In the Discovery Institute’s ongoing war on logic and truth, they claim that:
Someone should ask Judge Jones why he is suddenly so reticent to talk about his ruling. During the past year, he has traversed the country to speak at public events and talk about his ruling at length, usually before friendly audiences.
In actual fact, Judge Jones made it a condition of his talk at KU and elsewhere that the talk not be about the details of the Dover case. His talk at KU was entitled “Judicial Independence and Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District,” and you can watch it here.
Judge Jones begins his talk (go to about minute 13:00 in the video above) by saying:
I’m aware that I was invited to speak to you today, and indeed flown out from far away Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, because I am and probably forever will be known as the judge who decided the Dover intelligent design case. But when this gracious invitation came to me some months ago, I gave the caveat that if I spoke it would not be to rehash the trial or my opinion on the issues presented to me for resolution.
Now there are good reasons for that. As a judge, you see with literally hundreds of cases in my docket, my duty, what I am charged to do, is resolve a case and then move on to the next one. …
Contrary to what some of you may believe, I come here not as some of your other speakers perhaps have and will as an advocate for anything as it relates to the evolution/intelligent design debate. That is not my function as a judge.
He went on to explain that he wants to use his temporary fame as an opportunity to discuss the role of the federal judge in society, in social issues and the importance of judicial independence. He rejected as “inappropriate” the idea of discussing his personal views on the issues that came before his court.
Tim Sandefur at the Panda’s Thumb points out that the DI’s complaints are without merit in any event. Jones issued findings of fact and findings of law which drew on proposed findings of fact and of law that were filed by both sides, but relied more heavily on the findings of – wait for it – the side that won the case.
I know, I know, it’s shocking. Judge Jones goes around the country speaking about how judges actually do what they do in order to prevent exactly this sort of ill-informed criticism, and the response is to heap even more criticism on him.
Click through to see what happens when Billy Dembski looks in a mirror.
Bill Dembski, whose cowardly exit from the legal defense of the school board signalled that the Discovery Institute didn’t care what happened in Jones’ courtroom (or knew the case was lost), refers to Judge Jones as a narcissistic putz. Dembski, who makes a career of touring the DI’s circuit of church socials and trumped up debates over ideas of his that were long ago rejected on factual and mathematical grounds, complains that “Judge Jones tours the American countryside seeking the adulation of our intellectual elite and extolling the genius of his Kitzmiller v. Dover decision.”
Is that projection or jealousy we’re reading?
While we’re on the subject of Dembski and narcissistic putzes, I encourage you to check out the increasingly less IDolatrous Dave Heddle’s discussion of how Billy banned him from a super secret ID email list (via Elsberry). The offense? Challenging the IDC orthodoxy (and stirring up trouble about the earth not being 6,000 years old):
the default view of ID for this list is the position hammered out over a fifteen year period starting with Phil Johnson and moving through to Behe, myself, Wells, Meyer, Nelson, Pearcey, Gonzalez, Richards, and O’Leary. Any of you who have a fundamental problem with that position need to consider carefully whether you should be on this list at all.
Others had been chastised as “unreflective” and asked by Billy:
Have you read Behe, Johnson, or my own work? — I’m not asking this question rhetorically. It’s precisely comments like this that have led a number of my senior colleagues to want to jump ship from [the super s3kr1t list] and start a new list. … Please don’t post anything so unreflective again.
Heddle had avoided reading Dembski’s arguments precisely so that he could plead ignorance to the errors in them and preserve his own belief in “cosmological ID,” but Billy’s narcissism forced him to confront that demon, and he came away badly unimpressed.
Jones isn’t the putz here, Billy D. is.