Judge Jones: American Hero

This ruling is such a total smackdown and comprehensive rebuke of the entire fiasco. While I encourage people to read the entire 139-page decision, start by reading the end for some of the highlights, such as the judge's dismissal of ID as science, and his pre-emptive response to the inevitable accusations of judicial activism, which is sheer brilliance.

I suspect the ruling is as long as it is because he needed a complete laying out of the facts in order to be as strident as he was in his ruling.

Dopes of Dover, lie in your bed. And now if there is justice, the victims, the children who had to suffer ostracism from their class to escape the violation of their rights, who suffered loss of their education and long term earnings potential, and permanent emotional trauma, will make you pay for your harmfull and reckless disregard. May todays court costs be a hint of what you will pay.

Some of the only good things to come out of this trial are Mike Argento's columns on the subject. He was one of the few sane local voices I could count on. I cannot wait until tomorrow to read his take on the outcome. Thanks, Mike!

I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: If there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, you just rejected Him from your city.

And don't wonder why He hasn't helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I'm not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted Pasta out of your city. And if that's the case, don't ask for His noodly forgivness because he might not be there.

Ramen.

So when do the board members get charged with perjury?

Dead on by Judge Jones. Couldn't have put it better. The idiots on the ex-school board deserve this scathing scolding. Now, let's get on with giving the kids of Dover an education in realistic science. And, oh yeah, they're free to take a course in religion if they care to ... it's America, ya know.

God Bless Judge John "The Truth" Jones... as noted above, he anticipated in his ruling the knee jerk spasm of a whining pro-intelligent design Discovery Institute in a statement that called Jones "an activist federal judge" who is trying "to stop the spread of a scientific idea and even to prevent criticism of Darwinian evolution through government-imposed censorship rather than open debate..."

Jones' pre-emptive strike from the bench, quote:

"Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board..."

"The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents and teachers... deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources."

The defendants were exposed as either utterly stupid and rigorously ill-informed or corrupt and unabashed liars - take your pick. The values of Christian belief that supposedly drove their conduct neglected common sense or decency, and ultimately created the hopelessly untenable position that demeaned themselvelves and the God they purportedly believe in.

Mike, these clowns shouldn't have been in charge of a cross walk and yet they were elected to run a school board? The board and- by proxy, the community- let the kids down and they owe the teachers a huge apology.

Happy Winter Solstice/
May [the God of your choice] Bless You

As usual, we Americans, "Judge Jones", show how unintelligent we are with the outcome of his ruling in the intelligent design case. When is America going to wake up and quit letting the minority get their way. The majority of Americans beleive in God and everything he stands for, so why not teach this. Merry Christmas to all, God bless you! Thanks

The content of the above post - although not far removed from the usual conservative talking points - contains a dangerous argument: if the majority believe something, then it should be taught in schools. Even (and perhaps especially) those of us who are religious should understand that in fact the opposite is true. The truth should be sought and taught, in religion and science alike.

In this situation, in fact, the minority did "get in the way," although not exactly as the previous poster intended. As evidenced by the results of the last Dover school board election, it was a minority of school board officials - who came through the trial much the worse for the wear, in reputation and perhaps eventually in legal penalty - who dragged the taxpayers of Dover through a long, costly, and ill-advised court battle in order to put an unverifiable, religious, unscientific hypothesis into the very classrooms where the opposite should be taught.

Judge Jones's decision is just a start. Arguably, the good people of the Dover Area School District did indeed deserve "to be dragged into this legal maelstrom..." by electing Bonsell, Buckingham, and the other troglodytes in the first place. The so-called Christian Right is involved in a nationwide campaign to, by guile, deception, and outright lies, force its narrow, exclusive, and bigoted theo-politics into every facet of American society and Dover sucked right into it.

This is all very well, but when will Judge Jones reveal the sentence on the panda?

Bob

This is a big double win - a win for science -
we don't have to spend in Astronomy teaching that
no, the conjunction of Mars and Jupiter don't
really determine your future, we don't have to spend time in Math teaching that no, 13 and 666 aren't really "bad" numbers - we can just stick to facts. And a win for religion - because it is a win for FREEDOM of religion - and against the narrow-minded blathering of a few fanatics.

Donnie Baker wrote:
>When is America going to wake up and quit letting
>the minority get their way. The majority of
>Americans beleive in God and everything he stands
>for, so why not teach this.

I seem to recall the majority of Dover residents voting out the offending school board - an ill-informed minority bent on imposing their will on the children of the town.

You can believe in God and still understand that Creationism is not something to be taught in a science class. In fact, it's okay to believe in God and believe in science. But don't try and mix the two...

"Beam me up Scotty, there's no intelligent life down here."
I'm glad the question has been settled and we can now be sure that intelligence comes from non intelligence. But I'm still waiting for proof that life comes from spontaneous generation. I do get confused though when I look at all the life forms and all the imagination defying processes that go on in all life forms. But I am now reassured that everything just happened by chance. What happened to all the missing links that should be in the fossil record? Where is all the scrap DNA that should be in every living cell from mistakes that would have happened by chance? Who knows, but we can now certainly rule out any intelligence behind it. I just wish I was as lucky as evolution, I could win billions in the lottery.

I have been reading with interest the newspaper coverage of the ID case and jsut spent the past two hours reading Judge Jones decision.
His work leaves little wiggle room for sucessful appeal even if voters in the Dover District hadn't "thrown the rascals out."
But that still leaves the taxpayers in the district responsible for paying the costs of the litigation. So far, I've not seen a news story that would identify a source of that money.
I would suggest a funding source readily available. The DHS library reportedly contains 60 copies of "Panda," far more than they will ever need. One would assume there is some kind of permanent marking showing them to be owned/possessed by the school library.
Why not declare 50 of those books surplus, have the librarian provide a statement of authentication that each book was once in the DHS library inventory and then put them up for auction on E-Bay?
That probably wouldn't pay the whole legal tab, but as real collector's items, it would make a sizeable dent.

I'm glad the question has been settled and we can now be sure that intelligence comes from non intelligence. But I'm still waiting for proof that life comes from spontaneous generation.

Science isn't about proof.

I do get confused though when I look at all the life forms and all the imagination defying processes that go on in all life forms.

Chemistry is imagination defying?

But I am now reassured that everything just happened by chance.

The usual creatobabbler retort. Mutations are random, natural selection is not. Judge Jones understood the benefits of cumulative selction. I suggest you actually read the decision; it will teach you far more biology than you already know.

What happened to all the missing links that should be in the fossil record?

They are there. Consult www.talkorigins.org

Where is all the scrap DNA that should be in every living cell from mistakes that would have happened by chance?

You willingness to parade your ignorance in public is on par with the ex-school board's willingless to lie under oath. Your's and mine genome is 80-90% repetetive sequences which do nothing.

Who knows, but we can now certainly rule out any intelligence behind it.

Indeed, consider the gall midge, whose young crawl back through their mother's vagina and devoru her from the inside.

Come to think of it, I don't doubt that the fundy Xtian God would think of something like that, screwed up as he/she/it is.

Some comments about Crusher's entry.
"Chemistry is imagination defying?"

If you don't think chemistry is imagination defying, you haven't studied it long enough. Any science at the cutting edge is imagination defying. If it weren't, progress would be trivial.

"The usual creatobabbler retort. Mutations are random, natural selection is not. Judge Jones understood the benefits of cumulative selction. I suggest you actually read the decision; it will teach you far more biology than you already know."

Unfortunately, the misconceptions have to do with the word "random" and not with the phrase "natural selection." Random does not mean that everything is equally likely. It means that the outcome or path cannot be predicted with certainty. If we drop a feather, it lands at some random location. Even though it is random, we can predict its landing spot with accuracy. Natural selection is stochastic (random), but it doesn't make it any less useful.

"'Where is all the scrap DNA that should be in every living cell from mistakes that would have happened by chance?'
You willingness to parade your ignorance in public is on par with the ex-school board's willingless to lie under oath. Your's and mine genome is 80-90% repetetive sequences which do nothing."

I'll pass on the ironically snippy comment.
The comment concerning repetitive sequences is factually incorrect, misleading, and doesn't address the question. A better answer to the original question is to point out the existence of pseudo-genes (non-expressed nonfunctional genes; I call them evolutionary detritus). Pseudo-genes ARE partial genes that are left over from evolutionary "mistakes."

As it turns out, the question is actually very good. "Paper trails" in evolutionary genetics are interesting, but don't follow the most obvious rules. Normally, we only see trails when the mutations become fixed in the population. This is the bread and butter for Genomic Systematics (Molecular Taxonomy). The field is still in its infancy, but I suspect some spectacular results in the next ten years. This "scrap DNA" will become increasingly important as we learn about molecular evolution.

We have some evolutionary predictions about the results of these studies. What are the Intelligent Design predictions? The inability of ID researchers to do this is why scientists have a problem calling ID a scientific theory. What ID does address is our connection with God, an area where science cannot speak.

My condolences to Dover Township. It is sad to see an issue like this divide a community.

Ted writes

"If you don't think chemistry is imagination defying, you haven't studied it long enough. Any science at the cutting edge is imagination defying. If it weren't, progress would be trivial."

Didn't say anything about trivial. I said it was chemistry. Thats correct. There's no resaon to believe it is magic or was created through magic.

""'Where is all the scrap DNA that should be in every living cell from mistakes that would have happened by chance?'
You willingness to parade your ignorance in public is on par with the ex-school board's willingless to lie under oath. Your's and mine genome is 80-90% repetetive sequences which do nothing."

I'll pass on the ironically snippy comment.
The comment concerning repetitive sequences is factually incorrect, misleading, and doesn't address the question."

I'm sorry Ted. You need a new textbook or two, The statement was quite accurate.

A better answer to the original question is to point out the existence of pseudo-genes (non-expressed nonfunctional genes;

They exist; that is true. But I never give my best ammo first. The OP asked where are all of the DNA mistakes?.. Certainly "parasitic" DNA that occupies most of our genome qualifies as an answer and devastating rebuttal.

With repect to pseudogenes

I call them evolutionary detritus). Pseudo-genes ARE partial genes that are left over from evolutionary "mistakes."

You might tell us what pseudo-genes are? Since you couldn't be bothered, I'll do it for you. pseduo-genes are "broken" copies of genes. For example there is a gene that all primates have, that plays a roll in the manufacture of Vitamin-C. Yet in Chimps, Humans, Gorillas etc., this gene is broken (in the same place) hence we all need to eat fruit to get Vitamin-C.

Yet some species of pro-simians have an intact copy of the gene, and can make their own vitamin-C. Psedo-genes at best represent a few percent of our genomes.

"As it turns out, the question is actually very good. "Paper trails" in evolutionary genetics are interesting, but don't follow the most obvious rules. Normally, we only see trails when the mutations become fixed in the population. This is the bread and butter for Genomic Systematics (Molecular Taxonomy). The field is still in its infancy, but I suspect some spectacular results in the next ten years. This "scrap DNA" will become increasingly important as we learn about molecular evolution."

Quite right. It should be pointed out, that copyright infringement and plaigerism cases actually use arguments similar to the above. A sure way of catching violators is when they unwittingly copy your "mistakes"

Ted goes off course with "
What ID does address is our connection with God, an area where science cannot speak."

How so? ID is simply a replacement for creationism. Its not science and it is terrible theology.

"My condolences to Dover Township. It is sad to see an issue like this divide a community"

You got that right. It is sad that in the 21st century we still have religious reactionaries in the US (hardly any where else in Christendom) that have reacted to the advances of modern science by making a false idol out of Genesis.

Whoops.. only 50% of our DNA is repetitive gibberish. Another chunk is unique, non-conding DNA.

You can see the breakdown here:
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/12/another_example.html#more

"The OP asked where are all of the DNA mistakes?.. Certainly "parasitic" DNA that occupies most of our genome qualifies as an answer and devastating rebuttal."

Actually, it doesn't. It is a different argument. The question was about the DNA mistakes left over from evolution. The majority of repetitive DNA seem to be related to transposable elements and makes up some 44% of our genome (and considerably less in other organisms). The connection between such "parasitic DNA" and the evolution of human features is tenuous, at best. It is completely unrelated to the question.

"With repect to pseudogenes
'I call them evolutionary detritus). Pseudo-genes ARE partial genes that are left over from evolutionary "mistakes."'
You might tell us what pseudo-genes are? Since you couldn't be bothered, I'll do it for you. pseduo-genes are "broken" copies of genes. For example there is a gene that all primates have, that plays a roll in the manufacture of Vitamin-C. Yet in Chimps, Humans, Gorillas etc., this gene is broken (in the same place) hence we all need to eat fruit to get Vitamin-C."

Your definition/example of pseudo-genes is wrong. You are better off avoiding advocacy sites/blogs for real information. For pseudo-genes, you might try Gerstein's Lab at Yale (http://www.pseudogene.org/). As I stated, pseudo-genes are partial genes that are left over from evolutionary mistakes. They are found in gene families, represent duplication (evolutionary experiments) or retrotransposition (similar to retroviral infection), and are similar in sequence to the other genes in the family. They are DNA remains from the same evolutionary process that created the gene family itself (such as gene duplication). The best examples are the hemoglobin pseudo-genes.

"But I never give my best ammo first."

Is this what the discussion always becomes? Taking potshots at each other, more to win the debate than to understand what is going on. In the end, the students are the losers in this process.

"The OP asked where are all of the DNA mistakes?.. Certainly "parasitic" DNA that occupies most of our genome qualifies as an answer and devastating rebuttal."

"Actually, it doesn't. It is a different argument. The question was about the DNA mistakes left over from evolution. The majority of repetitive DNA seem to be related to transposable elements and makes up some 44% of our genome (and considerably less in other organisms). The connection between such "parasitic DNA" and the evolution of human features is tenuous, at best. It is completely unrelated to the question."

Maybe you didn't get the memo, but parasitic DNA, DNA which has no function is damaging to any notion of a scientific theory of design. Second, where in the original post was there any mention or connection to humans? Try to stay focused on what the original claim was. Ted was talking about "scrap DNA". If you think parisitic DNA, or what Dawkins calls "Selfish DNA" isn't a mistake propagated by evolution, or "scrap DNA" then I can't help you. However, Dawkins and other geniticists tout these sequences as the flotsam and jetsam of the evolutionary process. If you wish to interject commentary which wasn't required then you're not helping.

"With repect to pseudogenes
'I call them evolutionary detritus). Pseudo-genes ARE partial genes that are left over from evolutionary "mistakes."'
You might tell us what pseudo-genes are? Since you couldn't be bothered, I'll do it for you. pseduo-genes are "broken" copies of genes. For example there is a gene that all primates have, that plays a roll in the manufacture of Vitamin-C. Yet in Chimps, Humans, Gorillas etc., this gene is broken (in the same place) hence we all need to eat fruit to get Vitamin-C."

"Your definition/example of pseudo-genes is wrong.

It is incomplete, not wrong. There's a difference.

"You are better off avoiding advocacy sites/blogs for real information."

Yeah, yeah.

For pseudo-genes, you might try Gerstein's Lab at Yale (http://www.pseudogene.org/). As I stated, pseudo-genes are partial genes that are left over from evolutionary mistakes. "

"partial gene" is a terrible term. Whether or not Gerstein uses it.

They are found in gene families, represent duplication (evolutionary experiments) or retrotransposition (similar to retroviral infection), and are similar in sequence to the other genes in the family. They are DNA remains from the same evolutionary process that created the gene family itself (such as gene duplication). The best examples are the hemoglobin pseudo-genes."

Again you're making distinctions where none are needed at this point. Psuedo-genes are copies or "broken" genes that aren't decoded.

If your persist in giving a college lecture, you'll lose your intended audience in 5 minutes.

"But I never give my best ammo first."

Is this what the discussion always becomes? Taking potshots at each other, more to win the debate than to understand what is going on. In the end, the students are the losers in this process.

No they are the winners. You start out with most basic easily grasped things; then you can call out the heavy artillery and more precise defintions. Remember we are trying to educate the scientifically illiterate. They're not dumb; they just lack foundation in basic science. Give them that first.