Re: Judge Jones discusses his opinion in Kitzmiller v. Dover

From: Janice Matchett <janmatch@earthlink.net>
Date: Mon Feb 27 2006 - 20:57:16 EST

At 08:25 PM 2/27/2006, Ted Davis wrote:
>I entirely agree with Judge Jones' defense of the nature and scope of his
>ruling, and I said so in my article in "Religion in the News." He ruled
>*conservatively*, that is, according to existing precedents that are very
>clear and not recent; he followed the case precisely as it was presented in
>the courtroom, not based on what he brought to the case from the outside;
>and he ruled on the very points he was asked to rule on by both sides, as he
>stresses here. TDI makes noise about an "activist" judge, but they are
>crying in their beer. They could have shaped this case far more than they
>did, frankly, and they chose not to, all but pulling out 3 key
>witnesses--Dembski, Meyer, and John Angus Campbell. I can tell you from the
>horse's mouth, that the plaintiffs feared Campbell more than anyone else.
>They regard him as a master rhetorician who could teach any lawyer a thing
>or two, and they thought that his argument about free speech -- which is
>precisely the right argument to make in defense of the school board policy,
>mirroring the argument that the *defense* (ie, Darrow) made at Scopes in
>1925 -- was potentially very damaging to their case. That argument was not
>made, at least not that I can recall from the testimony actually given.
>Rather, both sides stuck with the "ID is science/is not science" piece,
>rather than going into highly important arguments about education in a
>democracy, religion, free speech, and neutrality that might potentially have
>influenced the judge's opinion.
>
>For nearly a decade, I've cautioned my friends in the IDM about their loose
>association with YECs; I've told them that the arguments they should be
>making are about religous neutrality (as vs aggressive secularism) and the
>first amendment, not about the truth or lack thereof of evolution; and that
>they need to be a lot more generous and more accommodating to the "mushy
>accommodationists" like me who do not believe (as Hodge did and Johnson
>does) that "evolution" equates to "Darwinism," that is, to Darwin's own
>metaphysics which denies divine providence. They have not taken any of my
>advice. The trial verdict relates esp to points one and two. I have the
>right in this case to say, quite loudly, "I told you so."
>
>Ted

### I agree.

~ Janice

>
Received on Mon Feb 27 20:57:49 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Feb 27 2006 - 20:57:50 EST