[A Flash video attempting to criticize Judge Jones (the judge who rules against intelligent design in Dover) by the sharp wit of, uh, grunts and high-pitched voices]
23 comments
Zadic > Of course, but this idea of him being a puppet is not credible in regard of what he says, for he completely justifies his decision. Can't they see that ?
The author even admits that it is a juvenille attempt at satire, and still thinks it's appropriate because the site caters to adolescents.
MK: "The author even admits that it is a juvenille attempt at satire, and still thinks it's appropriate because the site caters to adolescents.MK: Considering how many adults are using the very same delusions to lambast Judge Jones for his ruling, and how many adolescents and young adults I see flocking to the stupidest forms of entertainment ever devised by humanity, I'm afraid it's all too possible that this propaganda would be gleefully enjoyed and widely believed by the idiots it will draw.
~David D.G.
anevilmeme: "A Bush appointed judge ruled against ID. So now the fundies must smear the judge. Pisses me off."anevilmeme: That's nothing. Lately, the Discovery Institute has tried to claim that Judge Jones' ruling was practically nothing more than plagiarism of the ACLU's "proposed findings" brief. The moronic thing is that judges' use of proposed findings by one side or the other (or, occasionally, by both) in their rulings is completely routine and has been for a century or more! The fact also remains that Judge Jones used a lot more than just the proposed findings; he interjected a lot of connective reasoning as well as personal observations and conclusions as well. The ruling is considered by other law professionals to be a first-rate piece of judicial work, and the use of proposed findings doesn't alter that recognition in the slightest.
Even more stupidly, even after this has been pointed out in nearly every news story that even bothered to mention the DI's assinine accusation, the DI has continued to call this routine judicial practice "plagiarism" and has held by its position -- directly in the face of publicized facts to the contrary! I think that, at this point, the DI just wants to try to poison the popular image of Jones and smear the "pro-evolution side" as much as it can, spouting whatever nonsense will convey such an evil meme (sorry about that). I hope the organization gets sued for libel, refuses to settle, and LOSES, publicly and big time.
~David D.G.
I especially like the part where Judge Jones issues an injunction to prevent science teachers from denigrating evolution. So, are the fundies in favor of "teaching both sides," or just ID? Because they seem to find it hilarious that Judge Jones doesn't want science teachers disparaging evolution.
What's sad about this site. Is that if there was overwhelming evidence for ID, and considering that evolution came after the idea of creationism, then evolution wouldn't have been acepted by biologists. And if they HAVE now found overwhelming evidence, why have they not brought it forth to the scientific community and have them change their theory?
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
