e)

thanks, i needed that.

Comment #66331

Posted by Larry Fafarman on December 31, 2005 2:20 AM (e)

Some commenters here have been asking other commenters to not answer my posts. That is very bad form. I don’t do that to other commenters. Individual commenters here should decide for themselves whether my posts are worth answering (obviously, a lot of commenters have decided that my posts are worth answering).

Also, a lot of the responses to my posts just say that I don’t know what I am talking about and that I don’t listen to the responses I get. In contrast, I try to answer specific arguments that others raise.

The strategy here is obvious. Some commenters are trying to discredit my arguments by making me the issue.

Comment #66333

Posted by Larry Fafarman on December 31, 2005 2:56 AM (e)

Some commenters here have been asking other commenters to not answer my posts. That is very bad form. I don’t do that to other commenters. Individual commenters here should decide for themselves whether my posts are worth answering (obviously, a lot of commenters have decided that my posts are worth answering).

Also, a lot of the responses to my posts just say that I don’t know what I am talking about and that I don’t listen to the responses I get. In contrast, I try to answer specific arguments that others make.

The strategy here is obvious. Some commenters are trying to discredit my arguments by making me the issue.

Comment #66334

Posted by Larry Fafarman on December 31, 2005 2:57 AM (e)

Some commenters here have been asking other commenters to not answer my posts. That is very bad form. I don’t do that to other commenters. Individual commenters here should decide for themselves whether my posts are worth answering (obviously, a lot of commenters have decided that my posts are worth answering).

Also, a lot of the responses to my posts just say that I don’t know what I am talking about and that I don’t listen to the responses I get. In contrast, I try to answer specific arguments that others make.

The strategy here is obvious. Some commenters are trying to discredit my arguments by making me the issue.

Comment #66337

Posted by Larry Fafarman on December 31, 2005 3:09 AM (e)

SORRY, FOLKS, FOR THE MULTIPLE RESPONSES. THE REASON THIS TIME IS THAT I WAS DESIGNATED AN “ABUSIVE” COMMENTER (BECAUSE I HAD THE TEMERITY TO ANSWER IN KIND TO THE ABUSIVE POSTS DIRECTED AT ME), AND SO WHEN I TRY POSTING I SOMETIMES GET A MESSAGE THAT MY POSTS ARE TEMPORARILY BLOCKED AND THAT I SHOULD SUBMIT MY POST LATER. SO I SUBMIT MY POST LATER BUT AFTERWARDS FIND THAT MY PREVIOUS SUBMISSIONS OF THE POST HAVE SHOWN UP AS WELL.

Comment #66348

Posted by Alexey Merz on December 31, 2005 4:11 AM (e)

Arden Chatfield wrote:

I couldn’t successfully google this. Can someone tell me where Larry dropped this little bon mot?

Larry Farma bings us this insight:

…I believe that the Jewish holocaust was exaggerated. A “systematic” Jewish holocaust was impossible because the Nazis had no reliable way of identifying Jews and non-Jews…

There is certainly a parallel between persecution of Holocaust deniers and persecution of evolution deniers.

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/12/activist_judge.html#comment-65514

Comment #66353

Posted by PvM on December 31, 2005 4:25 AM (e)

Larry wrote:

SORRY, FOLKS, FOR THE MULTIPLE RESPONSES. THE REASON THIS TIME IS THAT I WAS DESIGNATED AN “ABUSIVE” COMMENTER (BECAUSE I HAD THE TEMERITY TO ANSWER IN KIND TO THE ABUSIVE POSTS DIRECTED AT ME), AND SO WHEN I TRY POSTING I SOMETIMES GET A MESSAGE THAT MY POSTS ARE TEMPORARILY BLOCKED AND THAT I SHOULD SUBMIT MY POST LATER. SO I SUBMIT MY POST LATER BUT AFTERWARDS FIND THAT MY PREVIOUS SUBMISSIONS OF THE POST HAVE SHOWN UP AS WELL.

The blog software prohibits the submission of postings too close together to prevent spamming. So you are not designed an abusive commenter because “you had the temerity to answer in kind to the abusive post direct at you”.

Comment #66357

Posted by MaxOblivion on December 31, 2005 5:05 AM (e)

Lol the stupidity of this guy knows no bounds.

But yeah please dont feed the troll.

Comment #66377

Posted by Larry Fafarman on December 31, 2005 7:37 AM (e)

Comment #66353
Posted by PvM on December 31, 2005 04:25 AM

The blog software prohibits the submission of postings too close together to prevent spamming. So you are not designed an abusive commenter because “you had the temerity to answer in kind to the abusive post direct at you”.

OK, but the message I got was that I was designated an “abusive” commenter. I called one commenter a “stupid, feeble-minded ignoramus” and another commenter a “stupid moron.” So what was I supposed to believe? There is obviously a lot of prejudice against me on this website, so I had good reason to believe that I was being unfairly singled out.

This is obviously a software glitch. The message should have said instead that the posting would be delayed because the previous posting was too recent.

Comment #66379

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on December 31, 2005 7:41 AM (e)

do you still play?

Not since college, alas. :(

Comment #66382

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on December 31, 2005 7:50 AM (e)

Larry, your side lost.

Unless you have something new to say, please shut up and go away. Thanks.

Comment #66384

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on December 31, 2005 7:51 AM (e)

I HAD THE TEMERITY TO ANSWER IN KIND TO THE ABUSIVE POSTS DIRECTED AT ME

So much for that whole “turn the other cheek” thingie, huh.

“Christian” indeed. Hmmpphhh.

Comment #66386

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on December 31, 2005 7:59 AM (e)

I still have the original v1.0 AD&D hardbound books and even one of the paper (D&D) copies printed before that.

Dude, those are probably worth a few bucks by now.

Post-D&D, I hung out with some friends who were SCA members (never joined myself, though). Adopted an 11th-century Viking huscarl persona, and learned enough to make my own chainmail, shield, helmet etc. (see: http://www.geocities.com/lflank/vikingindex.html).

Still pop out medieval weapons/armor from time to time; just finished an English longbow, and am currently working on a light crossbow.

Comment #66387

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on December 31, 2005 8:02 AM (e)

By the way, Happy New Year, everyone.

And remember, don’t drink while you’re driving — you’ll spill your drink that way.

:)

Comment #66390

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on December 31, 2005 8:30 AM (e)

Some commenters are trying to discredit my arguments by making me the issue.

Don’t flatter yourslef, junior.

Do *all* fundies have such an inflated sense of their own self-importance, or just the ones that spend their lives sending crank letters to newspapers and Internet groups?

Comment #66392

Posted by Paul Flocken on December 31, 2005 8:46 AM (e)

Lenny,
I just went to the PT homepage to scan the recent comments. Of the ten eight were yours. I’ve had little running personal bet with myself for a while now about when I would see all ten with your name. Your getting close man. Try a little harder. Honestly, it seems a little like PT is become little more than all Lenny, all the time.

Comment #66395

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on December 31, 2005 9:01 AM (e)

Is that an observation, or a complaint?

Comment #66397

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on December 31, 2005 9:05 AM (e)

Of the ten eight were yours.

I expect that’s because I tend to respond to separate little pieces of previous messages (to make it easier to keep each point separate from the others). So even if I only respond to one post, I usually have three or four responses to it.

Most others tend to make all their responses in one long post. I prefer not to do that.

Sorry if it annoys you. (shrug)

Comment #66398

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on December 31, 2005 9:11 AM (e)

it seems a little like PT is become little more than all Lenny, all the time.

Not for much longer, I think. So take heart – you’ll be rid of me soon enough.

I’m only here until the Kansas/Ohio thingies play themselves out. As soon as ID is well and truly dead (and I don’t think it will survive Kansas/Ohio as any effective political movement), the ayatollah-wanna-be’s will move on to another “wedge” issue. And I will move with them.

Comment #66402

Posted by Paul Flocken on December 31, 2005 9:32 AM (e)

Up until the last statement, I was only trying to be funny. More observation than complaint. There is always enough interesting things here to read that it’s not like you’re interfering. And of course at the moment you’ve got nothing on LaLaLarry for intrusiveness.

This of course from someone who has been intrusive at times too.

Sincerely,
Paul

Comment #66408

Posted by Steve S on December 31, 2005 9:58 AM (e)

test

Comment #66409

Posted by Steve S on December 31, 2005 9:59 AM (e)

test

Comment #66410

Posted by Steve S on December 31, 2005 10:00 AM (e)

test

Comment #66411

Posted by Steve S on December 31, 2005 10:01 AM (e)

Weird. I just posted three comments as fast as the browser would let me, without getting the error message.

Comment #66414

Posted by Alan Fox on December 31, 2005 10:40 AM (e)

So take heart — you’ll be rid of me soon enough.

Lenny, I, and most others who read PT I believe, have enjoyed your no-nonsense posts enormously. You made a valuable contribution to the Dover issue. PT seems to be a victim of the success of the result. There’s nothing much worth blogging about at the moment. Let us know where to find you if and when you move on.

Comment #66422

Posted by Steve S on December 31, 2005 11:30 AM (e)

True, there’s not much to do now except celebrate, and it’s the perfect time of year. Judge Jones’s 139-page supernova burns brightly in the sky, and we can all get tore up and have a good time celebrating the Discovery Institute’s Waterloo.

Sadly, we can’t play a drinking game where you do a shot every time Dembski bans someone for disagreeing with him, because he took his ball and ran home and is now crying and pounding his fists into the bed.

Comment #66425

Posted by GvlGeologist on December 31, 2005 12:06 PM (e)

Has anyone noticed that in comment #66190, “John C.” says

“As I explained (Comment #66074, of this thread)”?

Looking back at comment #66074, it is authored by Larry Fafarman. But in comment #66029, we see:

“I am a friend of Larry Fafarman. I am posting this message on his behalf. He wrote the message.
John C.”

So what’s going on here? Are John C. and Larry the same person, is John C. still allowing Larry to post under his name, or is it that John C. just can’t remember if he or his friend made the comment?

I think a clarification is in order:

Under “Panda’s Thumb Comment Integrity Policy”, I see:
6. Posting under multiple identities or falsely posting as someone else may lead to removal of affected comments and blocking of the IP address from which those comments were posted, at the discretion of the management.

Just thought you’d all be interested.

Comment #66431

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on December 31, 2005 12:37 PM (e)

True, there’s not much to do now except celebrate

Not true — Kansas and Ohio both await.

The game isn’t over until then.

Comment #66434

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on December 31, 2005 12:41 PM (e)

I am a friend of Larry Fafarman. I am posting this message on his behalf.

Sockpuppeting has long been a creationist standard.

Given Larry’s recent whining about his lack of comrades here, it is no surprise to me if he decided to bring a few of his imaginary friends.

Comment #66436

Posted by steve s on December 31, 2005 12:46 PM (e)

You mean like “Partial Observer”?

Comment #66438

Posted by steve s on December 31, 2005 12:50 PM (e)

Under “Panda’s Thumb Comment Integrity Policy”, I see:
6. Posting under multiple identities or falsely posting as someone else may lead to removal of affected comments and blocking of the IP address from which those comments were posted, at the discretion of the management.

Just for the record, my friends James and Matt occasionally post from my computer. They aren’t me, however, though I can’t exactly say the same for Timmy.

Comment #66442

Posted by Larry Fafarman on December 31, 2005 1:24 PM (e)

Comment #66425
Posted by GvlGeologist on December 31, 2005 12:06 PM

Has anyone noticed that in comment #66190, “John C.” says

“As I explained (Comment #66074, of this thread)”?

Looking back at comment #66074, it is authored by Larry Fafarman. But in comment #66029, we see:

“I am a friend of Larry Fafarman. I am posting this message on his behalf. He wrote the message.
John C.”

So what’s going on here? Are John C. and Larry the same person, is John C. still allowing Larry to post under his name, or is it that John C. just can’t remember if he or his friend made the comment?

John C. and I share the same computer. When I got back on the computer, I failed to change the name of the sender, which is why my message was inadvertently posted under John C.’s name.

If you read my posts as carefully for my ideas as you do for searching for violations of the site rules, maybe you could at least make a futile attempt at countering my arguments.

Comment #66445

Posted by roger Tang on December 31, 2005 1:36 PM (e)

Sockpuppeting has long been a creationist standard.

Given Larry’s recent whining about his lack of comrades here, it is no surprise to me if he decided to bring a few of his imaginary friends.

Well, no surprise, given the extensive history of clumsy liars among the lesser lights of creationists; when even the leaders like West make such easily discovered lies, it’s no surprise that the followers make such stupid lies.

Comment #66451

Posted by k.e. on December 31, 2005 2:05 PM (e)

Larry you still have everything backwards you said

If Larry read Larry’s posts as carefully for Larry’s ideas as Larry do(oes) for searching for violations of the site rules, maybe Larry could at least make a futile attempt at countering PT arguments.

Boy…. you should have no trouble dealing with this.

For ‘SwiftBoating’ West for The Discovery [of muck on political opponents and media mind control] Institute

For ‘SwiftBoating’ West for Creationism(Brainwashing) renamed to ‘SwiftBoating’ Design by the ‘SwiftBoating’ Designer.

For Larry for being the perfect target.

Comment #66454

Posted by k.e. on December 31, 2005 2:23 PM (e)

But heh Larry’s a professional looser so he has to take their side.
Dey evn hve der own song.

Way down South dem gud old days they’re not Fogotten
Whopping n*gg*rs and pick’n cotten
Oh… Dem gud old days back ‘ome.

Comment #66455

Posted by k.e. on December 31, 2005 2:54 PM (e)

Here is the whole song
http://members.aol.com/quentncree/lehrer/dixie.htm

Comment #66457

Posted by GvlGeologist on December 31, 2005 3:05 PM (e)

Re Larry’s #66442:
If it was an innocent mistake, I apologise for the implication. I did say “I think a clarification is in order” - part of the quote that was left out by Larry (what a surprise).

Having said that…

Larry said:
“maybe you could at least make a futile attempt at countering my arguments.”

Why should I make a futile attempt when there have been so many successful attempts already? The fact that you don’t understand these refutations doesn’t negate the fact that you have been repeatedly refuted here.

Comment #66471

Posted by Sir_Toejam on December 31, 2005 4:40 PM (e)

Larry. ARN. GO!

Comment #66472

Posted by tfordon on December 31, 2005 4:42 PM (e)

long time lurker, first time poster.

Larry Fafarman wrote:

Comment #66241

RupertG wrote:

Anyone who thinks criticism is indistinguishable from denigration is incapable of rational argument, which requires one without the other. It would be unfair to them to pretend otherwise.

I never said that. You are putting words in my mouth.

Larry Fafarman wrote:

Comment# 65967
Criticism is disparagement by definition — even constructive criticism.

This seems a little disingenuous if not dishonest. Disparage and denigrate are synonyms.

Comment #66486

Posted by Mark Decker on December 31, 2005 5:41 PM (e)

“As for commenters who have disparaged my knowledge of the law — I have appealed to the US Supreme Court twice as a pro se (self-represented) litigant. If you think that is easy, I suggest that you try it.”

Big fat whoop-de-doo. Being a self-represented litigant in a case hardly requires much knowledge of the law, and it certainly doesn’t connote that one is able to read and understand legal opinions. All it really requires is for one to be able to fill out the proper paperwork to file an appeal.

How did those Supreme Court cases go, btw? Did they even hear them?

Comment #66490

Posted by Sir_Toejam on December 31, 2005 5:46 PM (e)

How did those Supreme Court cases go, btw? Did they even hear them?

f*ck that! who cares?

Larry:

http://www.arn.org/

GO!

Comment #66524

Posted by Larry Fafarman on December 31, 2005 7:16 PM (e)

Comment #66486
Posted by Mark Decker on December 31, 2005 05:41 PM

“As for commenters who have disparaged my knowledge of the law — I have appealed to the US Supreme Court twice as a pro se (self-represented) litigant. If you think that is easy, I suggest that you try it.”

Big fat whoop-de-doo. Being a self-represented litigant in a case hardly requires much knowledge of the law, and it certainly doesn’t connote that one is able to read and understand legal opinions. All it really requires is for one to be able to fill out the proper paperwork to file an appeal.

OK, Mr. Know-it-all, so all you have to do is just “fill out the proper paperwork” — just like filing a suit in small-claims court. How do you know what it takes to appeal to the US Supreme Court if you haven’t done it? It at least requires the ability to do legal research – most lay people do not know how do that (you have to know how to do legal research just to get through the lower courts). Most lay people do not even understand the codes used in legal citations. If people knew how to do legal research, they would do it themselves rather than pay an attorney $300 an hour do it. A layperson is generally slower at doing legal research than an attorney (though you get much faster with practice), but most people’s time is worth far, far less than an attorney’s. In fact, I have heard of attorneys offering a “lite” service, where they are just fronts for lay people who do most of the work themselves. One thing that helped me was that I got a lot of assistance from the staff at the Los Angeles County Law Library — most people don’t have that.

By the way, what was so great about the plaintiffs’ attorneys if it took 9-10 of them to do the job? Sounds to me like they are somewhat incompetent.

How did those Supreme Court cases go, btw? Did they even hear them?

If you knew anything about the Supreme Court, you would know that the Supreme Court accepts for review maybe just one percent or less of the appeals submitted to it. And usually it is just the really big cases that are accepted for review — the courts tend to ignore pro se litigants, so few pro se cases are really big. I really did not have a snowball’s chance in hell, but appealing to the Supreme Court was a good exercise.

Comment #66601

Posted by k.e. on January 1, 2006 12:13 AM (e)

Larry Barf.again …..the professional looser says

Larry really did not have a snowball’s chance in hell, but appealing to the Supreme Court/PT/anything Larry disagrees with… was a good exercise.

In what Larry ?

Out of the mouths of babies… Larry projects his inner delusion ……a snowball in hell

Comment #66603

Posted by gwangung on January 1, 2006 12:24 AM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'kwickxml'

Comment #66605

Posted by Andrew McClure on January 1, 2006 12:49 AM (e)

Johnny C?

“Nny” for short, right?

Comment #66751

Posted by Mark Decker on January 1, 2006 3:57 PM (e)

OK, Mr. Know-it-all, so all you have to do is just “fill out the proper paperwork” —- just like filing a suit in small-claims court. How do you know what it takes to appeal to the US Supreme Court if you haven’t done it? It at least requires the ability to do legal research — most lay people do not know how do that (you have to know how to do legal research just to get through the lower courts).

I know that pretty much every court has easily-available information on how to file pro se appeals. You can look up proper procedure and forms on these internets pretty easily. New Jersey Supreme Court, for example:

http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/prose/

Regardless, the point was that filing a pro se appeal in no way connotes someone is competent enough to understand and critique a judicial decision. You’ve clearly demonstrated you don’t know what makes for a well-written opinion, after all. This nonsense about your being somehow qualified because you’ve filed pro se appeals is just empty puffery.

By the way, what was so great about the plaintiffs’ attorneys if it took 9-10 of them to do the job? Sounds to me like they are somewhat incompetent.

Ugh, this is a stupid statement. There were 11 plaintiffs, duh. Hey, how many lawyers did the defendants have? You’d have to be a complete moron to think the number of attorneys denotes the competency of the team.

If you knew anything about the Supreme Court, you would know that the Supreme Court accepts for review maybe just one percent or less of the appeals submitted to it.

Oh, I know plenty about the Supreme Court, and I already knew this was the answer. I was pointing out via snark that your puffing up your legal credentials by name-dropping the SCOTUS was just another bit of deception.

Comment #66752

Posted by Mark Decker on January 1, 2006 4:00 PM (e)

OK, Mr. Know-it-all, so all you have to do is just “fill out the proper paperwork” —- just like filing a suit in small-claims court. How do you know what it takes to appeal to the US Supreme Court if you haven’t done it? It at least requires the ability to do legal research — most lay people do not know how do that (you have to know how to do legal research just to get through the lower courts).

I know that pretty much every court has easily-available information on how to file pro se appeals. You can look up proper procedure and forms on these internets pretty easily. New Jersey Supreme Court, for example:

http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/prose/

Regardless, the point was that filing a pro se appeal in no way connotes someone is competent enough to understand and critique a judicial decision. You’ve clearly demonstrated you don’t know what makes for a well-written opinion, after all. This nonsense about your being somehow qualified because you’ve filed pro se appeals is just empty puffery.

By the way, what was so great about the plaintiffs’ attorneys if it took 9-10 of them to do the job? Sounds to me like they are somewhat incompetent.

Ugh, this is a stupid statement. There were 11 plaintiffs, duh. Hey, how many lawyers did the defendants have? You’d have to be a complete moron to think the number of attorneys denotes the competency of the team.

If you knew anything about the Supreme Court, you would know that the Supreme Court accepts for review maybe just one percent or less of the appeals submitted to it.

Oh, I know plenty about the Supreme Court, and I already knew this was the answer. I was pointing out via snark that your puffing up your legal credentials by name-dropping the SCOTUS was just another bit of deception.

Comment #66754

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on January 1, 2006 4:11 PM (e)

I have appealed to the US Supreme Court twice as a pro se (self-represented) litigant.

Had a fool for a client, huh.

Isn’t it a bit early in the year for the Puff-Chested Blowhard Loon to be this far north …. . ?

Comment #66755

Posted by gwangung on January 1, 2006 4:31 PM (e)

I have appealed to the US Supreme Court twice as a pro se (self-represented) litigant.

And I have LOTS of support in e-mail.

Comment #66756

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 1, 2006 4:48 PM (e)

Comment #66752
Posted by Mark Decker on January 1, 2006 04:00 PM

Regardless, the point was that filing a pro se appeal in no way connotes someone is competent enough to understand and critique a judicial decision. You’ve clearly demonstrated you don’t know what makes for a well-written opinion, after all. This nonsense about your being somehow qualified because you’ve filed pro se appeals is just empty puffery.

OK, let me put it this way — you and others here are just plain jealous because I was able to spot flaws in the opinion that you people did not notice. One humongous flaw was that the conclusion said that three specific prohibitions were going to be included in the official order but only one was actually included. I showed how the omitted prohibitions would have changed the meaning of the official order. So the opinion’s conclusion and the official order are not consistent.

******By the way, what was so great about the plaintiffs’ attorneys if it took 9-10 of them to do the job? Sounds to me like they are somewhat incompetent.******

Ugh, this is a stupid statement. There were 11 plaintiffs, duh. Hey, how many lawyers did the defendants have? You’d have to be a complete moron to think the number of attorneys denotes the competency of the team.

There is no connection between the number of plaintiffs and the number of their attorneys. For example, OJ Simpson was just one guy but he had 4 attorneys. A class action suit representing 10 million people would have no more than a few attorneys.

The Dover defendants had 4 attorneys – 3 from the Thomas More Law Center and 1 local guy.

If the plaintiffs’ attorneys were minimally competent, it should not have taken 9-10 of them to handle the case. Usually, people who have to pay the bills up front do not hire more attorneys than they need. But the judge is now saying that the defendants have to pay attorney fees for all the plaintiffs’ attorneys, even though all those attorneys were “volunteers.” What a crook.

Comment #66759

Posted by jim on January 1, 2006 5:03 PM (e)

*snicker*

Comment #66762

Posted by ben on January 1, 2006 5:20 PM (e)

Larry would have us think that no matter how incompetent a group of attorneys might be, they could prevail in a case where the law was clearly against them, as long as there were enough of them. If that was the case, and given that the TMLC was obviously looking for this exact lawsuit to defend, why didn’t TMLC just show us with more free lawyers as though this was some sort of playground rumble? Maybe with your SCOTUS experience you know more than they do and should have piped up before things got to where they are now. You could have saved DASD a million bucks.

Insofar as the number of lawyers on each side is relevant, it looks to me like both sides (ACLU and TMLC) used the number of gratis lawyers they thought was the right number, and insofar as the numbers game matters, TMLC picked the wrong number. If DASD didn’t like the idea of paying for however much legal $ would be run up in defending the case, they shouldn’t have taken the TMLC’s advice to promulgate the doomed policy.

Larry, maybe when you appealed to SCOTUS and lost, you should have just hired more lawyers, since you apparently think that’s the most important factor in deciding the outcome.

Comment #66768

Posted by roger Tang on January 1, 2006 5:40 PM (e)

OK, let me put it this way —- you and others here are just plain jealous because I was able to spot flaws in the opinion that you people did not notice.

No, we are being entertained by an obvious troll TRYING to argue seriously on this issue.

Keep trying. Some elements of the truth would be more helpful.

Comment #66777

Posted by Andrew McClure on January 1, 2006 6:29 PM (e)

Just… wow.

OK, let me put it this way —- you and others here are just plain jealous because I was able to spot flaws in the opinion that you people did not notice.

And flaws which, of course, no one is able to find in the decision even after you “point them out” five or nine times. This garment is made of a magical cloth which only the wise can see.

There is no connection between the number of plaintiffs and the number of their attorneys.

Not the number of people bringing the suit, perhaps, but in this case it is definitely worth noting that there were multiple legal associations involved. Looking at one random document or the initial ACLU press release one does indeed find nine or ten attorneys listed as “plaintiffs counsel”, depending on which you look at. But these are from three different groups– five from Pepper Hamilton LLP, the firm that took on the case pro bono, two or three from Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, and two from the ACLU.

Were the ACLU and Americans United attorneys strictly necessary, or were they just necessitated by virtue of the ACLU and Americans United’s involvement in the case? Heck, did all nine of these attorneys even matter or commit significant amounts of time to the case? How does one tell? Do any of these things matter? Isn’t it a bit pointless to concentrate on the number of attorneys without a clear idea of exactly what it was these attorneys were doing, or the exact capacity in which they were involved? Or is the point to just repeat “9-10” over and over for weeks in hopes that if said enough times, it will become important?

It meanwhile seems to me that the fact that the TMLC was prosecuting their side of the case more or less alone, and with only four counsel, was entirely due to decisions on the part of the TMLC. For example, the Discovery Institute has said they wished to get their own lawyers involved in the case, at least in the extent of deposing discovery institute witnesses; the TMLC declined this. If the TMLC had desired or even been willing to work with other allied legal organizations, I have no doubt they could have brought in more counsel.

The TMLC chose not to take this path, possibly because the TMLC did not want to have to deal with differences of opinion in the manner in which the case was to be tried– the aforementioned Discovery Institute, for example, thought that rather than defending the case at all the school board should simply change their policy, whereas the TMLC was quite directly involved in the way in which the policy had been formulated in the first place. The number of attorneys on each side in the case seems to me to only reflect a better ability on the part of organizations such as the ACLU and the Americans Separated for Church and State to collaborate, rather than infight as the relevant organizations to the defense side did.

Comment #66785

Posted by steve s on January 1, 2006 7:09 PM (e)

I come here for the comedy, I tell people. Let me be specific in this instance.

A creationist (and possible holocaust denier, I’m not sure, that’s what others here are saying) comes here and calls the judge a jackass because he didn’t treat as priveledged testimony which is not priveledged for three different reasons. He makes claims about what the opinion says, yet admits he hasn’t read it. He says alternately that the ACLU ran up an unjustified legal bill which unfairly punishes the district, yet the judge should have waited on the next election “So what if this would have resulted in the loss of a lot of time and money to the parties involved? Judges cause such big losses all the time by dismissing cases because of technicalities.” He misunderstands the academic definition of ‘criticism’.

And then, in the coup de grace, he says we’re just jealous of his brilliant analysis.

Only Seinfeld at its best can compete with this level of comedy.

Comment #66797

Posted by bill on January 1, 2006 8:32 PM (e)

I’ve been away for a few days but I see that Larry is still in the limelight.

Larry, what a swell guy. He typlifies the creationist. Dedicated. Stalwart. Unmoved. Above reproach.

I’m sure we all want to be like Larry. Such scholarship! Such ethics. A fine, upstanding leading light of the community. Thank you, Larry, you’re an inspiration to us all. Rhally, you are.

Yes, we all want to be like Larry, don’t we?

And just in case, dear reader, you think this is totally a joke, just imagine “Larry” in your school district. Imagine “Larry” derailing your science program. Imagine “Larry” setting the moral compass for your community. Imagine “Larry” in control of your life.

Yeah, “Larry” is funny, but he’s like funny-scary.

Here’s to 2006: don’t give an inch.

Comment #66953

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 2, 2006 4:25 PM (e)

Comment #66777 posted by Andrew McClure on January 1, 2006 06:29 PM

Were the ACLU and Americans United attorneys strictly necessary, or were they just necessitated by virtue of the ACLU and Americans United’s involvement in the case? Heck, did all nine of these attorneys even matter or commit significant amounts of time to the case? How does one tell?

Just do some simple calculations. It is expected that the plaintiffs will request an award of over $1 million dollars in legal expenses. Most of these legal expenses are for attorney fees. At $300/hr. (I don’t know exactly what attorneys charge nowadays), $1 million buys over 3000 hours of attorney time. The judge should limit the number of attorney hours that the plaintiffs may charge.

Comment #66957

Posted by PvM on January 2, 2006 4:32 PM (e)

Larry wrote:

Just do some simple calculations. It is expected that the plaintiffs will request an award of over $1 million dollars in legal expenses. Most of these legal expenses are for attorney fees. At $300/hr. (I don’t know exactly what attorneys charge nowadays), $1 million buys over 3000 hours of attorney time. The judge should limit the number of attorney hours that the plaintiffs may charge.

Which is why the judge exactly has this power. In fact the term reasonable is well established again, in legal precedence and includes such issues as novelty of the argument (novel arguments will require additional work), well documented hours charged, fees for deposition, transcription, fees for the various filings involved such as the question of summary judgement, FTE’s request to intervene in the case, responses to Amicus Briefs filed and so on.

The trial lasted 21 days, assume average of 6 hours per day and you have 120 hours per lawyer. Multiply this by 2 or 3 and you are at 300-400 hours just for attending court. This may give you an idea of the amount of money involved in such cases. If the defendants and plaintiffs cannot resolve the issue of reasonable fees, the judge may intervene.

Comment #66960

Posted by Arden Chatfield on January 2, 2006 4:40 PM (e)

At $300/hr. (I don’t know exactly what attorneys charge nowadays), $1 million buys over 3000 hours of attorney time.

Doesn’t your admitted ignorance of what attorneys charge ‘nowadays’ completely invalidate your whole statement here?

The judge should limit the number of attorney hours that the plaintiffs may charge.

Whoa, easy there, big fella, if a law like that were passed (that’s what it would take, a new law), wouldn’t that also apply to lawyers working for plaintiffs that you approved of? Cuz, you know, you can’t just apply it to liberals

Comment #66962

Posted by steve s on January 2, 2006 4:54 PM (e)

Why should he learn what attorneys charge, Arden, since he’s kicking so much butt without it?

;-)

Comment #66964

Posted by Red Mann on January 2, 2006 5:05 PM (e)

He typlifies the creationist. Dedicated. Stalwart. Unmoved. Above reproach.

Uneducatable.

Comment #66966

Posted by Kevin from NYC on January 2, 2006 5:15 PM (e)

“I am a friend of Larry Fafarman”

errr “ I am Larry Fafarman using a free computer at the library”

Comment #66967

Posted by steve s on January 2, 2006 5:24 PM (e)

LOL

Comment #66968

Posted by Arden Chatfield on January 2, 2006 5:25 PM (e)

Why should he learn what attorneys charge, Arden, since he’s kicking so much butt without it?

Indeed. 5-6 or however many days ago, Larry started out here ranting about the total legal illegitimacy and unconstitutionality of Jones’s Dover verdict. After several days of being systematically dismantled here, he’s now reduced to completely irrelevant whines about how lawyers almost certainly charge too much, even tho he doesn’t actually know how much they charge.

Even Salvador and Heddle would have given up long ago. Maybe not Blast.

Comment #66972

Posted by gwangung on January 2, 2006 5:40 PM (e)

Indeed. 5-6 or however many days ago, Larry started out here ranting about the total legal illegitimacy and unconstitutionality of Jones’s Dover verdict. After several days of being systematically dismantled here, he’s now reduced to completely irrelevant whines about how lawyers almost certainly charge too much, even tho he doesn’t actually know how much they charge.

Hey, I know comedy….and THAT was just sublime…..

Comment #67026

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on January 2, 2006 9:11 PM (e)

At $300/hr.

Umm, your pal Dembski got $200 an hour, and he didn’t even testify. Behe and Minnich DID testify. I doubt they got much less per hour.

Do you think that is excessive, too? Or is it jsut guys ont he OTHER side that you don’t want to get paid?

Comment #67045

Posted by Arden Chatfield on January 2, 2006 10:04 PM (e)

Do you think that is excessive, too? Or is it jsut guys ont he OTHER side that you don’t want to get paid?

Lenny, you’re just confusing Larry. He said himself he doesn’t know how much lawyers are paid, just that he knows it’s too much.

Comment #67070

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 3, 2006 1:41 AM (e)

Comment #66960
Posted by Arden Chatfield on January 2, 2006 04:40 PM

Larry wrote –
****At $300/hr. (I don’t know exactly what attorneys charge nowadays), $1 million buys over 3000 hours of attorney time.****

Doesn’t your admitted ignorance of what attorneys charge ‘nowadays’ completely invalidate your whole statement here?

OK, you mentally challenged person, if you have a better number, why don’t you give it? Instead of just finding fault with me, why don’t you make a constructive contribution to this discussion? All you are doing is just wasting space on this comment board.

Attorneys charge different rates. Some may charge just $200 per hour, some may charge $1000 per hour. I think it is against the rules to publish recommended rates or for attorneys to advertise their rates. I happened to see a range of $200-375 per hour somewhere, so I took an approximate average. I just picked a ballpark number so I could calculate a ballpark estimate of how many attorney hours were involved. If the attorneys charge half as much, then there are twice as many hours; if attorneys charge twice as much, then there are half as many hours. Or do I need to teach you basic mathematics too?

****The judge should limit the number of attorney hours that the plaintiffs may charge.*****

Whoa, easy there, big fella, if a law like that were passed (that’s what it would take, a new law), wouldn’t that also apply to lawyers working for plaintiffs that you approved of? Cuz, you know, you can’t just apply it to liberals…

No, it would not take a new law – it would only require enforcement of the present law’s requirement restricting attorney fee awards to “reasonable” levels.

Fair is fair. I just think that there should not be a full award of fees for 9-10 attorneys working on a case. If extra research needs to be done, it can be done by paralegals or other nonprofessionals.

Comment #67071

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 3, 2006 1:48 AM (e)

All you are doing is just wasting space on this comment board.

I thought that was your job, Lalalarry?

Comment #67081

Posted by gwangung on January 3, 2006 3:55 AM (e)

Instead of just finding fault with me, why don’t you make a constructive contribution to this discussion?

That IS a constructive contribution; dealing with ignorance is always a positive thing.

And we have so much ignorance to deal with here….

Comment #67134

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on January 3, 2006 8:04 AM (e)

Oh well, at least having everyone shoot at Larry prevents us from pointlessly shooting at each other. (shrug)

Comment #67262

Posted by AC on January 3, 2006 3:07 PM (e)

This is the last time I’m going to point this out. I am not employed as the eternal tour guide of obviousness.

The order in the Kitzmiller case refers to the “ID Policy”. This term is defined, on the first two pages of the document, as the sum of two things: the October 18, 2004 Dover School Board resolution and the resulting oral statement to be read before the ninth grade biology class. Furthermore, the entire text of both the resolution and the statement are contained on the first two pages of the document. The use of a short term as a substitute for a long, detailed description is standard legal practice.

So, where is the ambiguity? I already looked in the box, but all I found was a dead cat.

Comment #67271

Posted by jim on January 3, 2006 3:26 PM (e)

Larry Fafarman wrote:

I just think that there should not be a full award of fees for 9-10 attorneys working on a case. If extra research needs to be done, it can be done by paralegals or other nonprofessionals.

OK Larry, I’ll pass your opinion onto the Judge Jones. Please provide a vita, resume, or similar paper so I can submit it with your opinion.

Please hurry, I’m sure the judge is withholding his ruling on the “reasonable attorney’s fees” until he hears from you.

Comment #67277

Posted by steve s on January 3, 2006 3:44 PM (e)

I wonder if the individual board members can be sued for some kind of negligence. After all, it was their actions which invalidated the insurance policy and exposed the district to those million-dollar costs.

Comment #67281

Posted by jim on January 3, 2006 3:53 PM (e)

I read an article on an investigation into whether the DASD could sue the previous individual members for something like “violating the public trust or acting outside the authority of the board”. However, I wasn’t sure of the reliability of that source and no longer remember the specifics or the reference.

Comment #67330

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 3, 2006 5:52 PM (e)

Comment #67277
Posted by steve s on January 3, 2006 03:44 PM

I wonder if the individual board members can be sued for some kind of negligence. After all, it was their actions which invalidated the insurance policy and exposed the district to those million-dollar costs.

I read that the board’s insurance policy covered only $100,000 (a surprisingly small amount) – a tiny fraction of the award that the plaintiffs’ legal representatives are going to request, expected to be over $1 million. The previous board members actually saved the school district a lot of money by using the free services of the Thomas More Law Center for the defense.

I am surprised that the insurance would have covered any of the lawsuit’s costs. I thought that the insurance was for things beyond the board’s control – like liability for personal injury accidents – and would not cover a legal defense for a voluntary action of the board. For example, the board could do something really off the wall, like require school prayer – should the insurance cover the defense for that?

It seems that the plaintiffs’ exorbitant legal bill is being blamed more on the defendants than on the plaintiffs’ legal representatives. The plaintiffs had 9-10 attorneys of record in the case — a grossly excessive number. There was no reason for so many attorneys — it was almost a case of too many cooks spoil the broth.

I wonder – if this was supposed to be a slam-dunk kind of lawsuit, then what was the need for such a long trial, so many attorneys, and so many witnesses? The long time that it took to “prove” that ID is religion and not science calls the “proof “ into question.

Comment #67332

Posted by Mr Christopher on January 3, 2006 5:54 PM (e)

This is comical, so lalaLarry’s latest beef is the amount charged by plaintiff’s legal counsel? And they had too many people working on the case?

When does this guy stop whining?

More imporatantly when will people here stop feeding him? No doubt lalaLarry is laffing his arse off at most of the people here who he keep taking his bait.

Amusing how someone so utterly mindless can completely control a science blog.

Chris

Comment #67333

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 3, 2006 5:55 PM (e)

I’m not gonna stop, Lalalarry.

have you tried ARN yet?

Comment #67335

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 3, 2006 5:58 PM (e)

Amusing how someone so utterly mindless can completely control a science blog

THAT is giving him far too much credit, and certainly encouraging him as much as any response possibly could.

congratulations.

Comment #67336

Posted by Steviepinhead on January 3, 2006 6:02 PM (e)

Hi, Larry. I’m baacckk from the holidays myself now (man, that turkey was good!) and I notice that you’re still here.

And that you’re still a maroon.

Have you had a new thought that you want to tell us about? Otherwise, why are you still talking?

And while AI’m on the subject, have you had a new thought in, say, the last month? Year? Decade?

On any topic whatsoever?

Didn’t think so…

Comment #67457

Posted by PvM on January 4, 2006 2:00 AM (e)

Larry wrote:

It seems that the plaintiffs’ exorbitant legal bill is being blamed more on the defendants than on the plaintiffs’ legal representatives. The plaintiffs had 9-10 attorneys of record in the case —- a grossly excessive number. There was no reason for so many attorneys —- it was almost a case of too many cooks spoil the broth.

Says or resident ‘legal’ expert who has shown to be unfamiliar with the most basic concepts of law, the attorney-client privilege, the Establishment clause, the relevant rulings and testimonies involved and the concept of discovery.

Unfamiliarity with the law and facts should not be an excuse Larry.

So they won, ID lost… It was inevitable Larry.