YOU made a statement:

“Of course the Dover problem is that the school board didn’t really support Intelligent Design; they wanted to hijack the Intelligent Design movement’s good name in order to sneak Biblical Literalism into the public schools.”

I asked you for evidence that would support that statement. But instead you offered that some members of the Dover SB were “religiously motivated”. However being “religiously motivated” does NOT equate to wanting Biblical literalism (whatever that is) put into public schools.

IOW you have failed to support your original claim. Don’t blame me for your inadequecies…

Can the publishers sue a federal judge? I’m not a lawyer but I believe the judge is immune from civil suit arising from a case like this. He’s the one that caused the damage. The publishers made the point before trial that if there was a ruling for the plaintiff the book would become “radioactive” as far as sales to schools.

After prohibiting the publisher from participating in the defense of their product he should have either disallowed it as evidence or not based his ruling on it so much. C’mon – he mentioned the book SEVENTY-FOUR times in his judgement. The 60-second statement, the hearing of which was optional for the students, read by the principle was what should have been the focuse of the trial. The decision reeks of a personal vendetta by Judge Jones.

I think I got my boards mixed up. Are you “Joe G.” over at Telic Thoughts? If so, then everything else I said stands.

“DaveScot: Clearly the book was on trial more than any other single thing. To have refused to let the publishers of the book participate in its defense when placing so very much import on it was just plain wrong.”

I disagree…let me try an analogy.

Suppose you hire me to do some electrical work on your house, and a week later your house burns down. I say that it was just a coincidence, but you say that I caused the fire by doing a shoddy job. We wind up in court.

You remember that when I was doing the work, I was constanly referring to a book called “Of Wires and Wallboard”. You’ve since learned that many professional electricians think that the book is filled with bad advice of the sort that’s likely to cause electrical fires. This fact is going to be one of the focal points of your case.

So the publisher is worried that you’re going to further damage their reputation, and they want to be made a party to the trial. But does this really make sense? It’s a liability trial. They don’t bear any liability to you.

Of course I’m free to call them as a witness if I want.

If I don’t want them as a witness, and if they feel that you’re misrepresenting them, then they can file an amicus brief and get their side of the story told that way. (This is what happened in “Kitzmiller”.)

If they feel that you’ve misrepresented them to the point where it’s affecting sales, then they can sue you for defamation or tortuous interference with business. (Obviously this is separate from the original lawsuit.)

I think it was clear that some members of the Dover SB were motivated by religion enough to make a lot of folks shudder and wanted as much of the bible brought into the classroom as they could legally manage. One of them declared at an SB meeting in this regard “Someone died on a cross 2000 years ago. Isn’t someone here going to stand up for him?”. That’s pretty blatant. The same guy perjured himself by lying about where the money to purchase the books Of Pandas and People came from.

Be that as it may, one cannot condemn the entire SB for the actions of one of its members so I still strongly agree with you there. I also agree that Judge Jones largely tried the book “Of Pandas and People”. I counted 74 mentions of the book title in a double-spaced 134 page judgment. That’s about one reference per single spaced page. Clearly the book was on trial more than any other single thing. To have refused to let the publishers of the book participate in its defense when placing so very much import on it was just plain wrong. It doesn’t matter that neither side’s lawyers wanted the publisher’s lawyers involved. Jones was under no obligation to oblige their desire and he positively should have allowed the publisher to defend a book he placed so much emphasis upon. It was a miscarriage of justice.

YOU have yet to demonstrate that the Dover SB wanted to have Biblical literalism put into public schools (in their district). All you have done was to show the SB, some or most members, had religious motives. The two are not the same.

The book- “Of Pandas and People” was very important to the case. By not allowing the publisher to defend the book demonstrates the judge was not interested in the facts.

I never posted here before. However I am very aware of your tactics. And as everyone can see you cannot substantiate your original claim.

Now either you can demonstrate the Dover SB wanted to have Biblical literalism put into public schools or admit you posted something that wasn’t indicative of reality.

I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying. A desire to get Biblical Literalism into the public schools is a religious motive.

“Bottom line is Judge Jones III refused to allow the publisher to defend itself during the trial.”

He refused to allow the publisher to become a party to the case. Which makes sense, because the suit was about the policies of the Dover School Board and the publisher had no control over them.

He would have allowed the publisher to be a witness in the case, and they could have defended themselves then. But the School Board refused to call them for whatever reason. Blame them if you need to blame somebody.

By the way, did you use to post here as “Joe G.”? If you’re the same person, I don’t think it’s going to be profitable to continue the conversation. No offense, but I feel like we’re always talking past each other and it just does’t accomplish anything.

We exist. Not even the courts will rule against that. IF science is really interested in the reality to our existence the design inference cannot be denied just because it doen’t fit some arbitrary “rule” of science. This is especially true when that “rule” is what is being questioned.

Then we compare what the IDists have to how the other guys determined the observed design is illusory. It will then become obvious that “We determined the design is illusory because we cannot allow for a designer”, does not pass scientific muster and must be relegated to philosophy classes.

Having religious motives is NOT the same as wanting to get Biblical literalism into public schools. THAT is what YOU said.

If you can’t substantiate your claim I understand. As for “Of Pandas and People”- if your misinformation is anything like what you just posted to support your claim that the Dover SB wanted to get Biblical literalism into public schools- don’t bother. We already see how you substantiate your claims- by moving the goalposts to some irrelevant position.

Bottom line is Judge Jones III refused to allow the publisher to defend itself during the trial.

The court decision is out on the Web in a couple of places, and it’s pretty clear that the Dover School Board did have religious motives. (See especially section F-1-e, “June 2004 Board Meetings”; F-1-L, “Arrangement for Donation of Sixty Copies of Pandas”; F-1-n, “Curriculum Change Resolution Passed”.

Some members had religious motivations. You cannot indict them all for the actions of a few. I guess not unless you’re an activist judge with an agenda. -ds

Here’s an especially upsetting bit from the middle of F-1-n:

“In fact, one unfortunate theme in this case is the striking ignorance concerning the concept of ID amongst Board members. Conspicuously, Board members who voted for the curriculum change testified at trial that they had utterly no grasp of ID. To illustrate, consider that Geesey testified she did not understand the substance of the curriculum change, yet she voted for it.”

Loyalty is a virtue, but you have to be careful that people don’t take advantage of you.

(You’ve also been given misinformation about the reason the “Of Pandas and People” guys didn’t testify at the trial…I don’t want to flood the board with a lot of off-topic material, but let me know if you’d like a quick summary.)

I have based the PEH almost entirely on the model provided by ontogeny in which there is no question that ALL the necessary information for a complete unique individual is contained in a single cell, the fertilized egg. I have assumed that the same has held true during evolution. There are many other parallels that can be drawn.

1. Ontogeny proceeds by a progressive loss of potentiality and so has evolution.

2. Both have led from the more simple to the more complex.

3. Extinction is the evolutionary equivalent of the death of the individual.

4. Both have been irreversible.

5. Both are autoregulated and do not depend on the environment except as a condition for expression.

Why the IDists, who apparently want nothing to do with me, insisted on presenting Intelligent Design as a subject for debate is beyond me. We all know what happens when something is proposed for debate. Debate teams spring up all over the place and, like most debates, nothing is resolved.

I offered Dembski, Behe, Johnson and Wells all to present their version of the MECHANISM for evolution and they did not present one. Frankly I don’t think they have one to present. I suspect a Fundamentalust Creationist agenda underlies their reluctance. The Darwinians on the other hand are apparently ashamed to recite the same old tired litany knowing full well that no one will buy it any longer. Neither faction has anything to offer.

I have not arrived at the PEH easily and I have done everything in my power to find weaknesses in it. It took me twenty one years before I was willing to present it as a formal hypothesis because it was implicit in my 1984 paper “Semi-meiosis as an evolutionary mechanism.” The only reason I finally formalized it was that all my intervening papers had also been ignored.

As I have indicated before, my contributions like those of all my sources, some of the best minds of two centuries, have been ignored by both factions in this debate. We have not been allowed to exist because we do not subscribe to either ideology. I predict, on the basis of my experience, that the PEH will also not be referenced in the refereed literature. If it should be it would open up a can of worms that neither faction is prepared to deal with. I offered them every opportunity on my blog and all I got were two terse emails, one from Behe and one from Wells, each claiming they were too busy writing. Imagine if you can that none of the luminaries, Dawkins included, could take the time to prepare a 500 word synopsis of their evolutionary convictions and present it for public scrutiny. I think that requires no further analysis or explanation.

To paraphrase Shakespeare with but a single substitution:

“Conscience doth make cowards of them all.”