SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: JohnM who wrote (7769)12/21/2005 12:22:13 PM
From: neolib  Respond to of 542048
 
One of them disavowed that in the piece but that's, frankly, the only thing it can mean.

The Discover Institute has had an odd relationship with this trial. They promoted the wedge strategy, but during this trial got cold feet. At first they were going to have a bunch of their experts testify for the defense, then yanked them, supposedly over arguments about legal representation. I'm glad the judge did as complete a job as he did in his ruling, including highlighting the wedge strategy. He has managed to nail almost every important point. Any new case that goes to trial now has quite a hill to surmount, even though this ruling is binding only in Dover PA. It is a little bit like patent disclosures. The standard lawyer approach seems to be to hype your own invention, while finding fault with all prior art. When I write patents, I try to be as exhaustive as possible with explaining prior art, as this amounts to disclosure which narrows the field for other patents. The judge here did a good job of disclosure. Its all in the public record now, and hard to ignore.

It was incredibly poor foresight for ID to start its dance just as cheap and fast genetic sequencing developed. That an plenty of cheap compute power to model the statistical relationships. If it had started in the 1950's or so, it could have had a 50 year run before being debunked, but now is not a good time.