Traipsing into falsehood
I’m left to wonder if (1) Jonathan Witt can’t read; or (2) he is dishonest.
Reluctantly, I've concluded he’s simply dishonest.
Here is his twice repeated criticism of Judge Jones’s in the Kitzmiller decisosn:
For instance, Jones suggests that the design argument began with St. Thomas in the Middle Ages. This was part of the judge’s attempt to depict intelligent design as fundamentally Christian. The problem is that the design argument dates back much further, to the pagan philosophers Socrates and Plato. {emphasis added}
Is his accusation true?
NO, absolutely not.
Here is Judge Jones’ actual opinion on the origins of intelligent design. Compare it to Witt’s accusation that the judge claims it began with Aquinas.
We initially note that John Haught, a theologian who testified as an expert witness for Plaintiffs and who has written extensively on the subject of evolution and religion, succinctly explained to the Court that the argument for ID is not a new scientific argument, but is rather an old religious argument for the existence of God. He traced this argument back to at least Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century. [empahsis added]
Note the words “at least.” Why did the judge use those two words? Because the defense offered testimony that the ancient Greeks expressed similar ideas. The judge heard and considered all of the evidence. Even the judge recognized that Aquinas is not the starting point but only the most famous formulation of the argument from design. Nobody questions that fact.
So Witt is stating an outright falsehood when he says that Judge Jones held that ID began with Aquinas.
Intentional false hood or mere illiteracy? You be the judge.
Does it even matter?
Sometimes judges do get a minor fact wrong in their opinion. The judge might comment that the defendant blew the red light in a 1998 corvette. Actually it was a 1999 corvette. Who cares? The issue before the court is the color of the light not the year of the corvette.
Witt, though, wants to distract us from the issue before the court: The defense offered no evidence to support any scientific basis for Intelligent Design. No studies, no ongoing research, nothing. Its experts even admitted there was no research. Instead the defense offered a large amount of deception and falsehoods offered to avoid ID’s religious ancestry.
The Judge found that ID is scientifically vacuous (Jonathan—that means “empty.”) and that it was a sham offered to avoid the Supreme Court’s Edwards and McLean holdings.
