Science and Culture Today | Page 1440 | Discovering Design in Nature

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.

It’s getting difficult to parody Darwinists, because their real statements are already so over-the-top. Take P.Z. Myers, the militant Darwinist biologist at the University of Minnesota, Morris. A few days ago, Prof. Myers suggested that he regards the Biblical patriarch Abraham — revered by Jews, Christians, and Muslims — as worse than Hitler: I think that if I had a time machine, I wouldn’t do anything as trivial as using it to take out Hitler before he caused all that trouble. I’d go all the way and pick up Abraham. I wouldn’t kill him, oh no-since I’ve got a time machine, I’d just drop him off in the Permian while I was on my grand temporal tour. That’s right: According Read More ›

A recent column in USA Today by Cal Thomas and Robert Beckel argued for a debate on intelligent design. Patricia Princehouse, a philosopher at Case Western in Cleveland wrote in to say that she and other Darwinists of her acquaintance would welcome a debate and announced it as January 3 in Cleveland. “Put up or shut up,” was the genteel way she issued the invitation. January 3 was then only a month away, with the holidays coming meanwhile. Further, it was unfortunately clear that Dr. Princehouse planned to establish the debate format and other conditions herself. Bill Dembksi expressed a willingness to debate, but wanted to discuss terms. But the Princehouse terms kept changing through yesterday (11 days before the Read More ›

Over the next week or so, I plan to file several posts analyzing issues relating to Judge Jones’ decision in the Dover case. I start today by revisiting the question of whether Judge Jones is an “activist” judge. Some Darwinists are livid that I’ve applied this label to the Judge. Although I’ve explained my reasons for regarding Jones as an activist in detail to many reporters, my full views haven’t really been reported. So I thought I would explain them here.

I regard Judge Jones as an activist in this case not because I disagree with the outcome of his decision (although I do), but because I disagree with the injudicious and overreaching manner in which he framed his decision.

Intelligent Design critic Larry Arnhart has a thoughtful essay in Inside Higher Education encouraging students to learn about the controversy over Darwin by reading Darwin. Arnhart writes:

Why not introduce our students to this debate by having them read Darwin’s own writings in their biology classes? We could teach the controversy by teaching Darwin.

Arnhart seems to think that his idea won’t be acceptable to either proponents or critics of intelligent design. Yet his proposal is something a number of ID proponents have advocated for some time.