Nick Matzke posted Entry 2256 on May 2, 2006 01:41 PM.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/2251

2006-05-02_Time_John_Jones_100_people_cover.jpgCheck it out. Judge Jones made Time‘s list of 100 most influential people. Appropriately enough, he’s in the “Scientists and Thinkers” category. Since people will be reading his ruling and reading about the case for as long as evolution vs. creationism remains an issue in public education – which will be a good long time, just think how long it took for everyone to get used to heliocentrism – I think this was a highly appropriate choice.

Jones’s reaction is reported by the Associated Press:

Jones’ likeness is on the cover along with those of President Bush, Pope Benedict XVI and Oprah Winfrey. “I was dumbstruck,” he said, but he kept the honor in perspective.

“This will pass and I will be back to the more mundane things,” Jones said. “Andy Warhol said everybody gets 15 minutes of fame….I may be in minute 14.”

Well, at least until the half-dozen books, the PBS documentary, and the movie come out.

Also, if you haven’t seen it, have a listen to this radio interview that Judge Jones did with WHYY last month.

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 #99675

Posted by Ed Darrell on May 2, 2006 2:20 PM (e)

It will be a sign of growth on their part if the usual suspects affiliated with the Discovery Institute do not sound positively green with jealousy in their comments on the thing.

For his part, Jones demonstrates the humility that got him there in the first place – just another American working hard to do the right thing at the right time. God bless us, such people are our salvation as a nation.

Comment #99681

Posted by Kevin on May 2, 2006 2:35 PM (e)

I’d be very surprised if the DI doesn’t use this as another opportunity to take a snipe at him: “Well, now we see just why he ruled the way he did - he wanted to make the cover of Time.”

Comment #99699

Posted by David B. Benson on May 2, 2006 3:05 PM (e)

Heliocentrism? Not for the Flat Earthers!

Comment #99753

Posted by Karen on May 2, 2006 4:22 PM (e)

It will be a sign of growth on their part if the usual suspects affiliated with the Discovery Institute do not sound positively green with jealousy in their comments on the thing.

So put them on the list of the 100 dumbest people.

Comment #99788

Posted by Jeremy on May 2, 2006 5:07 PM (e)

I find myself thinking about how much it would pump up Dembski’s ego and arrogance if HE made the cover of Time Magazine. That would be a sight to see.

Hell, he’s already been on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.

Comment #99809

Posted by Bill Gascoyne on May 2, 2006 5:25 PM (e)

Hell, he’s already been on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.

As a lamb to the slaughter….

Comment #99815

Posted by Karen on May 2, 2006 5:40 PM (e)

I find myself thinking about how much it would pump up Dembski’s ego and arrogance if HE made the cover of Time Magazine.

How could it possibly be pumped up more? It’s already so full of hot air it’s about to explode.

Comment #99825

Posted by Bemused Troll on May 2, 2006 7:19 PM (e)

Actually, scientific enthusiasts and practitioners should feel a slight tinge of embarrassment that a judge would be denoted as an important Scientist and/or Thinker for merely parroting the analysis of so many in the evolutionary community (i.e. Dawkins, Myers, Scott, Dennett, etc. etc. and etc.).

How can someone be considered important and influential when they are completely unoriginal in their analysis?!

Comment #99827

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on May 2, 2006 7:29 PM (e)

How can someone be considered important and influential when they are completely unoriginal in their analysis?!

Well heck, the IDers haven’t offered anything that wasn’t put out decades ago by the creation “scientists”. (shrug)

Comment #99828

Posted by Anton Mates on May 2, 2006 7:37 PM (e)

Bemused Troll wrote:

How can someone be considered important and influential when they are completely unoriginal in their analysis?!

:reads the above:

:simultaneously recalls the 10,000 complaints by IDers of “judicial activism”:

:head explodes:

Comment #99830

Posted by Bemused Troll on May 2, 2006 7:47 PM (e)

“Well heck, the IDers haven’t offered anything that wasn’t put out decades ago by the creation “scientists”. (shrug)”

…??

Who cares about people who advocate ID or creation science? It’s not like they have contributed in any major way to scientific understanding.

I’m only pointing out the obvious fact that Judge Jones has been labeled (according to Time) as an important Scientist or Thinker without actually contributing to current intellectual/scientific discourse in any original capacity. If anything, selecting Judge Jones as an important intellectual/scientific figure is more a reflection of Time magazine than it is of Judge Jones.

And that makes it an embarrassment…

Comment #99831

Posted by Shalini on May 2, 2006 7:49 PM (e)

“How could it possibly be pumped up more? It’s already so full of hot air it’s about to explode.”

Let’s just hope the explosion happens soon. It would do all of us a service.

Comment #99832

Posted by gwangung on May 2, 2006 7:51 PM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'kwickxml'

Comment #99833

Posted by Bemused Troll on May 2, 2006 8:03 PM (e)

“:reads the above:

:simultaneously recalls the 10,000 complaints by IDers of “judicial activism”:

:head explodes:”

Explain to me the connection between the following:

1. “IDers – ‘judicial activism’”

and

2. “Judge Jones: Important Scientist and Intellectual”

Believe it or not, these concepts are independent.

Comment #99837

Posted by Blake Stacey on May 2, 2006 8:18 PM (e)

OK, now everybody follow the bouncing ball:

“We take all kind of pills to give us all kind of thrills
But the thrill we’ve never known
Is the thrill that’ll get you when you get your picture
On the cover of the Rolling Stone.

Or Time, if you have your sights set low. (-;

Comment #99839

Posted by Doc Bill on May 2, 2006 8:48 PM (e)

Influental.

Let’s see. William Dembski is at what podunk Bible college in Texas? Refresh my memory. Stephen Meyers does research where? (Oh, never? Sorry.) Michael Behe, is he still alive? He’s published, oh, nothing. Sorry.

So, how is “intelligent design” producing nothing different from “intelligent design” is dead?

I think if anything, Judge Jones traipsed on the lying corpse of the Discovery Instutite.

That’s why Jones is influential and the DI is, er, not. What DI?

Comment #99840

Posted by Keanus on May 2, 2006 8:56 PM (e)

Ignoring Bill Dembski for the moment, the most telling comment—and a humble one—is that made by Judge Jones (as quoted in the Centre Times in State College PA) with reference to his mug on the cover of TIME: “This will pass and I will be back to the more mundane things,” Jones said. “Andy Warhol said everybody gets 15 minutes of fame….I may be in minute 14.”

Would that every public figure had such a realistic grasp of reality and how to play in the public eye.

Comment #99841

Posted by Shalini on May 2, 2006 9:24 PM (e)

“What DI?”

Deluded IDiots.

Whoops, I meant Discovery[sic] Institute.

My mistake ;- )

Comment #99842

Posted by Corkscrew on May 2, 2006 9:39 PM (e)

Bemused Troll: I figure it’s more a case of them not knowing quite where to put him that resulted in him being lumped in with the scientists. Post-Dover, he’s certainly been a big enough influence to merit a presence, but which category do you stick a judge in?

I guess judging could probably be classed as a “thinker” activity, but in practice it was probably more a case of “well, he worked on a case with lots of science, didn’t he? Then stick him in the science section. Now move it!”

Comment #99843

Posted by gwangung on May 2, 2006 9:45 PM (e)

2. “Judge Jones: Important Scientist and Intellectual”

Believe it or not, these concepts are independent.

Not really.

Synthesizing all the testimony and thoughts and placing in context, and being able to state it so clearly that it will be referred to for decades to come by both lay and legal people alike is no mean feat.

Comment #99845

Posted by Anton Mates on May 2, 2006 9:54 PM (e)

Bemused Troll wrote:

I’m only pointing out the obvious fact that Judge Jones has been labeled (according to Time) as an important Scientist or Thinker without actually contributing to current intellectual/scientific discourse in any original capacity.

Does law, particularly law pertaining to science education, not fall under “current intellectual/scientific discourse?”

And given that Jones’ job was to hand down a ruling and write an opinion, not to personally reenact the history of evolutionary biology, in what sense was his contribution not original? It’s not like Dawkins or Myers or Dennett were writing legal briefs for him.

Comment #99846

Posted by chaos_engineer on May 2, 2006 9:57 PM (e)

Bemused Troll wrote:

Actually, scientific enthusiasts and practitioners …

No, no, no! The appropriate troll in this situation is to say that Time named Hitler “Man of the Year” in 1938.

Also don’t use an anonym like “Bemused Troll”, it just gives the game away.

I think this blog might be a little advanced for you. Maybe you can find a Harry Potter forum to troll, and then come back here once you’re more experienced?

Comment #99848

Posted by k.e. on May 2, 2006 10:33 PM (e)

Yeah, I like the mans humility and grace.
Just think he could have had a whole cover to himself if he had have given the Dover dolts a judgement in their favour, Time would have loved that.

Comment #99849

Posted by Glen Davidson on May 2, 2006 10:43 PM (e)

I recognize the propriety of Bemused Troll’s moniker. He seems unable to get beyond the stage of bemusement, and as such he at least seems troll-like.

Darrow and Bryan are well known “thinkers”, due in large part to the Scope’s trial, though of course Bryan comes off in that episode rather worse than does Darrow.

I suppose the fact that Thomas Jefferson wasn’t all that original a thinker would leave him out of the “thinkers” category in the bemused mind, even though he applied concepts from British and French thinkers well enough to be quite instrumental in founding a new nation.

Judge Jones is not, of course, a great evolutionary theorist. He was lucky in getting the Dover case, but in turn, we were lucky that a Republican church-going appointee so facilely understood the issues at stake, and wrote a truly devastating critique of ID in general.

Of course there is nothing at all great in his ruling against ID. I more or less expected it, with some concern over the individual quirks that sometimes throw the case off. What few of us expected was such a thorough and lucid examination of the relevant issues, one that has sent the IDists reeling. Jones is hardly the only person, hardly the only judge, who would have done such an excellent job, but he was just the sort of thinker that fit the time, the case, and the intellectual matters at issue.

It is, no doubt, an unfortunate thing that the many who would have ruled as intelligently as he did do not receive the credit, however fleeting, that Jones has received. Thus it is, however, that much excellence does not see the light of day. This is no excuse for dismissing the excellence that is seen, especially at a crucial juncture in the struggle to maintain Enlightenment ideals.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Comment #99850

Posted by Bemused Troll on May 2, 2006 10:46 PM (e)

Chaos Engineer (as if there is such a thing),

The appropriate troll in this situation is to say that Time named Hitler “Man of the Year” in 1938.

?

I’m having a difficult time connecting the dots between:

1. A discussion about Judge Jones’ qualifications as an important thinker

and

2. Adolph Hitler being recognized as an important person (which he certainly was) in 1939.

Perhaps your advanced intelligence can do what normal logic can’t.

Also don’t use an anonym like “Bemused Troll”, it just gives the game away.

It seems to be the case on this forum that I automatically give the game away by not gushing over Judge Jones…

I think this blog might be a little advanced for you. Maybe you can find a Harry Potter forum to troll, and then come back here once you’re more experienced?

A childish insult.

I suppose this where you take my lunch money and trap me in my locker.

Comment #99851

Posted by Bemused Troll on May 2, 2006 11:02 PM (e)

Glen Davidson,

Now yours was the kind of response I’ve been looking for.

Of course there is nothing at all great in his ruling against ID. I more or less expected it, with some concern over the individual quirks that sometimes throw the case off. What few of us expected was such a thorough and lucid examination of the relevant issues, one that has sent the IDists reeling. Jones is hardly the only person, hardly the only judge, who would have done such an excellent job, but he was just the sort of thinker that fit the time, the case, and the intellectual matters at issue.

Perhaps

To be honest, beyond this whole evo-devo debate I have a real contempt for praising advances in “legal thinking”, even if it was exceptional legal thinking, since it does none of the following:

1. Advances our understanding of the planet.
2. Advances our understanding of the cosmos as a whole.
3. Advances our understanding of mathematics.
4. Helps aid (creatively) ubiquitous enduring poverty & disease throughout the globe.
5. Pioneers the way we conduct (or think about) business.
6. Pioneers the way we organize our government.

I would hope that if we were to highlight legal minds within this country we would at least spill ink over those trying to tackle more complicated, and important, legal problems (i.e. the intersection between our privacy rights and new technology) than the ones surrounding Dover, Pennsylvania.

Comment #99852

Posted by k.e. on May 2, 2006 11:54 PM (e)

You know Confused Troll I agree with you.
Never mind the bulliies hanging around the school yard gates come with me down to where we can whistle at the leggy blonds toss em a dollar and they will turn off the red light, for a minute in your case anyway.

Now onto the more serious stuff, you’re dead right JJ has not cured the clap but he HAS cured a political problem FAR FAR bigger.

Satisfied? d*ckh**d.

Comment #99855

Posted by Dirk Reinecke on May 3, 2006 12:47 AM (e)

4. Helps aid (creatively) ubiquitous enduring poverty & disease throughout the globe.

He has done some of that. He judged against the agents of mental disease whose aims, if achieved, would ensure lasting poverty for us all.

Comment #99857

Posted by Andrew McClure on May 3, 2006 1:24 AM (e)

This troll doesn’t seem very well constructed. Legal decisions and writings are, themselves, a form of thinking. Someone who creates a great work of legal writing is as deserving of the title “great thinker” as someone who writes a great mathematical proof or a great work of music criticism. Not all three of these things will be of the same utility to mankind or whatever, but thoughts do not have to be useful to be important.

And even aside from the fact they are legal documents– I think the kitzmiller trial documents and decision are important as works of both scholarship and history. This is because the Kitzmiller transcripts and decision are what happens when you take the Intelligent Design “debate” as it has stood for the last 15 years and remove the sophistry. Since I think that while creationism is of no scientific importance, creationism is important to the histories of both science and American politics, this makes the Kitzmiller trial and Judge Jones’ writings from it important.

Comment #99858

Posted by Nick (Matzke) on May 3, 2006 1:57 AM (e)

I was looking for the Buckingham “creationism…or ID” video from Fox 43 in June 2004 recently (referred to in the closing arguments in Kitzmiller), just so that a link to the new place exists somewhere on the web, it is still online here:

http://w2.ydr.com/mmedia/wmv/528/

Comment #99859

Posted by k.e. on May 3, 2006 2:09 AM (e)

OK Bemused Troll a confessed troglodyte

The DI could do with that list.
Perhaps you could flick off a quick missive suggesting they
6.Pioneer the way we organize our government
…D’oh …they’re already doing that.

Just send them 1 to 5 Howie Ahmanson’s got plenty of loot.
They can make up a relativist montage of postmodern bon mots using negative deuction and claim they are fixing all those things while bitching the whole world is against them, kind of like your doing.

Comment #99860

Posted by k.e. on May 3, 2006 2:41 AM (e)

…deuction=deduction

Comment #99861

Posted by noturus on May 3, 2006 2:55 AM (e)

Bemused Troll, you seem to agree that Judge Jones is influential (though top 100 is always debatable). So what category should Time have put him in instead of Scientists and Thinkers? Heroes and Pioneers gets my vote.

Comment #99862

Posted by Frank J on May 3, 2006 5:17 AM (e)

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank wrote:

Well heck, the IDers haven’t offered anything that wasn’t put out decades ago by the creation “scientists”. (shrug)

Or 200 years ago by Rev. Paley. But you have to give them credit for “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

Comment #99863

Posted by Ed Darrell on May 3, 2006 5:18 AM (e)

Common sense and integrity are in short supply. Consequently, when Judge Jones demonstrated clear thinking in abundance in his writing of a decision that seems to have put the ID movement on the run, much as Gen. Jackson’s forces did to the British at the Battle of New Orleans, it qualifies him as an outstanding thinker.

Contrast, for example, to certain posts in this thread.

Comment #99864

Posted by snaxalotl on May 3, 2006 5:58 AM (e)

the creationists certainly display a lot of grandiose bemusement since losing so bad at Dover. I say it’s time for a quiet prayer of thanks that we don’t have to witness the hideous gloating visage of creationists in victory.

Comment #99866

Posted by Erasmus on May 3, 2006 7:41 AM (e)

k.e. you are the poet laureate of pandas thumb. no one else is quite so esoteric eclectic and sarcastic at the same time.

i would agree with the confused troll except it made me question my presumptions regarding the damn list anyway. What should expect from such a list in such a publication? and who cares is what i came up with. in short Time magazine is soma-pulp for the kind of people who i attempt to avoid, as they are neither in my lab, in my bluegrass band nor do i see them down at the river in my catfish hole. i don’t know where Time readers are but I suspect it’s in front of the tube.

Judge Jones or Judge Judy who cares what Time thinks.

Comment #99867

Posted by Raging Bee on May 3, 2006 7:52 AM (e)

Yeah, right, as if Bemused Troll is doing ANYTHING to accomplish ANY of the goals he listed.

The least I could say for Judge Jones, is that he advanced the general public’s – and their elected officials’ – understanding of certain general science issues, and their effect on public policy.

Comment #99868

Posted by Flint on May 3, 2006 7:58 AM (e)

I think the emphasis Time is placing is on the influential part, not necessarily on originality. In fact, Time doesn’t make any claim that their thinkers are original, only that they are important *because* what they said had great influence.

And there’s no question that Jones has had influence. We can see that the DI has been in furious damage control mode since the decision, that several potential cases have been dropped due to Jones’ decision, and almost surely a good many more have never passed the wishful thinking stage because the decision against them is both so clear and so comprehensive.

Anyone who actually *reads* the decision can see that Jones wasn’t at all “parroting the analysis” of evolutionary biologists; this wasn’t a case that turned on the strength of the evidence for current biological thought. Instead, Jones was showing with pellucid clarity, based on the facts presented at the trial, that ID is religion, all religion, and nothing but religion. That the religious claims embedded in ID cannot be decoupled from the religious doctrine they express. And that the US Constitution expressly forbids preaching that material in public schools. That claiming religious doctrine is science cannot MAKE it science.

This decision was “original” only in that it established in the law, for the first time, the “intelligent design” is nothing new or different, it is merely a global-search-and-replace substitute for “creation science” intended solely to attempt an end-run around existing legal proscriptions against First Amendment violations. And furthermore, “teaching the controversy” is a canard, yet another dishonest attempt to insert fundamentalist doctrine into science class.

Perhaps, in a year or three, another Judge Jones will have to go through the same exercise over “sudden appearance theory.” And that decision will ALSO be influential, to a degree depending on how much PR funding has been funneled into the public recognition of yet another label for the same contents.

Comment #99872

Posted by Parse on May 3, 2006 10:21 AM (e)

Though I agree that Judge Jones belongs in Time‘s list, to say that he has made the cover of Time is somewhat misleading (though still accurate). The connotations associated with “Making the cover,” or at least the way that I have normally seen it used, is that the person, story, or picture is the main graphic, not one in a collage.
Looking at the cover, I see that the photo array is ten pictures across, by eleven pictures vertically. Considering that the ribbon crossing the page completely obscures a row, there are exactly 100 pictures on the page. Even closer examination of the pictures beneath letters shows that they tried (and succeeded) to choose photographs that would still show the person’s face even if the location was partially covered.
What Jones did certainly has earned him a place in this list; after all, he took all arguments from both sides, both scientific and not, summarized them into a single document that the layperson can understand, and made a reasoned, informed, and legally binding decision about Intelligent Design being science. (Let us not forget that both sides asked Judge Jones to rule on this fact, so it does belong within the scope of the ruling). I would simply change the headline to clearly show that he is on the list, rather than just that he made Time‘s cover.

Comment #99873

Posted by Mike Z on May 3, 2006 10:57 AM (e)

I agree with Ed Darrell, Flint, and Parse on the reasons that Jones is on the list. Balance, clarity, and very strong societal influence are what drew the attention of Time.

I would also add that Jones came into the case with (apparently) only superficial knowledge of the issues at hand, and was able to absorb and assess them all very well. That makes him seem like a top-notch thinker to me.

Plus, he was the nexus of the whole Dover trial–Time could not put all the individual expert witnesses on the list, so Jones may be a sort of proxy for the whole affair.

Comment #99878

Posted by David B. Benson on May 3, 2006 12:31 PM (e)

So Judge Jones did exactly what a good judge ought to do in this setting. Great. I predict at Appeals Court appointment for him in 2009 or 2010.

Comment #99879

Posted by Steverino on May 3, 2006 12:34 PM (e)

Perhaps what Bemused Troll is missing, is the fact that the judge listened to both sides, did in fact slog through a number of documents and research, and weighed what was true and not true to arrive at his decision.

Comment #99881

Posted by Flint on May 3, 2006 12:53 PM (e)

Steverino:

I suspect that Bemused Troll isn’t missing anything, but rather has picked up on the fact that Jones arrived at a conclusion based on the evidence, which is necessarily uncongenial to Troll’s preferences. And so the best he can come up with is, people who understand the nature of evidence should be embarrassed that Jones was so unoriginal as to actually USE the stuff. I trust you are just as mortified as I am by such behavior!

Comment #99885

Posted by k.e. on May 3, 2006 2:14 PM (e)

Ah yeah. Erasmus shucks. Guilty as charged. I was born with an over active sarcasm gene…completely ruined my chances in the Diplomatic Service.. Is that a banana you’re eating or is that your nose? Thomas Carlyle has been quoted as saying “sarcasm is the work of the Devil” and you know what?….I AGREE with him. oops….what’s that noise..THUNDER(Joycean only)..when “she who must be obeyed” speaks I always allow her the last word it would be against nature otherwise, although it sometimes can take a long time to get to that last word.

BT seems to be envious of JJ and was maybe hoping? that HE would be on the the cover of Time for being an important Scientist and/or Thinker instead of JJ for doing practically nothing(at least in his mind)…and he doesn’t care about ID/creo, or so he says….all he needs to do is talk about himself in the 3rd person, characterize PT commenters as school bullies (oops), use facile irrelevant argument that reveals a misreading of the context of the subject, rubbery logic, over deference to the erudite, a quaint manner, feigned bemusement (D’oh) and he will have full on ‘Berlinski Syndrome’®.

Comment #99886

Posted by Gary Hurd on May 3, 2006 3:20 PM (e)

Well, I’d vote for Jones. In fact on the Times website linked in the OP, I did.

About half-way in the trial, I was certain that the opinion was going our way. I had not expected how thoroughly Jones would bury IDC. The apparent perjury by some of the defense witnesses was helpful, as was the brilliant work by the plaintiff attorneys ably assisted by Nic and the NCSE.

Comment #99891

Posted by steve s on May 3, 2006 5:22 PM (e)

We can argue about how penetrating Judge Jones’s insights were, I agree he didn’t perform brain surgery or rocket science, but in terms of importance, he was the intellectual sheriff when the Dishonesty Institute science rustlers came to town, and the spot on Time’s 100 was deserved.

Comment #99893

Posted by Bill Gascoyne on May 3, 2006 7:54 PM (e)

Found a great one in my collection:

“You never need think you can turn over any old falsehoods without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it.”
OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES (1809-1894)

Comment #99896

Posted by Andrew McClure on May 3, 2006 10:55 PM (e)

Flint wrote:

I think the emphasis Time is placing is on the influential part, not necessarily on originality. In fact, Time doesn’t make any claim that their thinkers are original, only that they are important *because* what they said had great influence… Jones was showing with pellucid clarity, based on the facts presented at the trial, that ID is religion, all religion, and nothing but religion…

There really are times where clear thinking can be more important than original thinking. If that weren’t the case there wouldn’t be such a thing as textbooks.

Comment #99908

Posted by Kevin on May 4, 2006 11:38 AM (e)

I claim victory!

I said, ‘I’d be very surprised if the DI doesn’t use this as another opportunity to take a snipe at him: “Well, now we see just why he ruled the way he did - he wanted to make the cover of Time.”’ (Second comment here.)

The DI says:

Casey Luskin wrote:

If you had not ruled that ID is unconstitutional, do you think your picture would be on the cover of Time Magazine this week?

Comment #99909

Posted by Gary Hurd on May 4, 2006 11:53 AM (e)

How odd, Casey is getting dummer. He needs adult supervision.

Comment #99910

Posted by Glen Davidson on May 4, 2006 11:58 AM (e)

If you had not ruled that ID is unconstitutional, do you think your picture would be on the cover of Time Magazine this week?

I bet he’d be on the cover of Time some week, probably all by himself, if he had ruled that ID was constitutional. Of course everyone with a modicum of education and intelligence would look down on any such bumpkin, like we do Casey, but he’d certainly make a bigger splash by siding with the IDiots.

Of course the other nine questions were equally inane, dealing notably with “irreducible complexity”. I guess Casey can’t quite fathom that even if something were found that “couldn’t evolve”, it would provide absolutely no evidence for design, absent any candidate intelligent agent who designs the derivative forms that we see in organisms.

That’s why he is never considered to be an “influential thinker”, at least not above the level of Pat Robertson.

Of course on Uncommonly Dense, DaveScot has his list of notorious “Time’s Person(s) of the Year” set against Jones’ recent appearance, showing once again that he thinks primarily in non-sequiturs, and cannot differentiate between the category “influential thinker” and that of “having the greatest impact”. I never know if DaveScot is actually stupid, or just so inflamed and reactionary that nearly everything he writes in this area is retarded.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Comment #99911

Posted by Mike Z on May 4, 2006 12:01 PM (e)

Thanks for the link, Kevin

You quote #1 of the Top Ten list of questions that Luskin would ask Judge Jones if he could just get a chance. As one might expect, the list is very disappointing, mostly requiring very simple, even one word answers. No attempts to “catch” him in any rhetorical traps or anything.

If I were Jones, here would be my answers:
10. I don’t know. Maybe zero? 9. Yes. 8. Never. 7. No. 6. No. 5. No, but it necessarily implies a supernatural agent. 4. Ask him, not me. 3. I would choose the non-broken car. 2. I would choose the non-broken gun. 1. I don’t know.

Comment #99940

Posted by chaos engineer on May 4, 2006 5:06 PM (e)

chaos engineer wrote:

No, no, no! The appropriate troll in this situation is to say that Time named Hitler “Man of the Year” in 1938.

In related news, I see that DaveScot at Uncommon Descent just pointed out that Time named Hitler “Man of the Year” in 1938.

Comment #99942

Posted by Gary Hurd on May 4, 2006 5:08 PM (e)

10) How many peer-reviewed papers were there prior to 1869 supporting evolution by natural selection?

Peer-review is a practice only popular since the mid-1940s. Prior to 1859 Darwin circulated letters and manuscripts regarding natural selection to many many scientific colleagues. His reputation in the area was well enough established that Wallace sent him a draft on his thoughts about evolution and natural selection. In the ten years after Darwin published “The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection” (Six editions between 1859 and 1872) there were many professional papers and debates. Far more than will ever result from IDC, but an exact count is up to you. I’ll bet a bottle of my favortite adult beverage that there were more professional articles per capita written on natural selection betweeen 1859 and 1869 than are on the DI list or “peer reviewed” publications (most of which were not really peer-reviewed anyway.)

9) Some people say evolution is in conflict with belief in a “supreme being.” Do you think they are wrong?

Yes.

8) When will you be releasing pre-publication, unpublished drafts of your decision so we can decide who really wrote your published decision?

Are you accusing Jones of plagiarism? That is a very serious charge that you have absolutely no evidence to support. You have no shame, but you should be ashamed.

7) Given all of the statements made by leading proponents of evolution saying that evolution conflicts with Christianity and / or implies atheism, does your ruling threaten the teaching of evolution?

There are relatively few serious scholars that make this argument and they are wrong. It is far more often the far-right creationists, particularly YECs, who claim that this is so, and they then assert that this “proves” that evolution is false because the Bible is the Word Of God. This is the “false duality” discussed in the opinion of the court. Read the opinion sometime. (Please tell me that you have not passed the Bar Exam).

6) Given all of the explicitly religious motives among supporters of civil rights in this country, are modern civil rights laws therefore unconstitutional?

The support for civil justice was not presented as a justification for Christian or other faiths, but was argued for by people of faith as a consequence of their personal faith. There were (and are) people who argued that biblical scripture “proved” racial inferiority of non-whites. The argument for civil justice was not decided on religious grounds, nor used to support religion.

5) Did Of Pandas and People say that intelligent design requires a supernatural
agent?

Pandas’ claims that a “designer” could invisibly manipulate genomes (1993: 72) to optimally anticipate future functional requirements (67, 122). Oh, and just incidentally the “designer” is beyond nature, created life and can not be discovered by science but only revealed by religion (pg 7). Sounds like God, Casey. You still don’t understand why you IDiots lost do you?

4) What would the pro-ID, but agnostic philosopher Antony Flew say if you told him that “ID requires supernatural creation”?

Who cares?

3) Here’s a hypothetical situation which will bring back fond memories of flagellar motors and type three secretory systems. Imagine you have to drive a getaway car to flee from a crazy car-jacker with a gun. You can pick from 2 cars to drive to safety:

Option A: An old Ford Pinto that still runs reliably but only has a top speed of 50 mph and takes 3 minutes to warm up before it can be put in drive.

Option B:: A brand new Mazda RX-8 with a rotary engine, a top speed of 150 mph, 0 to 60 in less than 6 seconds, and zero warm-up time. Unfortunately its rotary engine is missing its fan belt so it won’t run right now–but that’s OK because since the fan belt on the RX-8 can also be used as a steering-wheel grip, this means that under your definition, its engine would not be irreducibly complex.

Which car would you choose?

Not being stupid, I would give the crazy guy which ever car he wanted since neither can possibly get me to safety in the few seconds it takes to kill with a gun. How do you stay alive? And why in the world do you think that this is an apt analogy? How about if I want to go to the store? Then, I take the car that runs or I fix the one that doesn’t. Or I might walk. This is as stupid as Casey’s error last week about bolts being the same as lug nuts. I can not imagine how Casey keeps any car running.

2) Now let’s do another hypothetical situation to traipse back into the blood clotting cascade. Two burglars, each of which have a loaded gun, have simultaneously entered your home and might harm your family. You’re cornered in your bedroom and but thankfully you keep two guns under your pillow from which you can choose to defend yourself:

Option A: An authentic American Revolution musket built in 1776 that actually still works fine but can only be fired once every minute. This simple gun is already loaded with one round, but it has no site for aiming nor does it have a cartridge to hold extra musket-balls for rapid-fire. Keep in mind there are two burglars, each with a loaded gun.

Option B: A brand new top-of-the-line new Glock with a laser site and a cartridge that can hold up to 17 rounds for semi-automatic fire. Unfortunately you lost the clip and there are no bullets around for the gun–but that shouldn’t matter because under your ruling, if a different system can still function though it lacks 2 parts normally found in the more complicated system, then the more complicated system is not irreducibly complex.

Which gun would you choose?

This is more stupid than the last one. I thought that your numbering implied some degree of improvement. I have fired muskets and semiautomatic weapons. The two you mention are very large and hard. Only an IDiot would put them under his pillow.

Secondly, a late 1700s flintlock has to have black powder to charge the flash pan. You don’t leave it laying about loaded- you can’t leave it laying about loaded ready to fire. Plus, if it were under my pillow, it would be under my wife’s pillow as well. She would never stand for such a thing. Stupid creationist! Regarding, the semiautomatic. Only an IDiot would have such a deadly weapon laying around “for protection” (let alone keeping him up all night under a pillow) without it being in firing condition. Such a stupid person deserves to die and will probably have killed themselves already. Only a stupid and criminally irresponsible person “loses” a loaded clip. Every few months such fools are arrested when a child is injured or taken from school for playing with daddy’s metal phallus.

Where are the rest of the family? Where are the bad guys? Why don’t you stick to the one or two things you understand? Re there one or two things you understand?

And of course this is a particularly stupid analogy. Your “glock” would have to be in a perpetual state of loaded but not fired, for in firing it runs out of bullets and becomes disfuctional. This is a blood clot system that only works once. The musket, which you seem to offer as a primitive precurser to the glock seems to work just dandy within the limits of the system. How is this a problem to evolution?

1) If you had not ruled that ID is unconstitutional, do you think your picture would be on the cover of Time Magazine this week?

Yes. The case was watched very carefully nationally and even internationally. Regardless of how Jones ruled it would have been of significant interest.

What is just killing you IDiots is that Jones ruled carefully and with full command of the facts and the law.

YOU LOST! BWAHAHAHHHAHHAAAA

Comment #99943

Posted by MaxOblivion on May 4, 2006 5:17 PM (e)

seriously you guys are so misguided, doesnt Judge Jones realise Banana’s prove intelligent design

http://ebaumsworld.com/2006/05/bananaproof.html

Comment #99944

Posted by steve s on May 4, 2006 5:29 PM (e)

Let me help you out there, Max, with a rewrite:

Seriously, you guys are so misguided. Doesn’t Judge Jones realise Bananas prove intelligent design?

Comment #99952

Posted by MaxOblivion on May 4, 2006 6:13 PM (e)

I prefered my version:(

Comment #99954

Posted by Dean Morrison on May 4, 2006 6:20 PM (e)

This seems to be a more direct link to that radio interview:

http://www.whyy.org/tv12/radiotimestv.html

April 21st show

.. sounds like a cool guy

Comment #99968

Posted by Nick (Matzke) on May 4, 2006 9:08 PM (e)

Another example of the Time Cover corollary to Godwin’s Law. This time from Sam Chen of the “Doubting Darwin” blog and (I think) the IDEA club at Baylor.

The version on Bloglines:

Judge Jones: Influential in this “Time?”

By Samuel S. Chen

Judge John E. Jones, III, the judge who ruled in the recent Kitzmiller v. Dover trial, has appeared in Time magazine’s recent issue featuring the 100 most influential people. What did Judge Jones do that was so influential? He attempted to privatize all liquor stores in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as the Chairperson of the Liquor Control Board. He failed on that attempt, however. What else did he do that was so influential? He banned “Bad Frog Beer” on the grounds that its label was obscene.

But he won this honor as Judge John Jones. What did he do as a judge that was so influential? Oh yes, that’s right, he banned the mention of intelligent design from science classes, he revoked freedom of academia and freedom of thought from students, and he demonstrated his great lack of knowledge concerning intelligent design, evolution, and the U.S. Constitution. So how, exactly, is Judge Jones influential?

Perhaps he is influential because very few, if any, federal judges before him has displayed so much ignorance. Or perhaps he has influenced others to make unreasonable decisions to destroy the education of students. Maybe Time was thinking along the lines of other historical figures that have won “Man of the Year”– people like Adolpf Hitler (1938), Joesph Stalin (1939, 1942), Nikita Krushchev (1957), and Ayatullah Khomeini (1979).

Either way, congratulations to Judge Jones on joining a long line of famous, or infamous, leaders. Hopefully the dictatorship he aims to set up in education falls like the dicatorships set up in governments by Hitler and Stalin.

# Posted on: Thu, May 4 2006 4:31 PM
# Updated: Thu, May 4 2006 6:40 PM

The current version:

Thursday, May 04, 2006

Judge Jones: Influential in this “Time?”

Judge John E. Jones, III, the judge who ruled in the recent Kitzmiller v. Dover trial, has appeared on the cover of Time Magazine in their recent issue featuring the 100 most influential people. What did Judge Jones do that was so influential? He attempted to privatize all liquor stores in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as the Chairperson of the Liquor Control Board. He failed on that attempt, however. What else did he do that was so influential? He banned “Bad Frog Beer” on the grounds that its label was obscene.

But he won this honor as Judge John Jones. What did he do as a judge that was so influential? Oh yes, that’s right, he banned the mention of intelligent design from science classes, he revoked freedom of academia and freedom of thought from students, and he demonstrated his great lack of knowledge concerning intelligent design, evolution, and the U.S. Constitution. So how, exactly, is Judge Jones influential?

Perhaps he is influential because very few, if any, federal judges before him has displayed so much ignorance. Or perhaps he has influenced others to make unreasonable decisions to destroy the education of students. Maybe Time was thinking along the lines of other historical figures that have won “Man of the Year”– people like Adolpf Hitler (1938), Joesph Stalin (1939, 1942), Nikita Krushchev (1957), and Ayatullah Khomeini (1979).

Either way, congratulations to Judge Jones on joining a long line of famous, or infamous, leaders. Hopefully the dictatorship he aims to set up in education falls like the dicatorships set up in governments by Hitler and Stalin.

posted by Samuel S. Chen at 8:46 PM

Nice move! I just love it when the ID movement goes after the judge – it just means that they are completely missing the real problems with the ID movement, which are self-inflicted.

Comment #99970

Posted by Henry J on May 4, 2006 9:24 PM (e)

Re “Some people say evolution is in conflict with belief in a “supreme being.” Do you think they are wrong?”

Is that even a question? A supreme being could do anything, including make evolution work (even if it were for some reason impossible by other means) - so if somebody holding such claims something is impossible, they’re contradicting their own belief by saying there’s something said supreme being can’t do.

Henry

Comment #99971

Posted by Keanus on May 4, 2006 9:24 PM (e)

I get much amused at Casey’s nonsense, which speaks volumes about his ignorance and nothing about evolution. But to take up his closing attempts to push IC, both the ancient musket and the Glock would work fine as clubs. In other words, were they missing something that lets them function as a firearm, they are still useful as a club. They are not irreducibly complex. The same holds true for the eye, the clotting cascade and a host of other evolved elements found in contemporary organisms.

Comment #99982

Posted by K.E. on May 5, 2006 1:08 AM (e)

Luskin couldn’t argue his way out of a Rotary meeting. That guy needs to investigate how religion evolved.
http://evocc.com/

Comment #100017

Posted by Glen Davidson on May 5, 2006 2:20 PM (e)

I get much amused at Casey’s nonsense, which speaks volumes about his ignorance and nothing about evolution. But to take up his closing attempts to push IC, both the ancient musket and the Glock would work fine as clubs. In other words, were they missing something that lets them function as a firearm, they are still useful as a club. They are not irreducibly complex. The same holds true for the eye, the clotting cascade and a host of other evolved elements found in contemporary organisms.

I agree with you, especially with regard to the eye, clotting, etc.

I don’t mean to pick on anybody, though, but I have always had some doubt about using the function of a club, or a doorstop, or some such thing, to analogize biological evolution. I know that it is tempting to say, well hey, you can use a mousetrap sans spring as some other kind of instrument, but I believe that Behe and the other IDists are correct, or close to correct, that the mousetrap and the gun are irreducibly complex using some definitions. That is to say, it is very hard for me to see how a gun missing its bolt, a Mazda missing its engine, or even a mousetrap missing its spring, could evolve into properly functioning complex machinery (we’ll grant them reproductive powers for this thought experiment).

This is what is different about organisms–their functions are not as easily ruined by accidents and mutation. They have redundancies and (non-evolutionary) adaptive abilities which compensate for problems that arise. Which means that a mutation that is harmful in some ways, may end up being selected if it is sufficiently helpful in other ways.

IDists like the flagellum because it is complex and could be damaged fairly easily via mutation. But of course the flagellum was almost certainly quite a bit less complex once. And what good is half a flagellum? Probably a great deal. Even if it could only affect random movements in its incipient state, to an organism whose ancestors had no mobility, it would be of considerable worth (look at scallops moving in fairly random manner in order to escape).

What IDists need to do is to ask themselves why organisms are generally much more resilient in the face of change than are our own designs. Could it be that redundancies and robustness were essential for evolving flagella and other complex structures? Or, why do they so much prefer human machines to demostrate catastrophic failure, when so much diversity (apparent change) exists in the genomes and “designs” of organisms?

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Comment #100043

Posted by KL on May 5, 2006 6:35 PM (e)

Never mind Hitler and Stalin.

How about the Pope (19)
Billy Graham (3)
Jerry Falwell (1)
Pat Robertson(1)
Jesse Helms (1)
Scientology (1)
Waco Texas (1)
Branch Davidians (2)

Two can play this game….

Comment #100065

Posted by Torbjörn Larsson on May 6, 2006 2:27 AM (e)

An evolving mousetrap that could start out as a paper clip: http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap.html. I particularly like the animations…

Comment #100134

Posted by Moses on May 6, 2006 7:34 PM (e)

Comment #99830

Posted by Bemused Troll on May 2, 2006 07:47 PM (e)

“Well heck, the IDers haven’t offered anything that wasn’t put out decades ago by the creation “scientists”. (shrug)”

…??

Who cares about people who advocate ID or creation science? It’s not like they have contributed in any major way to scientific understanding.

I’m only pointing out the obvious fact that Judge Jones has been labeled (according to Time) as an important Scientist or Thinker without actually contributing to current intellectual/scientific discourse in any original capacity. If anything, selecting Judge Jones as an important intellectual/scientific figure is more a reflection of Time magazine than it is of Judge Jones.

And that makes it an embarrassment…

Not as embarrassing as your deliberate unwillingness to understand why he made the list. The Judge had to wade through hundreds of hours of elaborately crafted lies and deceptions that have fooled thousand and thousands of very intelligent people to come to the point where he could apply the well-settled law. And he expressed this understanding in one of the most complete and well written opinions I’ve ever read.

Comment #100181

Posted by K.E. on May 7, 2006 1:38 AM (e)

(sort of on topic)
Now here is the REAL reason the Creation-istas are furious that Time, their pet propaganda organ(read: one true version of the truth ..non liberal biased media) has been infiltrated with rational thought instead of gutruthiness.

Was Stephen Colbert Funny?
If you didn’t laugh at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, the bloggers insist, you’re a White House lackey

Sweet, I see now why it hurts them so, they would much prefer some fascist dictator on the cover, closet queens.

Comment #100206

Posted by Paul Flocken on May 7, 2006 9:29 AM (e)

Oh, the shakes, the shakes, I’ve been away too long; the PT’s(Pandalirium Tremens) are really bad. Muussstttt…get…myyyy…fix. Oh, that’s better now.

Comment #99885 Posted by k.e. on May 3, 2006 02:14 PM

Ah yeah. Erasmus shucks. Guilty as charged. I was born with an over active sarcasm gene…completely ruined my chances in the Diplomatic Service.. Is that a banana you’re eating or is that your nose? Thomas Carlyle has been quoted as saying “sarcasm is the work of the Devil” and you know what?….I AGREE with him. oops….what’s that noise..THUNDER(Joycean only)..when “she who must be obeyed” speaks I always allow her the last word it would be against nature otherwise, although it sometimes can take a long time to get to that last word.

k.e. your sarcasm is so far ahead of such trolls they’d have to cross the Valles Marineris to reach you.

Smiles for all,
Paul

Comment #100212

Posted by steve s on May 7, 2006 11:49 AM (e)

And he expressed this understanding in one of the most complete and well written opinions I’ve ever read.

It’s the only opinion I’ve read in full. He really kicked the crap out of them. I can definitely understand why Casey Luskin’s crying himself to sleep these days.

Comment #100213

Posted by steve s on May 7, 2006 11:54 AM (e)

It seems unfair that Casey and his kind have given us so much humor, and all we gave them in return was an ass-kicking.

Comment #100227

Posted by W. Kevin Vicklund on May 7, 2006 10:20 PM (e)

BTW, the Dover opinion has been published.

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 400 F. Supp. 2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005)