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. 

Ed Brayton beat me to it.

Comments

[Staauffenberg]

But Jones, is saying the argument goes back "at least" to Aquinas, tried to characterize the design argument as an exclusively relgious argument.

So was that a lie?

Why are disagreements or errors always "lies" with you people?

Answer, because you want to demonize and marginalize the dissenters from the mainstream.

And old trick, that goes back "at least" to the Nazis!

[Tim Makinson]

"Dr. Haught testified that Aquinas was explicit that this intelligent designer “everyone understands to be God.”" I think that qualifies it as a "religious argument".

[Ed Darrell]

Staauffenberg, it's Witt who's claiming the problem. What is it with YOU people?

[Joe McFaul]

"But Jones, is saying the argument goes back "at least" to Aquinas, tried to characterize the design argument as an exclusively relgious argument."

That is indeed Jones' point.

Can you point to a non-religious use of the argument from design?

Ever?

So why didn't Witt address *that* argument instead of misrepresenting Jones?

He chose not to address Jones' actual argument because he can't rebut it. Instead he misrepresented it--that's dishonest, don't you agree? Or are you seriously suggestignthat Witt only made an unintentional mistake?

But you feel free to go right ahead and list a non-religious argument from design.