Re: Judge Jones did NOT side with Discovery Institute

Ted wrote: Janice, "Let me try one more time to clarify the point
here. No argument on one thing: TDI did not like Dover's policy,
among other reasons b/c they felt it would not pass constitutional
muster--and of course, it didn't. Please see the very first point in
my other post on this thread. There is no reason for you to respond
by cutting/pasting TDI's public statements about this part. We agree
about that, OK?

However, TDI's biggest concern, by far (and I have this straight from
the horse's mouth, remember they did have representatives in
Harrisburg for parts of the trial and I also spoke a few times with
people in Seattle over the past few months), has been that the judge
would rule broadly against ID itself, not just narrowly against the
specific Dover statement. And that is precisely what happened, which
is why TDI is engaging in ad hominem attacks on the judge. (In the
politics of science, remember, the politics drives the science.)
One more time: this particular issue was of much greater importance
to TDI than the local situation in Dover. And TDI lost on this issue.

If you respond to this post, Janice, please do so by indicating what
is wrong with my conclusion in the two sentences at the end of the
previous paragraph, and please supply reasons to support a different
conclusion. Please think for yourself on this one, do not respond
simply by cutting and pasting something from TDI website. We already
know what they are going to say: I don't wish to read another vacuous
claim about "activist" jurisprudence or another name calling
session. They lost, and they know it. Why don't you seem to know it? " ~ Ted

### I will respond to the points you made which I highlighted in green below:

"There is no reason for you to respond by cutting/pasting TDI's
public statements about this part."

### Sorry, but the various knee-jerk, non-sequitur responses to
what I posted necessitated it.

"TDI's biggest concern, by far ...has been that the judge would rule
broadly against ID itself, not just narrowly against the specific
Dover statement."

### True, but a non-secuitur.

"(In the politics of science, remember, the politics drives the science.)"

### Junk science is rampant - and of course that is the very point
I've been making - and getting arguments about - ever since I've been
on this list. As you know, I agree with many of Michael Crichton's
views on the subject. http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/index.html

"TDI's biggest concern, by far ...has been that the judge would rule
broadly against ID itself, not just narrowly against the specific
Dover statement. One more time: *this particular issue was of much
greater importance to TDI than the local situation in Dover. And
*TDI lost on this issue." If you respond to this post, Janice,
please do so by indicating what is wrong with my conclusion in the
*two sentences at the end of the previous paragraph, and please
supply reasons to support a different conclusion.

### There's nothing wrong with your conclusion once you changed the
subject of my post and based it on this issue: "TDI's biggest
concern, by far ...has been that the judge would rule broadly against
ID itself, not just narrowly against the specific Dover statement"

Let's rehearse the "narrow issue" that was the subject of
mrdawntreader's opinion which is what I posted:

The Dover Ruling is in - excerpt: "....Judge Jones sided with the
Discovery Institute and ruled against the Dover school board
policy. No promotion of biological design in public school science
classrooms. .." ~
mrdawntreader
http://www.mrdawntreader.com/the_dawn_treader/2005/12/so_they_went_an.html

That is a correct statement regarding that aspect of the
ruling. Since some on the list objected and denied that the judge
agreed with TDI regarding that issue, it necessitated me having to
actually post TDI's 2004 statement. Now it's your turn to explain
how the judge's conclusion is any different from the one stated here
by TDI on this issue:

"When we first read about the Dover policy, we publicly criticized it
because according to published reports the intent was to mandate the
teaching of intelligent design," explained West. "Although we think
discussion of intelligent design should not be prohibited, we don't
think intelligent design should be required in public schools." ~
Staff Discovery Institute
December 14, 2004 - Discovery Calls Dover Evolution Policy Misguided,
Calls For its
Withdrawal
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2341

"Please think for yourself on this one, do not respond simply by
cutting and pasting something from TDI website. .."

### Pssssssst! Maybe you haven't noticed yet, but I'm not
intimidated by, nor do I accept the premises of elites who feel they
have to resort to snarky, "You're just a mind-numbed-robot who can't
think for himself" type-statements, when they are frustrated. (And
no apology is necessary since I'm never offended by comments that say
more about the one making them than they say about me).

The fact that I do think for myself - and couldn't care less about
the "consensus" / "conventional wisdom" du jour - in this feminized
society, is what reeeeeeeeally seems to bother an inordinate number of people.

As far as TDI goes, I don't even visit their web site, and have never
to my knowledge ever posted anything written by them, until I clicked
on the link to their 2004 statement provided by
mrdawntreader (above). I wouldn't have bothered even then had some
here not changed the subject and necessitated it.

When it comes to the subject of intelligent design, my position is
more along the lines of what Huge Ross has to say about it here:
More Than Intelligent
Design
http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2002issue10/index.shtml?main#more_than_id

"They lost, and they know it. Why don't you seem to know it?"

### Like I said - apples and oranges. See it now?

~ Janice
Received on Thu Dec 29 13:38:16 2005