Science and Culture Today | Page 1431 | Discovering Design in Nature

Professor Joseph Knippenberg of Oglethorpe Univerity has followed up his fine analysis of the Selman case with an equally insightful analysis of the Dover decision. According to Knippenberg, Judge Jones’s conclusions about the law depend upon a rather unsophisticated understanding of philosophy and theology. If ever there were need for a case study to demonstrate how the practice of law ought to rest on a foundation of liberal learning, Judge Jones’s opinion here would provide it.

Lawyer Phyllis Schlafly, head of Eagle Forum, has written an article Read More ›

Prof. Joseph Knippenberg of Oglethorpe University has written a wonderfully insightful essay on the Cobb County evolution textbook disclaimer case for the American Enterprise Online. At the end of the essay, Knippenberg concludes: One begins to wonder whether liberal toleration is a sham, offered only to the most docile, and whether liberalism isn’t itself the very sort of orthodoxy it claims to eschew. You can read the essay here.

Note: This is the fourth part of a multi-part series. You can read the first three installments here and here and here.

Some in the newsmedia have been attempting to portray Judge Jones as a conservative Republican who is devoutly religious. Frankly, I don’t care whether Judge Jones is either conservative or religious. My concern is whether he is fair and accurate as a judge. But I do object to the media’s attempt to reinvent Judge Jones in order to insulate his decision from criticism. The media are cultivating the impression that Judge Jones must have been fair and impartial (his sloppy and biased opinion notwithstanding) because he is a deeply-religious conservative who should have been initially sympathetic to the school board and intelligent design.

In reality, there is very little evidence to suggest that Jones is particularly conservative.

Note: This is the third part of a multi-part series. You can read the first two installments here and here.

In his decision in the Dover intelligent design case, Judge Jones places great weight on the early intelligent design textbook Of Pandas and People published by the Foundation for Thought and Ethics (FTE). According to Judge Jones, early drafts of this textbook supposedly show that intelligent design is merely repackaged creationism. However, Judge Jones seriously misrepresents the facts about Of Pandas and People, and he also misapplies the relevant legal standards.

Before addressing the merits of Judge Jones’ assertions regarding Pandas, something needs to be said about the legal and ethical propriety of Judge Jones placing so much weight on this early textbook in his judicial opinion. Frankly, it is astounding that Judge Jones treats Pandas as central to his decision given that he refused to grant the book’s publisher, the Foundation for Thought and Ethics, permission to intervene in the case in order to defend itself.

Note: This is the second part of a multi-part series. You can read the first installment here.

It’s becoming glaringly apparent that Judge Jones was incredibly sloppy with the purported findings of “facts” in his lengthy 139-page judicial opinion. Time and again, Judge Jones makes assertions in his opinion that are unambiguously factually wrong—even though the correct information was a part of the official record before him. It is beginning to look like he didn’t even bother to read or consider the information and arguments submitted by the side he disagreed with.

Here are some of the more egregious examples.

1. Judge Jones wrongly claims there are NO peer-reviewed scientific articles favoring ID.

By CSC Fellows

In his Dover vs. Kitzmiller opinion, Judge John Jones incorrectly asserted that intelligent design is not empirically testable. Below are fifteen testable intelligent design claims–most of them also predictions even in a narrow sense of the term. These are followed by further discussion, explanation, and links.

One of the things that has struck me this past week is just how bitter and angry many defenders of Darwin’s theory have become. This should have been a joyous week for Darwinists. After all, a federal judge in Pennsylvania issued a ruling claiming that teaching intelligent design in science classes is unconstitutional. You would have thought this result would have put Darwinists in a festive mood. But instead, many of them seem (if possible) even more sour and surly than before. Consider some of the following extracts from various pieces of hate mail I’ve received from evolutionists this past week.