Dec 202005
 

In the Dover, PA case judge Jones has ruled that only the officially sanctioned State religion of Darwinism may be taught in the public schools. Furthermore, neither Darwinism nor its premises, arguments, or evidence may be questioned.

A press release from the Discovery Institute comments, “This is an activist judge who has delusions of grandeur.”

This is being much too generous. Poor judge Jones is suffering from delusions of adequacy.

 Posted by at 2:14 pm

  25 Responses to “Judge Suffers From Delusions of Adequacy”

  1. This is to be expected from a state-run government of the People’s Republic of China. This is the reason why people flee from a totalitarian regime to the U.S.

    I encourage the people of Dover to flee from the PRC and seek asylum in the U.S.A. We are a country that promotes free speech and academic freedom. We have a constitution that prevents the government to setup a state-religion like that of atheistic Darwinism. ๐Ÿ˜›

  2. “We have concluded that it is not [science], and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents”

    I could have told you that! No court case required ๐Ÿ˜‰

  3. Comrade John E. Jones used the term “creation science” — 31 times, “Christian science — 2 times, and “Biblic science” — once. The little known fact is that Comrade Jones is actually Barbara Forrest dress up like a man in the robes of a judge.

    The history of the intelligent design movement (hereinafter “IDM” ) and the development of the strategy to weaken education of evolution by focusing students on alleged gaps in the theory of evolution is the historical and cultural background against which the Dover School Board acted in adopting the challenged ID Policy.

    Yes we know Barbara. We read your book on Creationism’s Trojan Horse.

    It is essential to our analysis that we now provide a more expansive account of the extensive and complicated federal jurisprudential legal landscape concerning opposition to teaching evolution, and its historical origins. As noted, such opposition grew out of a religious tradition, Christian Fundamentalism that began as part of evangelical Protestantism’s response to, among other things, Charles Darwin’s exposition of the theory of evolution as a scientific explanation for the diversity of species.

    No Barbara. How about addressing the specific scientific evidence of ID instead?

    Although proponents of the IDM occasionally suggest that the designer could be a space alien or a time-traveling cell biologist, no serious alternative to God as the designer has been proposed by members of the IDM, including Defendants’ expert witnesses. (20:102-03 (Behe)).

    Barbara, Barbara, why is the identification of a designer necessary for detecting design or to formulate a design theory?

    Dr. Barbara Forrest, (aka Comrade John E. Jones) one of Plaintiffs’ expert witnesses, is the author of the book Creationism’s Trojan Horse. She has thoroughly and exhaustively chronicled the history of ID in her book and other writings for her testimony in this case. Her testimony, and the exhibits which were admitted with it, provide a wealth of statements by ID leaders that reveal ID’s religious, philosophical, and cultural content. The following is a representative grouping of such statements made by prominent ID proponents.

    The text in color is what Comrade Jones probably left out. He also forgot to read Atheism’s Trojan Horse vs. Creationism’s Trojan Horse.

    Comrade Jones like all Darwinists seems to be concerned with the integrity of science. She used the word “science” 179 times in her decision. I just wish she would at least address ONE of the MANY SCIENTIFIC evidences that was brought out in the trial. After all I thought this was a case about science classes.

  4. Comrade Jones (aka Barbara Forrest) ordered the school board to pay the plaintiffs for establishing their religion in schools. Unbelievable.

    Because Plaintiffs seek nominal damages, Plaintiffs shall file with 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 the extent provided in the applicable statutes and court rules.

  5. As a point of clarification, I should mention that someone who suffers from delusions of grandeur thinks he is great, but is not. Someone who suffers from delusions of adequacy is much worse.

    The latter thinks he is up to the demands of a task, but is not, and has no awareness that he is completely out of his league.

  6. Yes,

    While striving to promote freedom and progress in science, others do just the opposite, like the next promotional of evolution that argues that such partial judge is like a ‘scientist’ qualified to ‘dismantle’ ID (evidently Barbara Forrest is against freedom and progress in science and also an enemy of new horizons in science):

    NewScientist.com – NEWSFLASH

    ————————————————————————
    Judge rules against ‘intelligent design’ in class

    Pennsylvania science teachers will not be forced to advocate
    “intelligent design” after a judge ruled that that the theory is
    really religion in disguise.

    In his decision, Judge John Jones systematically dismantled the
    arguments of the proponents of intelligent design.

    Click on the link below for the full story on NewScientist.com/news:
    http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8493

  7. The dover school district has 1000 high school students, 250 9th graders supposedly. They would have only had 1 minute of ID in 9th grade.

    Grove City College has 2300 students. I believe every science student is required to study ID. Praise be.

    The IDEA chapters in Virginia have hosted close to 500 students this last year, and they were getting way more than 1 minute of ID, and getting it taught right.

    The war is against Darwinian tyranny is far from being lost.

    I recall that the Nazi’s in WWII drove the allies out of France. When this happened, Winston Churhill proclaimed that though the battle of France was lost, The Battle of Britain was about to begin.

    And we know what happened to Nazis eventually. ๐Ÿ™‚

  8. Judge Jones, a lifelong Christian, a Lutheran, a conservative Republican, friend of Sen. Rick Santorum and former Gov. Tom Ridge . . . and you guys call him “comrade?”

    Such argument by epithet is wholly unbecoming of any polite human. It’s to be abhorred by Christians.

    And it’s patently stupid. Judge Jones is an honorable man. The decision he made was considerably easier considering the grotesque lies told by ID advocates at trial. The school board members dissembled incredibly — in one case denying having said what was reported by two different newspapers, and caught on videotape by a local television station repeating a lie. When the ID case is built on falsehoods, how else is a federal court supposed to rule, by law? Is ID really so shallow that it must lie, and then it must ask the government to endorse those falsehoods?

    To those sorts of ID advocates, we have this to say: We will fight you in the laboratories, we will fight you in the fields. We will fight you in the libraries, in the science journals, and in the courtrooms. We will fight you in the legislatures. We will never give up. We will never give up. We will never give up. So long as truth and accuracy is worth defending, we in science will defend it from people who prevaricate to try to mislead innocent courts, school boards, citizens, and especially defend it from people who try to mislead innocent school kids.

    Don’t make the mistake of thinking you’re on Churchill’s side if you’re defending people who lie in federal trials, or before school boards.

  9. And don’t make the mistake of thinking you’re noble if you’re telling whopping fibs against the reputation of a solid federal judge.

    Ask yourself, seriously: What would Jesus do?

  10. When the ID case is built on falsehoods

    What falsehoods was the ID case built on? Please elaborate?

    Is ID really so shallow that it must lie, and then it must ask the government to endorse those falsehoods?

    What lies was Judge Jones (aka Barbara Forrest) claim that ID ask the gov’t to endorse?

    As usual edarrell will follow his hit and run tactic dropping in to make inflammatory remarks and does not bother to support his comments. So let me expose the blatant distortion that edarrell is making.

    First I will admit I don’t have enough details of what some individuals of the school board have allegedly lied about. I only have the 139 pages from Judge Jones (aka Barbara Forrest) to go by. So let’s examine the relevant quotes of lying in the decision. What are the lies that edarrell might be referring to?

    Finally, although Buckingham, Bonsell, and other defense witnesses denied the reports in the news media and contradicted the great weight of the evidence about what transpired at the June 2004 Board meetings, the record reflects that these witnesses either testified inconsistently, or lied outright under oath on several occasions, and are accordingly not credible on these points.

    Buckingham and Bonsell lied about what transpired at the June 2004 Board meetings. How does what happened at some Board meeting affect the scientific argument for ID?

    As we will discuss in more detail below, the inescapable truth is that both
    Bonsell and Buckingham lied at their January 3, 2005 depositions about their knowledge of the source of the donation for Pandas, which likely contributed to Plaintiffs’ election not to seek a temporary restraining order at that time based upon a conflicting and incomplete factual record.

    Buckingham and Bonsell lied about “their knowledge of the source of the donation for Pandas” . How does their lying about the source of some donation affect the scientific argument for ID?

    The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.

    Board members lied to cover their tracks and disguise their real purpose. How does their lying affect the scientific argument for ID?

    The answer to each above instances of lying is that it has nothing to do with the science of ID. Listening to edarrell you would think that ID theorists were lying about the scientific case for ID. If you didn’t examine the detail of the lying you might think that IDists have committed some scientific fraud like Darwinists did with the Piltdown man. Did edarrell pointed out how shallow Darwinian evolution must be that it had to lie and falsify evidence to support their theory? Did edarrell pointed out how “wholly unbecoming of any polite human” for Darwinians to lie and falsify evidence to support evolution? edarrell like all closed-minded Darwinians are quick to conflate the acts of some individuals with the science of ID. In the Dover case the accused liars aren’t even ID scientists or members of any ID think tank.

    And don’t make the mistake of thinking you’re noble if you’re telling whopping fibs against the reputation of a solid federal judge.

    Ask yourself, seriously: What would Jesus do?

    What is abhorrent to me is the specious claim by some to be practicing Christians when they show no signs of being one. If you want to talk about science, fine. If you want to talk about theology, fine. But please do not drag your Atheistic system of belief into the faith that is given to us by God and attempt to hijack it for your own destruction. It is nothing more than wolves in sheep’s clothing. When people like edarrell label himself and Jones as Christians and yet sides with the very tenets put forth by Atheistic humanists like Forrest as gospel that is not the sign of being a Christian. When Jones and edarrell claim to be Christians yet deny the essential tenet of our faith that God Created, that is not Christianity. When edarrell and Jones agrees with Atheistic Darwinists that knowledge is limited to material naturalism and everything can be explained by natural means, they are rejecting God. If as edarrell believes that the evolution of all species is a result of a purely naturalistic process where God is not a necessity then what God does he believe in? In edarrell’s belief system there is no difference between Christianity and the tooth fairy. 24 No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth (Mt 6:24). It seems clear to me who edarrell serves. It is also insulting to me for edarrell to ask what would Jesus do? It is crystal clear what Jesus would do.

    12 And Jesus entered the temple and drove out all who sold and bought in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons.
    13 He said to them, “It is written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer,’ but you make it a den of robbers.” (Matthew 21:12-13)

    21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. (Mt 7:21)

    Do you really expect Jesus to come and say to you “good and faithful” servant, you’ve rejected that God had any role in creation or the development of life even though the Bible clearly said that “God Created” . I am so happy that you’ve agreed with the atheists who deny My existence and that I was necessary in the formation of life on Earth, well done edarrell. Is that what Jesus would do? If you want to call yourself Christian fine, but done expect me to accept it. Do not conflate the two spheres of beliefs. If you want to criticize ID and science, fine. I will defend it on an empirical basis. If you want to hijack Christianity, not only will I defend against it. I find your actions insulting. If you find those Board members to be deceptive, you should at least admit that you are being deceptive about Christianity. If you want to believe in some form of deistic belief go ahead and form your own religion but don’t hijack mine. You can even criticize my belief but please, please don’t pretend to be a part of it.

  11. Yes edarrell, you will indeed fight the IDists in all those places and you will lose. Trust me. You already have, but being a “prescribed” atheist Darwinian mystic, you are quite unable to recognize it.

    We are all victims of a determined destiny. You are one of the really unlucky ones. I love it so!

  12. Yes edarrell, you will indeed fight the IDists in all those places and you will lose.

    Kitzmiller vs. Dover School Board:

    Science – 1
    ID – 0

    Hmmm.

    Regarding the lies told in during the trial, just to start off with, please examine the court transcripts of the days that Buckingham and Bonsell were on the stand. Do you think they lied to the court during those days?

    Something edarrell forgot to mention is the man that appointed Judge Jones III to the federal bench: President George W. Bush. Yet you infer that Judge Jones III is a communist? Judge Jones is a church-going republican. Ad hominems such as “Comrade” don’t ring true.

    Please, read the judge’s decision here.

  13. My apologies, I should have instead posted this link for the judge’s decision.

  14. Nohm, apparently you have not read my comments or did not understand it. Instead of repeating myself, what was the context for calling him comrade? What was my response to labels like Republican and Christians? And you can keep your diatribe about Christianity synthesis with evolution to yourself.

  15. “Judge Jones, aka Barbara Forrest.”

    Do we need to go any farther? You can’t tell the difference between the testimony of the historian and the ruling by the conservative, Christian, Republican judge?

    There are three sets of lies in the Dover case. There were the lies told by the former school board members, about what they did and why they did it.

    Of course, they were trying to cover their tracks after the Discovery Institute had told them that, if they were open about the religious motives they shared, the court case had not chance. The second set of lies are those told around the motivations for the intelligent design movement, generally — and while Judge Jones was not so harsh on the ID advocates, he saw through them. The term “ID” was invented to cover up the word “creationist” after the Supreme Court endorsed the lower court rulings in Edwards v. Aguillard and McLean v. Arkansas. The political campaign to get ID into schools was started at a 1991 conference sponsored by a Christian political group at SMU. In those days attendees, such as the criminal procedure professor Phillip Johnson and biochemist Michael Behe, made no bones that their goal was to put Jesus and God into the science curriculum. Did their motives change over the years, or have they simply gotten more circumspect about what they say, in an effort to separate their spoken faith from their advocacy of anti-evolutionism? I think the latter — they’re trying to cover their religious tracts, and tracks.

    The third set of lies involves whether ID is science, and whether it has any standing among scientists. Judge Jones got Behe to admit the lack of science behind ID, but he was under oath. Judge Jones also saw through the “endorsements” of ID by scads of non-biologists with lukewarm, almost-ID statements.

    Were it not for the fact that ID advocates have gotten school boards into hot water by lying about the existence of science behind ID (there is none) and about those who endorse it (generally cranks, crackpots and a few misled, non-biology scientists), the school board wouldn’t have to lie about their religious motivations to stick ID in the curriculum.

    Bonsell’s lies under oath do not change ID’s science standing. It doesn’t improve the science standing one whit. It doesn’t make ID suddenly science. How does it “affect he science argument for ID?” It doesn’t. There remains no good, honest science argument in favor of intelligent design.

    The truly disgusting thing is that the antics of the former Dover board, the pro-ID group, are not materially different from the pro-ID group at the Kansas board of education, nor from the pro-ID bunch at the Ohio board, nor from the pro-ID bunch at the Texas board. The Dover guys had the misfortune of really, really believing the propaganda from DI, that intelligent design has science behind it and it’s legal to teach it in biology.

    Evolution doesn’t have to lie and falsify evidence to back the theories. In fact, scientists have a long history of smoking out falsification. The Piltdown hoax was not one perpetrated by scientists trying to promote evolution — why must ID supporting people fib about a hoax? — and whatever the ultimate motives of the perpetrators (I think it a practical joke gone too public, too soon), the facts remain that it was scientists who smoked it out because the Piltdown evidence, if accurate, did not fit evolution theory. No creationist ever had a serious question about the veracity of the evidence. If we had to depend on the problem-solving efficacy of creationism, Piltdown man might have entered the science pantheon as an odd outlying, contrary to theory specimen.

    On the whole, evolution scientists are supreme gentlemen, like Charles Darwin — often models of Christian behavior, some despite their not even being Christian. And with literally hundreds of thousands of specimens of fossils and other non-fossil evidence for evolution, it’s not only folly to claim the evidence doesn’t exist, it’s a false claim. Why must ID advocates prevaricate on such issues?

    In the Dover case, those whose testimony stands as highly suspect include several people with major ID think tanks, including the Discovery Institute fellows whose testimony was so suspect that even the Thomas More Legal Center people, desperate for any support, wouldn’t risk proceeding with such questionable support. (The DI guys were fired as experts, and as the defense counsel made clear, there were difficulties in the testimony and actions of the so-called experts that made firing them a better course of action, even though it was too late to add anyone else as expert.) Did you forget that?

    Barbara Forrest told the truth. Taking the opposite side from the truth is not a Christian position, I’m sorry. You have erred in making that claim. What sort of wolf puts on the fleece to claim Christians side against the truth?

    Teleologist said:

    When edarrell and Jones agrees with Atheistic Darwinists that knowledge is limited to material naturalism and everything can be explained by natural means, they are rejecting God.

    That was not the testimony at the trial. Jones, a Lutheran, didn’t claim that knowledge is limited to material naturalism, nor do I. However, science does not work with claims of magic. Neither Judge Jones nor I, nor any other Christian, believes everything is explained by natural means all the time. We leave room for miracles. But neither do we find it necessary to deny what is explained by natural means in order to make claims for faith that are ultimately false. What do you accomplish by making these claims when the opinion is public, and anyone can read that Jones said ID could be right, but there is at the moment no science to support the claims that there is science behind it? Do you think no one will ever read the decision?

    Why do you find it necessary to try to denigrate my Christian faith? Have you no material arguments to make in favor of ID?

    Do you really think Jesus used such scurrilous and false attacks on anyone, even His enemies? I asked what you thought Jesus would to do suggest you should consider not making such attacks.

    It’s clear now. Not only does Teleological not know what evolution is, not only does he defend falsehoods in the name of intelligent design, but he’s really not clear on the concept of what Jesus would do in such a case. There is nothing in the Bible that claims science is anti-faith, or that faith is anti-science. There is nothing in Christianity to suggest that a philosophy of denying science and lying about policy is anything any Christian should have any part of.

    Go take a walk. Calm down, cool off. Your anger is preventing your necessary analysis before you argue, and what you say comes of as mere spouting, and spiteful spouting at that.

  16. “And you can keep your diatribe about Christianity synthesis with evolution to yourself.”

    Do you really believe that what I wrote was a diatribe?

  17. “Judge Jones, aka Barbara Forrest.”
    Do we need to go any farther?

    edarrell, it might be acceptable for people like you and Jones whose been drinking the Darwinian kool-aid, to uncritically swallow the delusions of an atheistic humanist. For the rest us rational human being we need a little bit more evidence.

    There are three sets of lies in the Dover case.

    edarrrell, I understand it might be futile but reason beyond your Darwinian propaganda and answer my questions. How do any of the alleged lies by the Board members affect the scientific argument for ID?

    The third set of lies involves whether ID is science, and whether it has any standing among scientists. Judge Jones got Behe to admit the lack of science behind ID

    Why don’t you provide the exact quote from the decision where Behe admits that? ๐Ÿ˜€

    Why do you find it necessary to try to denigrate my Christian faith? Have you no material arguments to make in favor of ID?

    edarrell, you are confused. You were the one that brought Christianity into the argument. You like your idol Barbara Forrest are the ones that have no scientific argument against ID and have to drag the faith that I hold dear into this debate. ID has never used faith as support for it’s theory.

    Do you really think Jesus used such scurrilous and false attacks on anyone, even His enemies? I asked what you thought Jesus would to do suggest you should consider not making such attacks.

    I don’t claim anything. I quoted to you directly what the Bible said. If you disagree with what I quoted then disagree with the Word of God. With every comment you make it becomes clearer that you are not a Christian. If you want create your own bible and make yourself god go ahead but don’t hijack what God has given to His Creation. Why won’t you at least have some honesty and admit that you are not a Christian and start your own religion. You obviously don’t seem to accept what Jesus did as it is recorded in the Bible.

  18. Do you really believe that what I wrote was a diatribe?

    Absolutely. If you agree with Darwinists that a supreme being is outside of nature, then Darwinism has no justification to claim synergy with Christianity.

  19. Thanks to Mike over at TT who found this from Daniel Dennett

    If they said that the theory of evolution in no way conflicts with the existence of a divine creator, then I must say that I find that claim to be disingenuous. The theory of evolution demolishes the best reason anyone has ever suggested for believing in a divine creator. This does not demonstrate that there is no divine creator, of course, but only shows that if there is one, it (He?) needn’t have bothered to create anything, since natural selection would have taken care of all that.

    Even a Darwinist can have moments of honesty contrary to edarrell’s farce and Nohm’s diatribe of trying to pull the wool over the Christian’s eyes.

  20. Don’t you think that calling my comments a “diatribe” is a bit dramatic?

    “The theory of evolution demolishes the best reason anyone has ever suggested for believing in a divine creator.”

    Just how exactly does the theory of evolution demolish the best reason? What exactly is the best reason suggested?

    What does the theory of evolution have to do with a supreme being?

    “This does not demonstrate that there is no divine creator, of course, but only shows that if there is one, it (He?) needn’t have bothered to create anything, since natural selection would have taken care of all that.”

    Again, the theory of evolution does not deal with the creation of life (if it was created); it deals with how life has changed and diversified. It is a straw man fallacy to suggest that the theory of evolution makes any claims about how life originated.

    If you’re going to fight against science, it’s my opinion that you should address what is actually claimed, because it seems to me that you’re focusing on straw man arguments.

  21. Don’t you think that calling my comments a “diatribe” is a bit dramatic?

    No absolutely not. Any attempt to obfuscate Christianity with an atheistic religion like Darwinism must be strongly rebuffed.

    Just how exactly does the theory of evolution demolish the best reason?

    You will have to ask your Darwinian friend Dennett who made that statement. My guess it is by Darwinian rhetoric.

    Again, the theory of evolution does not deal with the creation of life (if it was created)

    Repeating it like a mantra does not make it true. Answer my question. Did you even read my question?

    If you’re going to fight against science

    I am not fighting against ID. I know ID claims that it is not necessary to identify the designer to recognize a designed artifact.

  22. Did you even read my question?

    I have read all of your questions, and I have tried to answer them as best as I can. Please indicate which exact question you’re referring to here.

    This blog is a Loki, right?

    So you believe ID is science. Hopefully someone can help me with this:

    Suppose, for the sake of discussion (and only for the sake of discussion) that we agree that evolution is a sham, a con, total bunk, completely junk science. It’s all made up. Ok?

    1. What is the scientific theory of ID?
    2. How is the scientific theory of ID falsifiable?
    3. How is the scientific theory of ID testable?
    4. What predictions are made by the scientific theory of ID?
    5. How is the scientific theory of ID used in research?
    6. What would a school syllabus teaching the scientific theory of ID look like?

    Thank you.

  23. Why do you grant more credence to Daniel Dennett than to Darwin and Dobzhansky and Gray and Collins combined? Is Dennett that smart, that correct?

    If one does not analyze the evidence for one’s self, one is left having to rely on arguments from authority. In that case, one had best figure out who the authorities are. Either way it requires some mental work that ID appears unwilling to do, in a teleological vein.

  24. Why do you grant more credence to Daniel Dennett than to Darwin and Dobzhansky and Gray and Collins combined? Is Dennett that smart, that correct?

    If one does not analyze the evidence for one’s self, one is left having to rely on arguments from authority.

    I get it. You mean I should not use arguments from authority like what edarrell is doing by throwing out names like Darwin, Dobz, Gray and Collins, right? I guess I should think a little bit about what I am saying. ๐Ÿ™‚

    Come to think of it, I was not using any authority for anything. Contrary to the impression you are giving that ” real Christians” are the only one who object to Darwinism is consonant with Christianity. The fact is that there are many atheists who recognize and makes a good argument that Darwinism is anti-Christianity. The definition as stated by Miller is atheistic and anti-Christianity.

    Darwin and Dobz are certainly not Christian. Why are Darwinists so insidiously deceptive pretending to be something they are not? Gray to his credit actually criticized Darwin for pushing his myth too far into atheism. Collins is just plain delusional. See here, here and here.

  25. You do realize that Darwin was 150 years ago, right? Do you call computer scientists Turingists or Pascalists? Are cosmologists called Galileoists?

    Regardless, does any of this matter? After Kitzmiller v. Dover ID is dead, because they’re already changing Of Pandas And People to be about Sudden Emergence, right?

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.