Home » Intelligent Design » Judge Jones and the double standard

Judge Jones and the double standard

In the Kitzmiller vs. Dover decision the honorable Judge Jones writes (or rather, to be more accurate, regurgitates from the complainants):

While supernatural explanations may be important and have merit, they are not part of science. This self-imposed convention of science, which limits inquiry to testable, natural explanations about the natural world, is referred to by philosophers as “methodological naturalism” and is sometimes known as the scientific method. Methodological naturalism is a “ground rule” of science today which requires scientists to seek explanations in the world around us based upon what we can observe, test, replicate, and verify.

If only this was true.

If this were the true ground rule of modern science then how is it that the chance & necessity narrative of prehistoric evolution is observed, tested, replicated, and verified?

What methodology is used to determine that random chance and not intentional design is behind of the origin and diversification of life?

What test was performed and replicated to demonstrate that bats, whales, and humans came about purely by chance from reptilian ancestors or that reptiles are an accidental consequence of single celled organisms changing at random over vast periods of time?

If the same standard applied to the design narrative is applied to the chance narrative both of them would be thrown out of court and out of science classrooms.

Meanwhile, what tests have actually been done shows that complex machines, even biological machinery, can be created by intelligent agents. No direct observation has confirmed that any other pathway exists for complex machinery to emerge other than through participation of an intelligent entity. The only demonstrable method for the emergence of complexity is thrown out by judicial fiat and an unsubstantiated, undemonstrated claim that extreme functional complexity can be built up by a stochastic process is legally enforced as the only acceptable story that can be presented in a public school. Incredible.

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

10 Responses to Judge Jones and the double standard

  1. Thanks Dave,
    I’m filing your article away so the next time a “chance worshiper” uses the methodological naturalism argument against me (which is fairly often) I will have some of Dave’s no nonsense wisdom to fire back with.

  2. 2

    Good post.

    What does it say about a theory when its proponents feel it necessary to resort to legal action to prevent students from even hearing that there exist alternative theories–which is all the Dover school board was doing.

  3. Disregarding popularizations, evolutionary theorists do not believe evolution occurred by “chance.” They believe that it occurred by sequential mutations according to (hypothesized as well as currently observed) mechanisms, the most well-known being the banal “survival.”

    However, scientific truths should not be determined by judges. They should also not be determined by the Bible.

    NS
    http://sciencedefeated.wordpress.com/

  4. notedscholar,

    I think you have a ways to go in the evolution debate. You seem to be very misinformed. The sequential mutations are the chance events. Most are of low probability thus the final chain has a probability so low that it defies the resources of an almost infinite number of universes to produce.

    Also no one here points to the bible as a font of truth for evolution.

  5. Methinks the “of so low probability” claim is a bit out of place, since the mytations quite clearly are not, especially if an evolution model can give rise to some as “irreducibly complex” as an eye in only a thousand or so years, rather than the a time that “defies the resources of an almost infinite number of universes to produce.”

  6. “methodological naturalism” isd sometimes known as the scientific method- since when?

    And BTW the DESIGN resides in the physical world and as such is very open to experimental scrutiny.

  7. Joseph:

    Don’t be overcritical: it says “sometimes”. There is at least Judge Jones who seems to think so, and maybe someone in his family. And, even if he isn’t a scientist, maybe he considers himself a “philosopher” :-)

  8. If this were the true ground rule of modern science then how is it that the chance & necessity narrative of prehistoric evolution is observed, tested, replicated, and verified?

    Dave,

    You’ve hit the nail on the head. Judge Jones is a complete halfwit who couldn’t reason his way out of a paper bag, as are most all of the Darwinian mechanism apologists. How can someone get a law degree without the ability to think through simple logic, such as you have presented?

    This is why I have given up trying to reason with these fools. They can’t think straight. They can’t reach obvious conclusions based on an ever-increasing, over-abundance of evidence, simple mathematical analysis, or anything else.

    I have more important things to do than trying to convince the unconvinceable of the transparently obvious.

  9. Excellent article. This really sets out the two possibilities in a way that is easy to understand.

    Life is either the result of the will of an intelligent agent, or is the result of lots of luck and lots of time. Using the “lots of luck and lots of time” explanation seems to me to be a scientific cop out, so to speak, both for the origin of life, and for the origin of our apparently finely tuned universe (as in the multiverse theory).

  10. —–Gil writes: “I have more important things to do than trying to convince the unconvinceable of the transparently obvious.”

    Gil, our targeted audience consists of that noble throng of onlookers who are not yet impervious to reason. We want them to observe reasonable people presenting logical arguments as they interactwith intractable half wits obfuscating at every turn. A UD love fest would prove nothing.

Leave a Reply