My Photo
Blog powered by Typepad

Evolution Weblogs Of Note

Daubert Expert Resources

Evolution Web Resources

  • Afarensis
    reality based humanoid's blog
  • Origin of Species Online
    For God's sake, read the dang thing before you proclaim any thoughts on evolution!! Now it's online at your fingertips. Go. Read. Then, pontificate if you must.
  • Talk Origins
    The master site containing the most comprehensive of evolution and anti-evolution sites and information on the web. A model example of how to really teach the controversy.

Junk Science Sites

Religous Critiques of Intelligent Design

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

« Apologies to Brittany and Louie | Main | Casey Luskin comes out of the closet »


Nick (Matzke)

Nice review, about what Traipsing deserves.

Minor typos:

Iraqui --> Iraqi
weree --> were

Nick (Matzke)

And I just noticed the title is "Traispsing" instead of "Traipsing".

Joe McFaul

Thanks, Nick, corrections made.


You are of course aware that "evidence" is only "evidence" if the court allows it.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that a judges own beliefs do not affect how he sees this "evidence"?

Judge Jones is an educated man, who had certainly heard about these issues before.

Quit yanking our chain.

Joe McFaul

"You are of course aware that "evidence" is only "evidence" if the court allows it.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that a judges own beliefs do not affect how he sees this "evidence"?

Judge Jones is an educated man, who had certainly heard about these issues before.

Quit yanking our chain."

Yet another loser's whine. All losers in all cases make the same pitifiul mewling sounds. "The judge didn't understand me. He had it out for me..he didn't like my lawyer's tie."

That's all it is, whining. I've heard all of the post verdict whines--made some myself.

IF...IF the DI thought the judge had made erroneous ruling, then their book would have looked a little different, woudln't it?

They would have argued that the judge made the following incorrect evidenciary rulings:

a. ....
b. ....
c. ....

But they did not.

But you can help out. The transcripts are online. Feel free to identify any prejudicial evidentiary rulings. I'll be happy to discuss them here.

You do not adddress the DI claim that the peer reviewed evidence was excluded. It was excluded on a very routine hearsay/no cross examination basis.

You disagree?

Ron Zeno

The IDiots have a strange problem with "evidence". They love to assert they have some that proves their case, but when placed in a position where they have to produce it they cannot. Instead they complain about being put in such predicaments. Again and again, their own words and actions betray them as conmen and liars.

Ed Darrell

Since the Texas book hearings in 2003, I have challenged ID advocates to produce a photograph of any ID lab, anywhere on Earth.

Here is the best of their efforts to photograph ID being done as science: [black square, cricket chirping]

steve s

Great post, Joe. Keep up the good work.

Casey Luskin

I discovered this review of Traipsing Into Evolution (TIE) today, and there are a number of false accusations and statements made in Mr. McFaul's review of TIE. I’d like to focus here on one claim, if I can restrain myself. He claims that "the book only offers Discovery Institute press releases as 'evidence' in support of its arguments." Let's see if that claim is true.

Since some footnotes cite to more than one source, the total count below may add up to more than the 188 footnotes in the body of the book. Please note--this was a quick count so actual numbers may be off by a couple:

Rough Footnote Tallies in the Body of TIE:

- Legal Cases: 50

- Pro-ID-Scientific reference (i.e. The Design Inference, Meyer article, Darwin's Black Box, etc.): 31

- Non-ID Scientific References (i.e. books by scientists, articles in Nature, etc.): 28

- Media Articles about ID: 17

- Transcripts / Testimony: 15

- Amicus Briefs (for or against ID, or other): 15

- Other (random cites, like the few to Richard Sternberg's website): 11

- Non-ID Philosophers: 9

- Anti-ID websites: 8

- Discovery Institute Press Releases / Other Discovery Institute Public Statements: 7

- Various Legal Scholars: 4

- Statutes: 1

- Generic pro-ID books that are not primarily science-focused: 1

Hmmmm…it looks like "Discovery Institute press releases" are pretty far down the list, and most certainly not the "only" citations offered "in support of [our] arguments". In fact, a good number of those "press release" citations were simply to document the temporal chronology that Discovery had issued public statements opposing Dover’s policy before they passed it, and immediately after they passed it, a point which sadly was lost upon Judge Jones.

As for "evidence" on peer-review, Judge Jones had testimony about Meyer's paper from both Barbara Forrest and Scott Minnich. As for Mr. McFaul's claim that some pro-ID expert witnesses did not testify supporting ID-science because “[n]obody was willing to take the perjury rap in court,” all I can say is "wow." This incredibly false and mean-spirited conspiracy theory--the vacuous decorum of which exposes the mindset of many Darwinists--has already been dealt with easily here.

Finally, given that the prominent anti-ID legal scholar Jay Wexler agrees with our arguments that Judge Jones overextended the judicial arm by deciding issues about whether ID is science, it seems like there's a lot more substance and accuracy in our book than Mr. McFaul lets on. Think for yourself: I encourage readers to read TIE in order to judge Mr. McFaul’s analysis for themselves.

Thank you all for reading my post and best wishes. (Sorry, I couldn't restrain myself to talk about a few issues aside from the footnotes claim.) My apologies, but I probably do not have time to respond to any further comments on this blog.



Cheap  Jordans

The man who has made up his mind to win will never say "impossible".

The comments to this entry are closed.