![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
acroyearWhat is really significant about the Kitzmiller decision:
It should be noted also, Judge Jones wrote this decision with the inevitable Kansas case in mind. he makes it very clear in his findings that "science can not be defined differently" (pg 70) from a definition based on "the scientific method" (pg 65) (i.e., methodological naturalism and the emphasis on physical evidence and causality).
He had every intention of having this work be referenceable in the same manner that he himself referenced the conclusions of McLean, which was also merely a district-level decision that technically did not set a precedent that he had to acknowledge.
Even when precedent for the conclusions isn't applicable, his findings of fact in this matter are likely to be referenced in both the Cobb County Appeal and the looming Kansas case that the DI *really* wants to win (in the long run, after a million appeals).
There won't be any appeals of this case, as its already cost Dover, PA taxpayers a million dollars, plus the school board that started it all were all thrown out in the last election.
Oh, and the footnotes in the document are just as telling, if not more so, than the text itself that the judge was less than impressed with the supposed credentials of the ID supporters, as in this example concerning the authors of On Pandas and People: Moreover, the Court has been presented with no evidence that either Defendants’ testifying experts or any other ID proponents, including Pandas’ authors, have such paleontology expertise as we have been presented with no evidence that they have published peer-reviewed literature or presented such information at scientific conferences on paleontology or the fossil record. (17:15-16 (Padian)).
[an excerpt from the decision...] is exactly what scientific critics of ID have been saying for years. In fact, as I read through the opinion, I am struck by the extent to which Judge Jones' opinion, based entirely on the evidence before him and the relevant caselaw, matches almost perfectly what people on my side of this have been saying for years.-- Prof Jason Rosenhouse, JMU. [emphasis mine]
This is highly significant. Evolutionists are constantly being accused of being unwilling to engage proponents of ID. We are besieged by juvenile taunts like, “If the evidence for evolution is as strong as you say, then why are you so afraid to let a dissenting voice be heard?” Such bleats were especially loud in the wake of the decision by scientists to boycott the Kansas evolution hearings a while back.
We now see what nonsense this really is. Evolutionists are perfectly happy to engage their opponents, as long as the venue is one in which facts and evidence will be the basis for the verdict. Public debates in front of lay audiences are primarily about good theater and flashy rhetoric.
It should be noted also, Judge Jones wrote this decision with the inevitable Kansas case in mind. he makes it very clear in his findings that "science can not be defined differently" (pg 70) from a definition based on "the scientific method" (pg 65) (i.e., methodological naturalism and the emphasis on physical evidence and causality).
He had every intention of having this work be referenceable in the same manner that he himself referenced the conclusions of McLean, which was also merely a district-level decision that technically did not set a precedent that he had to acknowledge.
Even when precedent for the conclusions isn't applicable, his findings of fact in this matter are likely to be referenced in both the Cobb County Appeal and the looming Kansas case that the DI *really* wants to win (in the long run, after a million appeals).
There won't be any appeals of this case, as its already cost Dover, PA taxpayers a million dollars, plus the school board that started it all were all thrown out in the last election.
Oh, and the footnotes in the document are just as telling, if not more so, than the text itself that the judge was less than impressed with the supposed credentials of the ID supporters, as in this example concerning the authors of On Pandas and People: Moreover, the Court has been presented with no evidence that either Defendants’ testifying experts or any other ID proponents, including Pandas’ authors, have such paleontology expertise as we have been presented with no evidence that they have published peer-reviewed literature or presented such information at scientific conferences on paleontology or the fossil record. (17:15-16 (Padian)).
