PvM posted Entry 1862 on December 30, 2005 02:40 AM.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/1857

There is an interesting Article on the winning attorneys of the Kitzmiller case, Eric Rothschild and Stephen Harvey.

Rothschild said what he was proudest of throughout this whole trial was his cross-examination of defense expert Michael Behe, a professor at Lehigh University and proponent of intelligent design.

Rothschild said he knew what he was talking about when he moved to the witness stand, and he owes that to the National Center for Science Education, which thoroughly explained intelligent design to the plaintiffs team.

As to the issue of Intelligent Design not being science, the attorneys raise this interesting argument

Rothschild and Harvey were quick to jump to the judge’s defense.

“Both sides really asked this judge to decide whether intelligent design was science or religion,” Rothschild said.

“He did not reach out,” Harvey said. “The parties put that in front of him.”

I argued that the Discovery Institute by arguing that the Judge should not rule on the status of Intelligent Design as a science while also arguing that because Intelligent Design is scientific, its primary purpose is not religious, almost begged the judge to rule on this issue.

The actions of the Discovery Institute in this trial may have been instrumental in the final ruling.

And the victorious lawyers seem to be ready for a next round

Rothschild and Harvey said they feel connected to this controversy and will not stop their involvement with it now that the case is over.

“It’s not the last you’ve heard from me and Steve on this,” Rothschild said.

Commenters are responsible for the content of comments. The opinions expressed in articles, linked materials, and comments are not necessarily those of PandasThumb.org. See our full disclaimer.

Comment #65864

Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on December 30, 2005 2:49 AM (e)

test

[PvM: This completes the test of PT’s emergency broadcasting system]

Comment #65872

Posted by Ritchie Annand on December 30, 2005 3:18 AM (e)

Rothschild’s cross-examination of Behe was the first bit of trial transcription I read, and it’s what got me incredibly hooked on this case in the first place. Way to go, Rothschild :)

Comment #65877

Posted by Sir_Toejam on December 30, 2005 3:33 AM (e)

… and a shout out to Nick, so he won’t be forgotten in all this.

Nick did a fantastic job helping prep the ACLU team, Rothschild included.

Comment #65902

Posted by Wayne Francis on December 30, 2005 7:23 AM (e)

Rothschild wrote:

It’s not the last you’ve heard from me and Steve on this,

This is good news. I really respect what they have done. They have obviously learned a lot gearing up for the trial. If there is another trial anywhere it would be well served to have them on the team. Thanks again Nick for all your work and to all the others that contributed. From your early pod casts of the trial I understand how busy you all must have been.

Comment #65909

Posted by JONBOY on December 30, 2005 7:39 AM (e)

The N.C.S.E did a great job,and I am very proud to be a member.Not to change the subject but, the St Pete Times have a article “Science Goal Short on Evolution” Gov Jeb Bush stated that the Florida science standards need beefing up ,BUT evolution should not be a part of it.
What else should we expect, being dumb must run in the family.

Comment #65910

Posted by Konrad Crist on December 30, 2005 7:45 AM (e)

As Rush’s rabble would say, “Dittos on the kudos!” Having attended some of the trial in person, it was a real pleasure to watch two lawyers and their teams pursue this case with knowledge, excellence and unfailing vigor. Kudos also to Nick who, along with the rest of NCSE, must have done a phenomenal job of preparing the legal wizards. It is unfortunate that so many Americans fail to appreciate the value of a good education including a good science education. After attending the trial, I have a much higher and better appreciation of lawyers, too. Very professional!

Comment #65911

Posted by Corkscrew on December 30, 2005 7:48 AM (e)

JONBOY wrote:

What else should we expect, being dumb must run in the family.

I’m not even from the US, and even I can see that this is a silly attitude to hold. The Bush family are extremely successful politicians. Ergo, they are not idiots. Therefore, the redneck impression that they do so well is, at least in part, an act. What should worry you isn’t that Bush acts like an idiot, but that he evidently thinks the idiots in the audience are more worth cultivating than the smart folks. And the fact that the last couple of elections proved him correct.

Comment #65916

Posted by JONBOY on December 30, 2005 8:11 AM (e)

Corkscrew,I agree some what with your comments,but dont mistake success with being devious.The Bush family surround themselves with smart people,who do their thinking for them.

Comment #65926

Posted by David Harmon on December 30, 2005 8:35 AM (e)

Corkscrew: I’m with Jonboy on this. The Bush dynasty already had the money and the political connections. Bush Sr. won an apparently-honest election. His administration was distinctly hostile to my own (liberal) political values, but he was at least serving as a real President. His sons represent a drastic decay of the family line, not just in intelligence, but in moral character.

Shrub made his earlier career running a sucession of companies into the ground, apparently for the tax purposes of his family friends. He then did the same for the state of Texas. *Then* he had two elections handed to him by manipulation. His policies and actions aren’t just hostile to liberalism, they’re hostile to American principles and welfare as a whole, and his behavior and actions indicate that he’s not even aware of that, and probably wouldn’t care if he was. I’d guess that his “legacy” will probably leave the Bush name in the brushpile. Too bad for Bush Sr., but hey… “shit happens”.

Comment #65930

Posted by djlactin on December 30, 2005 8:45 AM (e)

but that he evidently thinks the idiots in the audience are more worth cultivating than the smart folks

if you want to win an election, you have to appeal to the larger caucus…

Comment #65945

Posted by Konrad Crist on December 30, 2005 10:22 AM (e)

djlactin wrote,

“if you want to win an election, you have to appeal to the larger caucus…”

Did you mean “caucus” or “circus”? (send in the clowns!)

Comment #65956

Posted by Bayesian Bouffant, FCD on December 30, 2005 10:46 AM (e)

I apologize for sidetracking the thread, which is apparently about Bush family politics, but I want to say that I thought it was brilliant to ask Behe about astrology. That really brought home the watering down he was attempting with the definition of “science” and “theory”.

Comment #65959

Posted by m. child on December 30, 2005 10:50 AM (e)

yes, let’s leave the politics and Bush-bashing out of this and get back to the fun. Kitzmiller is a boost to science and education that transcends party lines. I still get gleeful each time I read it.

in fact, I think I deserve kudos, too, for being a card-carrying member of NCSE for over 10 years. so… you’re welcome, America!

and obviously greater kudos to the pro bono lawyers at Pepper Hamilton and NCSE themselves. by my count, NCSE contributed not only the formidable Matzke, but three of its board members as expert witnesses: Padian, Forrest, and Alters. hope I did not miss anyone.

I assume the Pepper firm will use the national attention to build their reputation among paying clients. but as someone who believes in the need for continued vigilence, I have to wonder whether NCSE will take advantage of this decision the way they should. otherwise, it risks generating the perverse result of just stimulating donations by disgruntled creationists, and at a time when we’ve got Kansas and Ohio on the horizon, and maybe the Selman appeal heading to the Supremes…. (anyone know how NCSE’s annual budget compares with the Discovery Institute or other creationist orgs?)

and, America (if you’re still listening), you’re welcome again for all those years, through good times and bad, when I kept donating to NCSE. and my name isn’t even Steve.

Comment #65962

Posted by Mr Christopher on December 30, 2005 11:11 AM (e)

When I was reading the trial transcripts I was always wondering how the heck a few lawyers were so scientifically astute. Now I know. Very impressive.

I wonder who was teaching/coaching the TMLC about science and evolution? The DI? Behe? No one? Richard Thompson seemed to lack any real scientific grasp. I guess he was relying on his faith to win the case?

Well all is not lost for the TMLC. I get their email alerts and not a week goes by where they do not win a lawsuit for someone who wants to display a nativity scene in their yard or whatnot. Looks like they have found their niche.

Comment #65964

Posted by yellow fatty bean on December 30, 2005 11:15 AM (e)

..also the Cobb County case in still pending right?

Comment #65968

Posted by JONBOY on December 30, 2005 11:28 AM (e)

I should be the one to apologize for side tracking the thread, I suspect my motives were to show that we must not be to complacent.
The results in Dover were outstanding,but to quote Sir Winston Churchill
This is not the end,this is not the beginning of the end, but it is the end of the beginning.

Comment #65969

Posted by bloomer on December 30, 2005 11:29 AM (e)

Off Topic:

Not only has Dembski’s uncommon descent been mothballed, it appears that DI’s blog EvolutionNews has had it’s url expired.

weird.

Comment #65971

Posted by ivy privy on December 30, 2005 11:30 AM (e)

I think I recruited another Steve for Project Steve
I see the Steve-o-meter will be topping 700 soon.

Comment #66024

Posted by Miah on December 30, 2005 1:27 PM (e)

I’ve seen multiple times about these transcripts for the trial, could somebody provide me with a URL to that. I’d love to have been there, but I really didn’t know anything about it untill it was almost all over.

Thanks!

Comment #66027

Posted by Julie on December 30, 2005 1:28 PM (e)

Bayesian Bouffant wrote:

I apologize for sidetracking the thread, which is apparently about Bush family politics, but I want to say that I thought it was brilliant to ask Behe about astrology. That really brought home the watering down he was attempting with the definition of “science” and “theory”.

Agreed. This one may have also given some potential ID supporters pause, since astrology and other such “occult” practices are anathema to fundamentalist Christians.

The Jeb Bush thing surprises me, BTW. As a political progressive, I’ve never been a fan of either Bush Major or Bush Minor, but I wouldn’t have picked Jeb to act like a deliberate know-nothing on this issue. Then again, I don’t live in Florida.

Comment #66034

Posted by Corkscrew on December 30, 2005 1:37 PM (e)

m. child wrote:

in fact, I think I deserve kudos, too, for being a card-carrying member of NCSE for over 10 years. so… you’re welcome, America!

Please find enclosed a collection of backdated kudos :P

Comment #66036

Posted by Steviepinhead on December 30, 2005 1:40 PM (e)

I’m pretty sure we have links to the transcripts already posted on the Kitzmiller Update thread.

Or just try the NCSE website, or the ACLU, or…

It was inevitable that one ot the two lead attorneys for the reality-based community would be a “Steve,” of course!

Comment #66071

Posted by Alexey Merz on December 30, 2005 2:43 PM (e)

I apologize for sidetracking the thread, which is apparently about Bush family politics, but I want to say that I thought it was brilliant to ask Behe about astrology. That really brought home the watering down he was attempting with the definition of “science” and “theory”.

That was magnificent. As was Behe’s response when confronted with scores of papers and several books on the evolution of the immune system. And making it clear that school board members were serial liars acting as witting dupes of the very TMLC attorneys who were representing them in the case. Barbara Forrest’s testimony was also good fun. Well done, the lot of you.

Comment #66080

Posted by Pete Dunkelberg on December 30, 2005 2:56 PM (e)

Miah wrote:

I’ve seen multiple times about these transcripts for the trial, could somebody provide me with a URL to that. I’d love to have been there, but I really didn’t know anything about it untill it was almost all over.

Try the NCSE, the PA ACLU and the very handy html transcripts from Talk Origins.

Comment #66081

Posted by MBains on December 30, 2005 3:01 PM (e)

I am totally pulling for Rothschild and Harvey to represent in Ohio when the time comes.

This is a beautiful state with some wonderful IDiots in it. They just need to realize that Separation of Church and State really is for their protectin and defense as well as it is for everyone else (like me!)

Happy (and Slurpy!) New Year!

Comment #66083

Posted by UnMark on December 30, 2005 3:04 PM (e)

I, too, started tracking this issue in detail on Oct 19, after reading a CNN.com article that a Defense witness admitted ID required the same definition of science as Astrology. I read the trial transcript for the day’s cross-examination when I got home from work. I still love how Behe was pidgeon-holed into the ID/Astrology->science comparison!

Trial transcripts are here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover.html

(Doesn’t anyone use google anymore?)

Best regards.

Comment #66085

Posted by bill on December 30, 2005 3:19 PM (e)

Well all is not lost for the TMLC. I get their email alerts and not a week goes by where they do not win a lawsuit for someone who wants to display a nativity scene in their yard or whatnot. Looks like they have found their niche.

I’d say they’ve found their creche.

Comment #66128

Posted by creature on December 30, 2005 5:32 PM (e)

I loved the New Yorker cartoon with Rothschild grilling Behe, complete with spinning bacterial flagellum in the background. (!!) Anyone know whether NCSE or the ACLU will be selling autographed copies as a fundraiser? And if not, can I get a percentage of the take for coming up with the idea?

I’d be willing to start the bidding at $250, but it has to be poster-framing size. And I would promise to display it prominently but safely in our department hallway.

Comment #66129

Posted by Bayesian Bouffant, FCD on December 30, 2005 5:32 PM (e)

Jeb Bush seems to be doing flipflops on evolution - unless one paper misquoted him.

Bush added that evolution should “absolutely” be part of science teachings, but he said there are gaps in the theory and he personally would want science teachers to allow discussions about creationism.

This seems to be almost exactly opposite what is being reported in The Miami Herald

The Watchdog Report asked a follow-up question: Does the governor believe in Darwin’s theory of evolution?

Bush said: “Yeah, but I don’t think it should actually be part of the curriculum, to be honest with you. And people have different points of view and they can be discussed at school, but it does not need to be in the curriculum.”

Comment #66132

Posted by Sir_Toejam on December 30, 2005 5:45 PM (e)

wow.

so… simple schizophrenia, or multiple personality disorder?

or too much alcohol? oxycontin?

Comment #66134

Posted by m. child on December 30, 2005 5:55 PM (e)

$350 for an autographed copy of the New Yorker drawing!

Comment #66137

Posted by Raymond on December 30, 2005 6:16 PM (e)

$400, seriously.

Is it available?

Comment #66141

Posted by Julie on December 30, 2005 6:25 PM (e)

I think it’s obvious that a lot of people simply have never been exposed to evolution and don’t understand how fundamental an organizing principle it is to modern biology. To a biologist, it’s completely clear that evolutionary theory has important implications for cell biology, biochemistry/molecular biology, genetics, ecology, environmental science, agriculture, medicine, physiology, zoology, botany, microbiology, and any other subspecialty one can think of. To someone whose biology education began and ended with a 10th-grade course that (s)he didn’t like, it’s easy to say, in essence, “What’s the problem? Why should a high school biology student have to bother with evolution?”

I’m not politically naive, and can recognize what I’m convinced is Gov. Bush’s obvious pandering to the religious right as well. It is, however, very easy to slide evolution out of the curriculum by minimizing its importance, especially when your political audience has never been taught much about it either. Even people who are not opposed to teaching the subject might just read the governor’s statement in the papers and assume that it wasn’t an important enough topic to raise a fuss over.

And, in the meantime, the kids get dumbed-down science lessons, and miss out on a wonderful, fascinating part of the big picture – one that would help all the little pictures make more sense and be more interesting.

Comment #66142

Posted by m. child on December 30, 2005 6:26 PM (e)

$500

Comment #66415

Posted by Michael Rathbun, FCD on December 31, 2005 10:59 AM (e)

I’m surprised that nobody seems to have chortled over a recent Doonesbury.

Comment #66693

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 1, 2006 11:40 AM (e)

Kudos to the NCSE
PvM posted Entry 1862 on December 30, 2005 02:40 AM.
(opening comment in this thread)

I argued that the Discovery Institute by arguing that the Judge should not rule on the status of Intelligent Design as a science while also arguing that because Intelligent Design is scientific, its primary purpose is not religious, almost begged the judge to rule on this issue.

I disagree that the position of the Discovery Institute “almost begged” the judge to rule on this issue. The DI’s primary position was that the judge should not rule on ID’s status as science, but in case he did rule on this issue, the DI of course wanted him to rule that ID is scientific and also that therefore its primary purpose is not religious. The DI was just trying to cover the bases. Anyway, I think that there was a general consensus that the judge could not rule on whether ID is primarily religious without first ruling on whether ID is science, so asking him to not rule on ID’s status as science also in effect asked him to not rule on ID’s status as religion.

The actions of the Discovery Institute in this trial may have been instrumental in the final ruling.

What was most instrumental in the final ruling was the fact that it could not be appealed. This fact emboldened the judge to show a lack of restraint in writing the opinion. The lawsuit should have been dismissed as moot because the cause of action had ceased to exist. I used to qualify such statements with “I think” or “in my opinion,” but then ‘Rev. Dr.’ Lenny Flank would often comment, “no one cares what you think. (shrug).” So now I make such statements here as fact.

The plaintiffs’ legal representatives are giving themselves too much credit. The defense was a pushover because of the defendants’ blunders and lies and the defense witnesses’ blunders (notably Behe’s).

As for Behe, I think that maybe what forced him to say that ID is like astrology was that he probably tried to present ID as a complete explanation for the origin of species rather than as just a criticism of evolution theory (this time it is OK for me to say “I think,” Lenny, because I don’t know). I don’t know — I have not read a transcript of his testimony.

Where would opponents of ID be without the constitutional separation of church and state? In Britain, for example, there is religion in the public schools, so ruling that ID is religious would provide no basis for banning it from public-school science classes there. One big reason why opponents of ID keep insisting that ID is religious is so they can use the church-state separation principle to attack it.

Comment #66704

Posted by k.e. on January 1, 2006 12:21 PM (e)

Larry [A Revisionist who denigrates The Holocaust]**

Shows how the DI crowd will do ANYTHING to devalue the Judges ruling including denigrating without even reading the testimony
“I have not read a transcript of his testimony.” Larry says

Now why would that be Larry?
Could it be similar to the techniques favored by Fundamentalists and Despots around the world ? Create a strategy that includes in its design a systematic demonizing of your opponents while at the same time claiming to be the real victim provoking an irrational zeal in its followers.

**http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/12/desparate_pathe.html#comment-66607

Comment #66711

Posted by jim on January 1, 2006 12:41 PM (e)

Larry Fafarman wrote:

What was most instrumental in the final ruling was the fact that it could not be appealed….

(emphasis mine)

Larry,

You keep saying this but it isn’t true. The DASD has every right to appeal the decision if it wants to. However, they choose to not appeal it.

Do you understand the difference between “could not” and “choose not to” appeal?

You’ve stated that “defendents can’t appeal”. This is also a blatant lie. Anyone with a Jr. High education in Law knows that it is the winner (the plaintiffs in Kitsmiller) can’t appeal. Only the loser (the DASD in Kitzmiller) has the right to appeal.

You also state that Judge Jones was emboldened to “over reach” his authority because he thought that the case wouldn’t be appealed. This is yet another blatant lie. Judge Jones’ made his ruling so comprehensive so that any appeal would be less likely to win. “Over reaching” would both increase the chances that an appeal was made AND increase the chances that the appeal would win.

So, go read a Jr. High law text book (something on the history of American law), so that you can learn the very basics of our legal system before you start making legal pronouncements against a US Federal Judge. You commit the common Fundamentalist mistake of thinking that just because you know nothing about a subject that no one else knows anything about it either, and therefore, your opinion is as good (or better!) than anyone elses.

Comment #66713

Posted by PvM on January 1, 2006 12:52 PM (e)

Larry wrote:

I disagree that the position of the Discovery Institute “almost begged” the judge to rule on this issue. The DI’s primary position was that the judge should not rule on ID’s status as science, but in case he did rule on this issue, the DI of course wanted him to rule that ID is scientific and also that therefore its primary purpose is not religious.

Indeed, and since secular purpose is the first prong of the Lemon test and since the Lemon test was accepted by defendants and plaintiffs as the relevant test, the DI basically raised the argument that the first lemon prong passed since ID is science. What is a judge but to do than to address this claim.

Larry wrote:

The DI was just trying to cover the bases. Anyway, I think that there was a general consensus that the judge could not rule on whether ID is primarily religious without first ruling on whether ID is science, so asking him to not rule on ID’s status as science also in effect asked him to not rule on ID’s status as religion.

The two are indeed intricately intertwined. But as long as the primary purpose of ID could be argued to be mostly secular, the ID policy would not fail the first prong of the Lemon test.

Larry wrote:

What was most instrumental in the final ruling was the fact that it could not be appealed. This fact emboldened the judge to show a lack of restraint in writing the opinion.

A totally unsupported claim and erroneous as well. The final ruling could in fact be appealed, but the likelihood is small.

Larry wrote:

The lawsuit should have been dismissed as moot because the cause of action had ceased to exist. I used to qualify such statements with “I think” or “in my opinion,” but then ‘Rev. Dr.’ Lenny Flank would often comment, “no one cares what you think. (shrug).” So now I make such statements here as fact.

Neither the action had ceased to exist not the possibility of continued action by another board. The issue was hardly moot. Your statements therefor fail on the simple observation that they are not factual.

Larry wrote:

The plaintiffs’ legal representatives are giving themselves too much credit. The defense was a pushover because of the defendants’ blunders and lies and the defense witnesses’ blunders (notably Behe’s).

The plaintiffs lawyers were incredibly well prepared to address the vacuous claims of Intelligent Design. Forrest, one of the expert witnesses, provided them with the link between pre and post-Edwards version of Pandas showing how intelligent design and creationism were easily interchangable.
If you had read the actual testimony and the cross-examinations by plaintiffs’ lawyers you would have realized how they nailed almost every expert witness and witness…
And don’t forget how the DI removed most of the witnesses from testifying. Dembski, Meyer, Campbell…Now one may question if this was beneficial or detrimental for the defense. Certainly the defendants’ lawyers seemed to think it undermined their case, but I see it as fortunate for the DI that it did not have to see more of their fellows suffer through cross.
And don’t forget that it was Dembski’s unfortunate expert report which exposed the latest draft of Pandas to discovery.

Larry wrote:

As for Behe, I think that maybe what forced him to say that ID is like astrology was that he probably tried to present ID as a complete explanation for the origin of species rather than as just a criticism of evolution theory (this time it is OK for me to say “I think,” Lenny, because I don’t know). I don’t know —- I have not read a transcript of his testimony.

Reading the actual texts, transcripts, rulings, memoranda can be quite beneficial in understanding the proceedings. Otherwise it becomes quite easy to spin strawmen. It was the excellent cross examination which led Behe down this path.

Larry wrote:

Where would opponents of ID be without the constitutional separation of church and state? In Britain, for example, there is religion in the public schools, so ruling that ID is religious would provide no basis for banning it from public-school science classes there. One big reason why opponents of ID keep insisting that ID is religious is so they can use the church-state separation principle to attack it.

Or that it is not science. Which is why the attempt to teach ID in the Netherlands received such a skeptic response. People realized it was ‘pseudo-science’.
In addition, just because schools are more integrated in Europe when it comes to religion, this hardly means that anything goes in the science curriculum.

Comment #66714

Posted by bill on January 1, 2006 12:53 PM (e)

Also, Larry, check out Behe’s transcript here on days 10-12.

Comment #66764

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 1, 2006 5:25 PM (e)

Comment #66711
Posted by jim on January 1, 2006 12:41 PM

Larry Fafarman wrote:

What was most instrumental in the final ruling was the fact that it could not be appealed…. (emphasis mine)

Larry,

You keep saying this but it isn’t true. The DASD has every right to appeal the decision if it wants to. However, they choose to not appeal it.

When I said that the decision could not be appealed, I meant that the individual defendants could not appeal it because they are no longer on the school board. If the individual defendants try to appeal, the new board would just pull the rug out from under them by formally repealing the ID rule (rather than just hiding behind the judge’s decision to ban it), thus rendering the appeal moot. Everyone knew that the new school board was not going to appeal, because the new members campaigned on a promise to repeal the ID rule.

So the bottom line is that everyone knew that the decision was not going to be appealed. And the judge took advantage of that fact by showing no restraint in the opinion.

So, go read a Jr. High law text book (something on the history of American law), so that you can learn the very basics of our legal system before you start making legal pronouncements against a US Federal Judge.

Ignorance of the law is curable – your utter lack of common sense is not.

Comment #66769

Posted by Engineer-Poet, FCD, ΔΠΓ on January 1, 2006 5:44 PM (e)

That nitwit Larry wrote:

I meant that the individual defendants could not appeal it because they are no longer on the school board.

There were no individual defendants; the plaintiffs sued the school board (which is why the case is called “Kitzmiller vs. Dover”).

You know, your nonsense would be really good material for an introductory course in critical thinking.  The errors are so elementary and so obvious, they’re like shooting fish in a barrel.

Comment #66773

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 1, 2006 6:10 PM (e)

Larry:

Arn.

Go.

Comment #66775

Posted by jim on January 1, 2006 6:21 PM (e)

*snicker*

Comment #66776

Posted by PvM on January 1, 2006 6:23 PM (e)

So the bottom line is that everyone knew that the decision was not going to be appealed. And the judge took advantage of that fact by showing no restraint in the opinion.

Can Larry provide some examples of this ‘no restraint’ or even any evidence to support his claim that the Judge took advantage?

Comment #66778

Posted by PvM on January 1, 2006 6:29 PM (e)

Larry wrote:

If the individual defendants try to appeal, the new board would just pull the rug out from under them by formally repealing the ID rule (rather than just hiding behind the judge’s decision to ban it), thus rendering the appeal moot.

Does Larry realize that Heather Geesey who voted for the ID policy is still on the board?

But does Larry understand the legal situation here correctly?

Comment #66781

Posted by steve s on January 1, 2006 6:37 PM (e)

What does FCD mean? And can you elaborate on Delta Pi Gamma? I might be interested in joining.

Comment #66783

Posted by roger Tang on January 1, 2006 6:50 PM (e)

But does Larry understand the legal situation here correctly?

Sure he does. He’s taken two cases to the Supreme Court. And he has plenty of support in e-mail.

Comment #66787

Posted by Andrew McClure on January 1, 2006 7:18 PM (e)

A note to Mr. Harmon, with apologies to Mr. Bouffant: Speaking as someone who was a resident of Texas during George W. Bush’s tenure as governor, he actually was not a bad governor. It is too bad Ann Richards, who is an amazing person, was voted out, but Bush did not do an objectionable job in her place. One might say it is the only job he has ever had that he didn’t really screw up. Of course, it is worth noting that the governor of Texas is a relatively weak official– one could easily argue that the lieutenant governor is stronger than the governor in Texas!– so it was not as if he had much opportunity to do damage. The Texas Rangers, alas, did not come out so well, as Sammy Sosa was traded away for a pittance under Bush’s watch there.

I disagree that the position of the Discovery Institute “almost begged” the judge to rule on this issue. The DI’s primary position was that the judge should not rule on ID’s status as science, but in case he did rule on this issue, the DI of course wanted him to rule that ID is scientific and also that therefore its primary purpose is not religious. The DI was just trying to cover the bases.

The entire idea is that once the Discovery Institute had broached the subject of those bases, the judge was obligated to respond. The Discovery Institute may not have wanted the judge to respond to their arguments on whether ID is science, but they did in fact present their arguments, arguments which the judge may have then considered it necessary to respond to by virtue of the public prominence the DI’s brief placed on them. I have no way of knowing whether the Discovery Institute’s brief influenced the judge’s choice of which issues to rule on, but nevertheless the reasons why you claim the DI’s brief did not push the judge to rule on ID-as-science, as far as I can tell, are the exact reasons people are voicing suspicions in the first place that the DI’s brief “almost begged” the judge to rule on ID-as-science.

Comment #66794

Posted by Engineer-Poet, FCD, ΔΠΓ on January 1, 2006 8:13 PM (e)

ΔΠΓ is the Darwinist Pressure Group fraternity.  I believe its motto is “Scientia et Fermentum”.
FCD is Friend of Charles Darwin.

Comment #66804

Posted by steve s on January 1, 2006 8:56 PM (e)

What does the pressure group do, exactly?

Comment #66805

Posted by Arden Chatfield on January 1, 2006 8:58 PM (e)

What does the pressure group do, exactly?

I’m sorry, but if we told you that… we’d have to kill you. ;·)

Comment #66807

Posted by steve s on January 1, 2006 9:05 PM (e)

Now that’s pressure.

Comment #66812

Posted by bill Farrell on January 1, 2006 9:18 PM (e)

As de facto, unelected, proclaimed President of Delta Pi Gamma, I can tell you that we withhold funding from major universities that don’t toe the line.

For example, just this summer we withheld funds for Bill’s Athletic Stadium from Ohio State University. This multi-million dollar endowed project was cancelled outright as a direct result of OSU’s lack of backbone, although one could argue that they displayed a great invertebrateness.

Pending the Jones Decision we were prepared to withhold funds for the entire state of Pennsylvania. However, now we are reconsidering and may propose the building of Bill’s Library of Environmental Science in Dover, Pa., pending permission, funding, etc.

Currently, we are working on securing a fraternity company car, red BMW M5, pending permission, funding, etc.

Comment #66823

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 1, 2006 11:09 PM (e)

Comment #66713 posted by PvM on January 1, 2006 12:52 PM

Larry wrote:
***** The DI’s primary position was that the judge should not rule on ID’s status as science, but in case he did rule on this issue, the DI of course wanted him to rule that ID is scientific and also that therefore its primary purpose is not religious.*****

Indeed, and since secular purpose is the first prong of the Lemon test and since the Lemon test was accepted by defendants and plaintiffs as the relevant test, the DI basically raised the argument that the first lemon prong passed since ID is science. What is a judge but to do than to address this claim.

I think that there is a lot of ambiguity in the Lemon test. The first prong of the test is often simply called the “purpose” prong, and the second prong is often called the “effects” prong. But what kind of “purpose” is the subject of the first prong? Is it the intended purpose (i.e., concerning the motives of the public officials) or the apparent purpose (i.e., what the purpose appears to be without regard to the motives of the public officials)? Or is it both kinds of purposes? I think that a lot of people assume that it is just the intended purpose – i.e., concerning the motives. The apparent purpose is actually getting into the “effects” prong (one of the effects would be whether or not something appears to promote religion). So maybe the two prongs should be called the “motives” prong and the “effects” prong. Because some school board members were obviously motivated by religion, some people thought that the judge might base the decision just on this “motives” prong and ignore the “effects” prong. It is not necessary to use every prong of a test if the case can be decided with fewer. Unnecessarily using every prong would be like continuing the World Series after one team wins four games (I know that Chief Justice “Ump” Roberts just loves baseball analogies — LOL).

The Lemon test has a lot of faults (including ambiguity) and some courts have stopped using it.

Larry wrote:
****I think that there was a general consensus that the judge could not rule on whether ID is primarily religious without first ruling on whether ID is science.*****

The two are indeed intricately intertwined.

Not necessarily. Just because something is not scientific does not necessarily mean that it is religious – and vice-versa.

Larry wrote:
******What was most instrumental in the final ruling was the fact that it could not be appealed. This fact emboldened the judge to show a lack of restraint in writing the opinion.*****

A totally unsupported claim and erroneous as well. The final ruling could in fact be appealed, but the likelihood is small.

The chances of appeal were virtually nil. The current board members campaigned on a promise to repeal the ID rule.

Larry wrote:
*****The lawsuit should have been dismissed as moot because the cause of action had ceased to exist.*****

Neither the action had ceased to exist not the possibility of continued action by another board. The issue was hardly moot.

The new board members had campaigned on a promise to repeal the ID rule. The court cannot speculate about what a future Dover board might do. By your line of reasoning, there would be grounds to sue every school board in America because of what the boards might do in the future.

A good example of mootness due to cessation of cause of action is the Marco DeFunis reverse-discrimination case. The Supreme Court dismissed the case as moot because DeFunis was about to graduate from law school as a result of being admitted because of a ruling by a lower court. Instead of ruling on the case in order to possibly prevent the law school from discriminating against someone else, the Supreme Court just threw the case out.

Larry wrote:
****The plaintiffs’ legal representatives are giving themselves too much credit. The defense was a pushover because of the defendants’ blunders and lies and the defense witnesses’ blunders (notably Behe’s).*****

The plaintiffs lawyers were incredibly well prepared to address the vacuous claims of Intelligent Design. Forrest, one of the expert witnesses, provided them with the link between pre and post-Edwards version of Pandas showing how intelligent design and creationism were easily interchangable.

Pandas is not the sole authority on ID – there are many references on ID.

Larry wrote:
****As for Behe, I think that maybe what forced him to say that ID is like astrology was that he probably tried to present ID as a complete explanation for the origin of species rather than as just a criticism of evolution theory.****

Reading the actual texts, transcripts, rulings, memoranda can be quite beneficial in understanding the proceedings. Otherwise it becomes quite easy to spin strawmen. It was the excellent cross examination which led Behe down this path.

I don’t know the facts – I was just speculating as to why it was possible to lead Behe down that path (nobody could lead me down that path).

Larry wrote:
***** In Britain, for example, there is religion in the public schools, so ruling that ID is religious would provide no basis for banning it from public-school science classes there.******.

— just because schools are more integrated in Europe when it comes to religion, this hardly means that anything goes in the science curriculum.

I heard a rumor that public schools in Austria are going to introduce ID concepts. And Austrian Cardinal Schonborn (also spelled Schoenborn), the chief editor of the Catholic catechism, is apparently pro-ID (contrary to claims that the Catholic church has embraced evolution theory).

Comment #66826

Posted by jim on January 1, 2006 11:37 PM (e)

*snicker*

Larry,

Re: the intended vs. “apparent” purpose prong of the Lemon test.

If you had READ the ruling, you’d know both were already addressed.

Re: your straw man saying all school boards can be sued because of what they might do.

We agree that the court is not allowed to speculate on what might happen! But your straw man is exactly the opposite of reality! The school board had already done something unconstitutional. The court was not allowed to speculate on what the board might do in the future (such as repeal its decision to include Panda’s).

Re: why Panda’s was addressed in court.

Panda’s was addressed in court BECAUSE IT WAS THE TEXT USED BY THE SCHOOL BOARD. Incidentally, both the TMLC and DI recommended that book to the board. The court would have been over-reaching its authority if it had investigated other books SINCE THEY WERE NOT USED BY THE SCHOOL BOARD.

Re: you’re much more clever and knowledgeable than Behe.

Then why the hell didn’t you help your team out at Dover? You could have testified as an expert witness or as a lawyer to supplement the meager 4 that the TMLC provided.

Also I suspect if you had been an expert witness, you would have eventually been backed into the same corner that Behe, Bonsell, and Buckingham were backed into. Bonsell & Buckingham committed perjury to get out and incidentally killed the defense. Behe didn’t commit perjury and his honesty ended up killing the defense too.

Hmmm, I wonder why it didn’t make a difference whether the defenses witnesses told lies or the truth?! Could it have been the position they were defending was unconstitutional?

Perhaps it’s more important for you to learn the facts than you suspected. Go read the trial transcripts and then the ruling. Make sure to read the WHOLE ruling not just your side’s witnesses.

Did you know there’s a Cardinal (I think in Denver), that also supports ID?

Did you know that this doesn’t matter because the Pope (and the position of the church as a whole) is against it?

Comment #66827

Posted by PvM on January 1, 2006 11:42 PM (e)

Larry wrote:

I think that there is a lot of ambiguity in the Lemon test. The first prong of the test is often simply called the “purpose” prong, and the second prong is often called the “effects” prong. But what kind of “purpose” is the subject of the first prong? Is it the intended purpose (i.e., concerning the motives of the public officials) or the apparent purpose (i.e., what the purpose appears to be without regard to the motives of the public officials)? Or is it both kinds of purposes?

In order to answer these questions one has to understand the case law on Lemon. Typically purpose looks to see if the primary purpose is secular. This means that even though there may be religious purposes, the overall or primary purpose needs to be secular. Hence the attempt to ‘teach the controversy’. But as the SC has stated, the stated purpose needs to be sincere and not a sham.

Larry wrote:

The Lemon test has a lot of faults (including ambiguity) and some courts have stopped using it.

But the SC has not ruled that Lemon is inappropriate. Yes, in some cases Lemon, especially legislative purpose is a troublesome topic. However by finding that ID is not science, the purpose issue has been significantly simplified.

Larry wrote:

Pandas is not the sole authority on ID — there are many references on ID.

Hence the reliance on other ID references to show in addition to the very clear case in Pandas, that ID is nothing more than a religiously motivated argument.

Larry wrote:

I heard a rumor that public schools in Austria are going to introduce ID concepts. And Austrian Cardinal Schonborn (also spelled Schoenborn), the chief editor of the Catholic catechism, is apparently pro-ID (contrary to claims that the Catholic church has embraced evolution theory).

Schonborn has been backtracking quite a bit. In addition, Vatican officials have also addressed ID and stated that it is not scientific. Larry also seems to confuse ID with is the fact that the catholic church of course accepts an intelligent design, with ID, which is the vacuous argument that such a designer can be reliably identified by scientific methods.

So many rumors Larry. What about the facts?

Comment #66830

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 2, 2006 12:22 AM (e)

Facts? we no need no stinkin’ FACTS!

really, Larry.

ARN

Go.

You’d be much happier.

try it.

Comment #66832

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 2, 2006 12:45 AM (e)

Comment #66769
Posted by Engineer-Poet, FCD, ΔΠΓ on January 1, 2006 05:44 PM

That nitwit Larry wrote:
****I meant that the individual defendants could not appeal it because they are no longer on the school board.*****

There were no individual defendants; the plaintiffs sued the school board (which is why the case is called “Kitzmiller vs. Dover”).

You know, your nonsense would be really good material for an introductory course in critical thinking. The errors are so elementary and so obvious, they’re like shooting fish in a barrel

Tell me, you mentally-challenged person — exactly how does your statement contradict my original point, which was that the judge knew that it was virtually certain that the decision would not be appealed?

Comment #66833

Posted by bill on January 2, 2006 12:50 AM (e)

Larry, old bean, I gave you the link to the transcripts of the trial. Have you read them?

Yes or no would be a polite reply.

Best regards,
bill

Comment #66834

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 2, 2006 1:02 AM (e)

Larrrrrryyy….

*whisper*

ARN Larry, the voice in your head says: “go to ARN and feed your ego”

shhhhh…

Comment #66835

Posted by k.e. on January 2, 2006 1:05 AM (e)

bwhhahahahahhahahaha
Larry FarOutofMind

Your last post is an absolute killer
EP shot off one foot
and you shot the other off with your reply

What do you make of this next sentence

“This statement is false”

??? _true_ or _false_ Larry ?

Comment #66836

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 2, 2006 1:18 AM (e)

Comment #66826
Posted by jim on January 1, 2006 11:37 PM

*snicker*

“Snicker” yourself. You quote me out of context and completely ignore important points that I made, like my citation of the Marco DeFunis reverse-discrimination case as an example of where a case was declared moot because of a cessation of the original cause of action, even though the cause of action was regularly being repeated by the original defendant in the case. And you hypocrites blame John West for quoting Judge Jones’ confirmation-interview statements out of context.

Comment #66837

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 2, 2006 1:21 AM (e)

Your not listening to the voice in your head, Larry. The one that’s telling you to go to ARN.

Comment #66838

Posted by jim on January 2, 2006 1:26 AM (e)

Larry,

I’ll make a deal with you. You read the Kitzmiller ruling and I’ll read the Marco DeFunis ruling.

Is this OK with you?

I’m guessing that you won’t bite.

Comment #66839

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 2, 2006 1:28 AM (e)

I hear they have FREE BEER over at ARN, Larry. Why don’t you go check it out for us?

Comment #66840

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 2, 2006 1:35 AM (e)

Comment #66827 posted by PvM on January 1, 2006 11:42 PM

Larry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
I think that there is a lot of ambiguity in the Lemon test. The first prong of the test is often simply called the “purpose” prong, and the second prong is often called the “effects” prong. But what kind of “purpose” is the subject of the first prong? Is it the intended purpose (i.e., concerning the motives of the public officials) or the apparent purpose (i.e., what the purpose appears to be without regard to the motives of the public officials)? Or is it both kinds of purposes?
>>>>>>>>>>>

In order to answer these questions one has to understand the case law on Lemon. Typically purpose looks to see if the primary purpose is secular. This means that even though there may be religious purposes, the overall or primary purpose needs to be secular. Hence the attempt to ‘teach the controversy’. But as the SC has stated, the stated purpose needs to be sincere and not a sham.

Before the Dover decision was released, the finest legal minds in the country could not predict whether the judge was just going to rule narrowly on the basis of the religious motivations of the school board members, or whether he was also going to rule on the issues of ID as science and ID as religion. How do you explain that if the rules for the Lemon test are so clear?

Comment #66841

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 2, 2006 1:41 AM (e)

You’re missin out on all that FREE BEER Larry! Hurry!

Comment #66842

Posted by k.e. on January 2, 2006 1:44 AM (e)

Larry this is how I see your understanding of words rather than the context (historically and their relation to natural reality) and the practical meaning in which they are meant to convey reality; that is to say a common understanding between people who hold differing world views.

Americas most popular Joke as reported in the science journal Nature (so it is scientifically proven to be funny!):


Two Hunters are out in the woods when one of them collapses.

He doesn’t seem to be breathing and his eyes are glazed over.

The other guy whips out his phone and calls the emergency services. He gasps, “My friend is dead! What can I do?”

The operator says: “Calm down. I can help. First, let’s make sure he’s dead.” There is a silence, then a shot is heard. Back on the phone, the guy says: “Ok, now what?”

Comment #66843

Posted by Andrew McClure on January 2, 2006 1:47 AM (e)

How do you explain that

The explanation is that:

Before the Dover decision was released, the finest legal minds in the country could not predict whether the judge was just going to rule narrowly on the basis of the religious motivations of the school board members, or whether he was also going to rule on the issues of ID as science and ID as religion.

and:

the rules for the Lemon test

Have absolutely nothing to do with one another. The latter is a matter of law. The former is a matter of mind-reading. Legal scholars are not typically noted for their psychic abilities.

Comment #66844

Posted by k.e. on January 2, 2006 1:50 AM (e)

Larry said 2 above
“How do you explain that ?”
Hmmmmmm…….maybe he just reported the ALL the facts?

Comment #66845

Posted by PvM on January 2, 2006 2:21 AM (e)

Larry wrote:

Before the Dover decision was released, the finest legal minds in the country could not predict whether the judge was just going to rule narrowly on the basis of the religious motivations of the school board members, or whether he was also going to rule on the issues of ID as science and ID as religion. How do you explain that if the rules for the Lemon test are so clear?

The rules may be clear but how to interpret the presented testimony is why we have courts. Really Larry…
I understand that these legal issues may confuse you but once seen in their correct circumstances, they are actually relatively easy to understand.

I suggest, even encourage you to read up on the ruling, the testimony, the findings of fact, the depositions and the relevant case law. It’s not that hard.

As far as the mootness issue is concerned, the case law is also clear here. If there is a likelihood that the offending policy may return it is not a moot issue. Also, since the board had not made any decisions the judge ruled as he did.

Delayed justice is no justice…

Larry wrote:

responding to ****I think that there was a general consensus that the judge could not rule on whether ID is primarily religious without first ruling on whether ID is science.*****

The two are indeed intricately intertwined.

Not necessarily. Just because something is not scientific does not necessarily mean that it is religious – and vice-versa.

It shows that the primary purpose is not secular, combine this with the actual evidence that ID is religious and it is easy to put 2 and 2 together.

I am looking forward to more legal critiques from Larry.

Comment #66846

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 2, 2006 2:24 AM (e)

I am looking forward to more legal critiques from Larry.

you’re a very scary man, Pim.

Comment #66847

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 2, 2006 2:29 AM (e)

Comment #66776 posted by PvM on January 1, 2006 06:23 PM

Larry said –
****So the bottom line is that everyone knew that the decision was not going to be appealed. And the judge took advantage of that fact by showing no restraint in the opinion.****

Can Larry provide some examples of this ‘no restraint’ or even any evidence to support his claim that the Judge took advantage?

Here are some examples –

(1) The opinion thoroughly trashed the Pandas book after the judge denied the publisher’s request to be allowed into the case as an intervenor. The opinion admits that some important testimony against the book was unrebutted (see page 84 of the opinion). Since the publisher was denied intervenor status, the publisher had no opportunity to cross-examine the witness.

(2) In an incredible show of conceit, the judge said that he hoped that his ruling on the scientific merits of ID would “prevent the obvious waste of judicial and other resources which would be occasioned by a subsequent trial involving the precise question which is before us.” (page 64 of opinion) “Obvious” to him, but not necessarily to others.

(3) The opinion quoted a private attorney-client message – normally considered confidential – that the board’s Solicitor sent to the board, and used that message against the defendants. The notion that the defendants voluntarily submitted this damaging message to the court is preposterous. This may have been legal, but it was certainly not ethical. (pages 111-112)

(4) Instead of ruling just on narrow grounds – i.e., just the religious motivations of the board members – the judge also ruled on the issues of ID as science and ID as religion. Some people think that this issue of religious motivation is not a complete test of the first prong of the Lemon test, the “purpose” prong. But since the school board’s motives for the ID rule were religious, the ID rule automatically failed the “purpose” prong test, and the judge did not need to consider whether ID was scientific or religious. My line of reasoning here is similar to the idea that the World Series can stop as soon as one of the teams has won four games — is everyone with me on this? I hope so – posting on this website has given me a feeling of frustration such as I would feel in trying to teach the mentally challenged. Anyway, I think that what the judge did – making a ruling that was arguably broader than necessary – is not necessarily always bad, but I think it was bad in this case because there is essentially no opportunity for an appeal, and hence no opportunity for the judge’s rulings to be reviewed. So I think that the case should have been decided on the narrowest grounds possible ( the narrowest grounds possible was just to throw the case out because the cause of action ceased to exist).

In short, the judge said things he might not have said if there had been a reasonable possibility that the decision would be appealed.

Pat Buchanan had a good name for this judge – a “Neanderthal.”

I am now bracing myself for the inevitable flood of responses that will just tell me that I have not read the opinion, that I cannot understand what I read, and that I do not know what I am talking about.

Comment #66849

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 2, 2006 2:59 AM (e)

Comment #66833 posted by bill on January 2, 2006 12:50 AM

Larry, old bean, I gave you the link to the transcripts of the trial. Have you read them?

Why should I waste my time reading the transcripts when I am doing such a good job trashing the Dover opinion without having read them?

Comment #66850

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 2, 2006 4:55 AM (e)

where did you get the impression you were doing a “good job” at anything, Larry?

certainly nobody HERE thinks you have the capacity to reason at all.

Now over at ARN…

*psst* Free Beer, larry!

Am I being to subtle for the voice in your head Larry?

Arn.org

go there and be, er, happier.

Comment #66865

Posted by wad of id on January 2, 2006 7:19 AM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'kwickxml'

Comment #66877

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on January 2, 2006 8:31 AM (e)

Dudes, why are you bothering with this uneducated bozo?

Comment #66882

Posted by KL on January 2, 2006 8:45 AM (e)

“Dudes, why are you bothering with this uneducated bozo?”

Is that why I am not getting that list of alma maters? Is it because there ARE no alma maters? From his certainty in his opinions I was expecting degrees in several areas.

Comment #66885

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 2, 2006 8:58 AM (e)

Comment #66778 posted by PvM on January 1, 2006 06:29 PM

Larry wrote:
****If the individual defendants try to appeal, the new board would just pull the rug out from under them by formally repealing the ID rule (rather than just hiding behind the judge’s decision to ban it), thus rendering the appeal moot.****

Does Larry realize that Heather Geesey who voted for the ID policy is still on the board?

You’re right ! Her seat was not up for election. See – http://www.ydr.com/search/ci_3218302 The media gave the false impression that none of the members who voted for the ID statement were still on the board.

But does Larry understand the legal situation here correctly?

And the practical effect of the above little piece of trivia is — ?

Comment #66887

Posted by k.e. on January 2, 2006 9:17 AM (e)

Larry said
Pat Buchanan had a good name for this judge — a “Neanderthal.”

aw come on Larry if you and Pat baby are going to project get it right…Baboon

http://dominionpaper.ca/weblog/img/bensen_carnival.gif

Comment #66895

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on January 2, 2006 9:48 AM (e)

See — http://www.ydr.com/search/ci_3218302 The media gave the false impression that none of the members who voted for the ID statement were still on the board.

See —

So Larry has concluded that the media lied that none of the ID supporters remained on the board.

And he knows this because he, uh, read it in the media ….

(sigh)

Larry is wasting his time. The Dover decision has already been made, ID lost, and nothing Larry says or does, absolutely nothing at all whatsoever, will change that one bit. His side lost. Period. Game over. It’s all over but the crying – and Larry provides lots of that.

But then, that’s not why Larry is here. Larry is here for the same reason that he files crank cases with the Supreme Court, and writes crank letters about the Holocaust and “meteor showers are fake” to national newspapers. Larry is an insignificant uneducated little nobody of a nothing, who wants desperately to be treated like a something. He’s here because he can’t get an audience at AOL, and we give him an audience.

If you ignore Larry, he will, like all cranks, go searching for another audience somewhere else.

Comment #66897

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on January 2, 2006 9:51 AM (e)

I hear they have FREE BEER over at ARN

Cool !! Count me in !!!!

:)

Comment #66913

Posted by Andrew McClure on January 2, 2006 11:15 AM (e)

Why should I waste my time reading the transcripts when I am doing such a good job trashing the Dover opinion without having read them?

Okay… hold on. This is the kind of statement that sets off my detectors for the thing that people around here seem to describe by the name “loki”.

Comment #66916

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 2, 2006 12:06 PM (e)

Laughing Stock Larry wrote:

Where would opponents of ID be without the constitutional separation of church and state? In Britain, for example, there is religion in the public schools, so ruling that ID is religious would provide no basis for banning it from public-school science classes there.

Actually us Brits can tell the difference between Science and Religion, and it seems, are much better educated on the subject than than the majority of your population. (Shame really - I was first introduced to evolution through an excellent American textbook I borrowed from the library during a summer vacation when I was thirteen).
Although we have religious state schools in the UK - they are required to teach the ‘National Curriculum’ - a sort of national state standard if you like. The National Curriculum (for England)
Our Religious Education requires teaching about major world religions not religious ( and especially not Christian) indoctrination: http://tinyurl.com/8aukv
Religious schools can make time for an act of collective worship, from which individual students are allowed to opt-out. Most kids mumble their way through the mumbo-jumbo and find even less reason to be taken in by subject.
Despite our Prime Minister’s enthusiasm for religious schools, polls show the majority of the population are against the idea - especially when they see the way religious schools have been used to prop up bigotry in Northern Ireland - and when they realise that fundamentalist Islamists and Christians can get state support for their own schools too. However even when they do they are required to teach proper science, or risk having their funding withdrawn.

Here is what our schools are required to teach, religious or not:

http://tinyurl.com/9q8db

Sc2 Life processes and living things
Knowledge, skills and understanding

Variation, inheritance and evolution
4) Students should be taught:

Evolution

1. that the fossil record is evidence for evolution
2. how variation and selection may lead to evolution or to extinction.

- I know you consider yourself to be infallible, and incapable of making, or at least admitting to, a mistake - but would you like to suprise us all and admit to a factual error in this case mate? Do that and I’ll withdraw the ‘Laughing Stock’ tag.

Comment #66921

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 2, 2006 12:39 PM (e)

I should also have pointed out that students face national examinations (‘GCSE’s) at the age of sixteen, divided by subject - these are critical to further academic progression. The BBC produce some helpful revision materials ‘Bitesize’ for such students. Amongst them are this test on the understanding of evolution. Perhaps trolls like Paley, Sal, Lenny and the rest should take this test first to see if they are up-to-speed with the subject; before they start crashing about here and bumping into the furniture.

BBC ‘Bitesize’ evolution test

Comment #66925

Posted by k.e. on January 2, 2006 12:54 PM (e)

oh well 8/10 but I never studied biology and Question 3 is not David Attenburg :) (I use scottish spelling for pedants)

Comment #66926

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on January 2, 2006 12:57 PM (e)

Perhaps trolls like Paley, Sal, Lenny and the rest

I assume you mean “Larry”, and not “Lenny”.

At least I bloody HOPE so. I’d hate to think I have much in commmon with either Paley or Sal. ;)

Comment #66927

Posted by PvM on January 2, 2006 1:02 PM (e)

Larry wrote:

Here are some examples —

(1) The opinion thoroughly trashed the Pandas book after the judge denied the publisher’s request to be allowed into the case as an intervenor. The opinion admits that some important testimony against the book was unrebutted (see page 84 of the opinion). Since the publisher was denied intervenor status, the publisher had no opportunity to cross-examine the witness.

Since the motion to intervene was opposed by plaintiffs AND defendants and since the motion failed to meet the legal requirements to intervene, one has to reject this example based on flawed legal arguments. In addition, the Judge allowed the FTE to submit an Amicus Brief.

Larry wrote:

(2) In an incredible show of conceit, the judge said that he hoped that his ruling on the scientific merits of ID would “prevent the obvious waste of judicial and other resources which would be occasioned by a subsequent trial involving the precise question which is before us.” (page 64 of opinion) “Obvious” to him, but not necessarily to others.

In other words, Larry does not see the millions of dollars of tax money wasted on this issue as ‘obvious’. The Judge’s ruling was extremely thorough, at least putting to good use the money and time spent on the lawsuit.

Larry wrote:

(3) The opinion quoted a private attorney-client message — normally considered confidential — that the board’s Solicitor sent to the board, and used that message against the defendants. The notion that the defendants voluntarily submitted this damaging message to the court is preposterous. This may have been legal, but it was certainly not ethical. (pages 111-112)

Of course it’s legal and since the defendants voluntarily revealed the information, it’s hard to argue that it is not ethical to use such information. That Larry is unfamiliar with the legal requirements is regrettable.

Larry wrote:

(4) Instead of ruling just on narrow grounds — i.e., just the religious motivations of the board members — the judge also ruled on the issues of ID as science and ID as religion. Some people think that this issue of religious motivation is not a complete test of the first prong of the Lemon test, the “purpose” prong. But since the school board’s motives for the ID rule were religious, the ID rule automatically failed the “purpose” prong test,

Seems that Larry is unfamiliar with the actual case law and the SC rulings in this area.

Larry wrote:

and the judge did not need to consider whether ID was scientific or religious. My line of reasoning here is similar to the idea that the World Series can stop as soon as one of the teams has won four games —- is everyone with me on this? I hope so — posting on this website has given me a feeling of frustration such as I would feel in trying to teach the mentally challenged.

ROTFL, yes Larry just add an unnecessary ad hominem to hide the simple fact that your unfamiliarity with the law and the case itself has led to more than one embarassment for you.

Larry wrote:

Pat Buchanan had a good name for this judge — a “Neanderthal.”

Another unnecessary ad hominem… Well done Larry. When arguments fail, one can always try this approach.

Larry wrote:

I am now bracing myself for the inevitable flood of responses that will just tell me that I have not read the opinion, that I cannot understand what I read, and that I do not know what I am talking about.

Your wish has been granted. Indeed, it was, given the poor nature of your arguments, indeed inevitable that people would call you on your unfamiliarity with law, the legal case and your unnecessary ad hominems.

Comment #66929

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 2, 2006 1:24 PM (e)

I assume you mean “Larry”, and not “Lenny”.

Whoops! - sorry mate - and anyway I’m sure you’d pass the BBC test.

By the way I’m thinking of starting a troll menagerie over at ‘After the Bar’ - where people like ourselves that enjoy that kind of thing can round them up and poke them with sticks. Might be appreciated by the more upright types here who want some peace and quiet to discuss weightier matters.
Any ideas for a name? ‘Paleys World’ springs to mind - and was thought up by one of the trolls themselves - or how about ‘Na-na-ia’?

Comment #66931

Posted by k.e. on January 2, 2006 1:39 PM (e)

Dean that’s a good idea Larry is almost as bad as that preposterous guy who MC’ed the Euro vision Song Contest …. Borat from Kazahkstan

Comment #66955

Posted by PvM on January 2, 2006 4:26 PM (e)

Larry wrote:
****If the individual defendants try to appeal, the new board would just pull the rug out from under them by formally repealing the ID rule (rather than just hiding behind the judge’s decision to ban it), thus rendering the appeal moot.****

Does Larry realize that Heather Geesey who voted for the ID policy is still on the board?

You’re right ! Her seat was not up for election. See — http://www.ydr.com/search/ci_3218302 The media gave the false impression that none of the members who voted for the ID statement were still on the board.

Yes that darn Media again which fails to provide the relevant information which could so easily be found.

But does Larry understand the legal situation here correctly?

And the practical effect of the above little piece of trivia is —- ?

Unless Larry understand the legal precedence and rules, his arguments may be, what is commonly known as strawmen. In this case, Larry seems to be under the false impression that the board was sued as individuals.

Comment #66978

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 2, 2006 6:20 PM (e)

Okay Larry (and Lenny!)..

if you don’t want to go to ARN

Welcome to Na-na-ia!

I’ve invited some of your friends around so you don’t get lonely..

Comment #67029

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 2, 2006 9:25 PM (e)

Comment #66955 posted by PvM on January 2, 2006 04:26 PM

But does Larry understand the legal situation here correctly?

Larry answered —
****And the practical effect of the above little piece of trivia is —- ?*****

Unless Larry understand the legal precedence and rules, his arguments may be, what is commonly known as strawmen. In this case, Larry seems to be under the false impression that the board was sued as individuals.

There was no straw man here. The issue was whether or not the decision was likely to be appealed. My point was that even if the former board members could appeal as individuals, the current board would probably vote to formally repeal the ID rule if the former board members appealed, thus rendering the appeal moot. Current board member Geesey, who voted for the ID rule, has only one vote and therefore cannot block repeal by herself. So it probably does not matter whether or not the former board members were sued as individuals or could appeal as individuals. I did not need to investigate those questions here because they almost certainly do not matter in regard to the possibility of appeal. I have enough important issues to investigate without having to worry about about unimportant ones too.

Comment #67033

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 2, 2006 9:39 PM (e)

You ARE the strawman, Larry. what did the strawman in OZ need, Larry? do you remember?

You sure are sorely lacking. You should go see the Wizard. I hear he lives over at ARN.

Comment #67034

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 2, 2006 9:46 PM (e)

Hey I just went to Arn - it’s great!, there’s a Geologist using a Creo as a football (the British kind) - proper geology and all - diagrams, pictures - everything!

Creationism and finding oil

You going there Larry or are you coming to Na-na-ia?

Comment #67040

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 2, 2006 9:53 PM (e)

Comment #66955 posted by PvM on January 2, 2006 04:26 PM

Larry wrote:
****You’re right ! Her seat was not up for election.****

Yes that darn Media again which fails to provide the relevant information which could so easily be found.

And I suppose that you have never been misinformed or been given a false impression by the media?

Most news reports stated that the members who voted for the ID statement were voted off the board, which was not a correct statement because one of those members remained on the board. Most news reports did not say or indicate that only pro-ID members whose seats were up for election were voted off the board. And the media in general should have added that one of the pro-ID members was not up for re-election. The news article I cited was the first time I saw that.

Why do I have to spend so much time here arguing about trivia? WHY? You act as if the fact that Geesey remained on the board is an important point, and it is not. It was nice to know, and you told me, so we should forget about it. Instead you keep riding it into the ground.

The tactics here are to tie me up in responding to pointless posts so that I have less time to address the real issues.

Comment #67047

Posted by Arden Chatfield on January 2, 2006 10:08 PM (e)

The tactics here are to tie me up in responding to pointless posts so that I have less time to address the real issues.

That’s what you call it when people point out you have no idea what you’re talking about?

Comment #67048

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 2, 2006 10:18 PM (e)

The tactics here are to tie me up in responding to pointless posts so that I have less time to address the real issues.

muhahaha! yes, you go it superlarry. Us evilutionist are just trying to confuse you so you don’t get to address the real issues.

our evil plan is succeeding so well, we seem to have you not knowing whether you are coming or going.

Now over at ARN, they play much nicer with your type, Larry. Really.

Comment #67054

Posted by roger Tang on January 2, 2006 10:52 PM (e)

And I suppose that you have never been misinformed or been given a false impression by the media?

No.

But then, I spend more than 10 seconds reading the background.

Again, some facts would help your arguments. This is done via research. Research means actually reading the articles you look up. Reading does not mean skimming.

The tactics here are to tie me up in responding to pointless posts so that I have less time to address the real issues.

Which sorta points out that you have no clue what the real issues are.

Hint: if you don’t get the details right, you don’t have a chance of addressing the real issues correctly.

Comment #67056

Posted by Arden Chatfield on January 2, 2006 11:38 PM (e)

Creationism and finding oil

Good god there are some friggin DUMB people posting to that site!

Comment #67057

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 2, 2006 11:38 PM (e)

Comment #66916 posted by Dean Morrison on January 2, 2006 12:06 PM

Laughing Stock Larry wrote:
Where would opponents of ID be without the constitutional separation of church and state? In Britain, for example, there is religion in the public schools, so ruling that ID is religious would provide no basis for banning it from public-school science classes there.

DeanTheDunce answered:
Actually us Brits can tell the difference between Science and Religion, and it seems, are much better educated on the subject than the majority of your population.

You missed my point. If some British school board with some lunatic-fringe bible-thumping fundy crackpots decides to add ID to the science curriculum, how could the British courts stop them?

Here is what our schools are required to teach, religious or not:

http://tinyurl.com/9q8db

Sc2 Life processes and living things
Knowledge, skills and understanding

Variation, inheritance and evolution
4) Students should be taught:

Evolution

1. that the fossil record is evidence for evolution
2. how variation and selection may lead to evolution or to extinction.

Yes, but you have shown no rules prohibiting the teaching, discussion, or mentioning of ID in science classes. Also, the above British standards only say that evolution should be taught, not that evolution must be taught.

- I know you consider yourself to be infallible, and incapable of making, or at least admitting to, a mistake - but would you like to surprise us all and admit to a factual error in this case mate? Do that and I’ll withdraw the ‘Laughing Stock’ tag.

And what “factual error” is that?

So many people have been giving me nicknames here – mostly derogatory – that I think I will adopt a nickname myself. From now on, I may sign my comments, “Scary Larry.”

Comment #67063

Posted by Arden Chatfield on January 3, 2006 12:47 AM (e)

So many people have been giving me nicknames here — mostly derogatory — that I think I will adopt a nickname myself. From now on, I may sign my comments, “Scary Larry.”

Trust me, you’re not scaring anyone.

Comment #67067

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 3, 2006 1:15 AM (e)

I stopped being afraid of scarecrows when i was about 4. find that brain of yours yet lalarry?

Comment #67075

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 3, 2006 2:10 AM (e)

Comment #66827 posted by PvM on January 1, 2006 11:42 PM

Larry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
I think that there is a lot of ambiguity in the Lemon test. The first prong of the test is often simply called the “purpose” prong, and the second prong is often called the “effects” prong. But what kind of “purpose” is the subject of the first prong? Is it the intended purpose (i.e., concerning the motives of the public officials) or the apparent purpose (i.e., what the purpose appears to be without regard to the motives of the public officials)? Or is it both kinds of purposes?
>>>>>>>>>>>

In order to answer these questions one has to understand the case law on Lemon. Typically purpose looks to see if the primary purpose is secular. This means that even though there may be religious purposes, the overall or primary purpose needs to be secular. Hence the attempt to ‘teach the controversy’. But as the SC has stated, the stated purpose needs to be sincere and not a sham.

You did not answer the question but changed the subject. I was asking about intended purpose vs.apparent purpose as I defined them above, and you discussed only the subject of secular purpose vs. religious purpose.

Anyway, I think the Lemon test “sucks.”

Comment #67076

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 3, 2006 2:16 AM (e)

Anyway, I think the Lemon test “sucks.”

Larry, you’ve never given us any reason to care WHAT you think, except as a constant source of amusement.

checked out ARN yet? In addition to Free Beer, i hear they are much less critical of irrational folks like yourself.

Comment #67080

Posted by gwangung on January 3, 2006 3:52 AM (e)

You did not answer the question but changed the subject.

Well, that’s the point. If YOU don’t understand how the judge got where he did, but keep on screaming “It’s wrong! It’s wrong!”, you’re certainly not going to get anywhere.

There’s a reason why it’s discussed in terms of secular purpose vs. religious purpose. And if you don’t accept it, then the argument’s over.

Comment #67098

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 3, 2006 5:31 AM (e)

Scary Larry wrote:

You missed my point. If some British school board with some lunatic-fringe bible-thumping fundy crackpots decides to add ID to the science curriculum, how could the British courts stop them?

Well it wouldn’t need to get to the courts to stop them - we have a powerful school inspection body called OFSTED which has powers to put schools into ‘Special Measures’ or even close them down.
We have a different constitution to you of course so we look to parliament for answers on this rather than appealing to a written constitution via a ‘Supreme Court’ (our top Judges sit in Parliament at the moment):

http://www.angelfire.com/nb/lt/docs/called44.htm

I guess ‘should’ is used instead of ‘must’ throughout the National Curriculum because they don’t want to come across as all ‘Schoolmissy’ - it still has the same legal implications though.

You will be pleased to know that in recent years a number of ‘City Technology Colleges’ have been set up which are technically Independant of the State - as they receive private funding - but also receive state funding. They are required to teach the National Curriculum. One of these is suspected of teaching ‘Creationism’ alongside Evolution in it’s science classes - and this has caused quite a stink - questions have been asked in parliament:

http://www.angelfire.com/nb/lt/docs/creationists.htm

However even they are careful (although slippery) about what they say:

“What we’ve said is we will teach evolution - because it is a theory still, unless someone has found the missing link and proofs to put it to bed once and for all - and creationism, in the appropriate subjects. Certainly evolution is usually taught in science and creationism is usually in RE, but that would not exclude a closer look at comparative theories of the origins of the world in either subject.”

They are soon due for an OFSTED inspection so they will need to get their act straight pretty quick.

.Yes, but you have shown no rules prohibiting the teaching, discussion, or mentioning of ID in science classes.

It would be pretty boring to have to write a list of things not to teach wouldn’t it now? We don’t outlaw teaching about the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the (now officially recognised) Jedi religion either - but most teachers have more pressing uses for school time, and most parents aren’t going to be happy if little Johnny isn’t being prepared for his GCSE exams. These obviously don’t recognise ID, and any kid putting ID answers down in his Biology GCSE will fail, pure and simple.

Most of our faith schools, the majority of which are Church of England or Catholic have no problems with evolution anyway.

Fine old bit of messy British pragmatism if you ask me - but then we don’t tend to get our knickers in a twist about religion over here…

Comment #67114

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 3, 2006 6:27 AM (e)

Comment #67080 posted by gwangung on January 3, 2006 03:52 AM

Larry wrote –
****You did not answer the question but changed the subject.****

Well, that’s the point. If YOU don’t understand how the judge got where he did, but keep on screaming “It’s wrong! It’s wrong!”, you’re certainly not going to get anywhere.

There’s a reason why it’s discussed in terms of secular purpose vs. religious purpose. And if you don’t accept it, then the argument’s over.

I asked a very simple question – does the Lemon test’s “purpose” prong concern the intended purpose, the apparent purpose (without regard to intentions), or both? You couldn’t answer, so you just ducked the question by telling me that I “don’t understand.” You didn’t have the honesty to admit that you could not answer the question. No one can answer, because there is no agreement on what the Lemon test means. I searched the Internet for definitions of the Lemon test’s “purpose” prong, and I could not get a consistent answer.

Here is what the Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia says about the Lemon test –

“Lemon’s future is somewhat uncertain. Sustained criticism by conservative Justices such as Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, lack of a clear reaffirmation of the central tenets of Lemon over the years since the 1980s, and inconsistent application in major Establishment Clause cases has led some legal commentators and lower court judges to believe that Lemon’s days are numbered, and that the Court has implicitly left the decision of whether to apply the test in a specific case up to lower courts. This has resulted in a patchwork pattern of enforcement in circuit courts across the nation; while some courts apply Lemon in all or most cases, others apply it in few or none.”

Scary Larry

Comment #67119

Posted by k.e. on January 3, 2006 7:00 AM (e)

Well ‘armless Black Knight Larry who is really really really scary
If you think a few pesky lawyers and scientists will be the only objectors in Establishment Clause cases wait until the Churches get wind of it. Jews Islamist’s, Catholics, FSMists the whole lot will be “asking questions”.

Now Larry time for a joke

A duck walks into a pub and says to the barman: “Got any bread?”
Barman says: “No.”
Duck says: “Got any bread?”
Barman says: “No.”
Duck says: “Got any bread?”
Barman says: “No, we have no bread.”
Duck says: “Got any bread?”
Barman says: “No, we haven’t got any &%$#@ bread.”
Duck says: “Got any bread?”
Barman says: “No, are you deaf, we haven’t got any &%$#@ bread, ask me again and I’ll nail your &%$#@ Beak to the bar you irritating &%$#@ bird!”
Duck says: “Got any nails?”
Barman says: “No.”
Duck says: “Got any bread?”

Larry there is an old saying
In law as in love, too much concentration on technique can often lead to impotence

Comment #67162

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 3, 2006 10:19 AM (e)

Comment #67098 posted by Dean Morrison on January 3, 2006 05:31 AM

Scary Larry wrote:
****You missed my point. If some British school board with some lunatic-fringe bible-thumping fundy crackpots decides to add ID to the science curriculum, how could the British courts stop them?*****

Well it wouldn’t need to get to the courts to stop them - we have a powerful school inspection body called OFSTED which has powers to put schools into ‘Special Measures’ or even close them down.

Well, you missed this little quote from the British curricular standards that you provided –

“( c ) Science curriculum
*********Schools do teach how scientific controversies can arise from the interpretation of empirical evidence and this is likely to include Darwin’s theory of evolution. Pupils are encouraged to explore different views, theories and beliefs.*********”
—-from http://www.angelfire.com/nb/lt/docs/called44.htm

I am wondering – are these standards just recommendations or are they actually in effect?

Also, the other URL link you provided, for an article titled, “Creationists taking over state schools,” shows a lot more support for teaching ID/creationism in British state-supported schools than you admitted to in your post. See –http://www.angelfire.com/nb/lt/docs/creationists.htm

There seems to be this myth in the USA that the campaign to teach ID/creationism in the public schools is a uniquely American thing that threatens to cause the USA to fall behind other nations in science education.

So you British appear to be much more relaxed than Americans in regard to the entanglement of the state and religion. Many Americans are really uptight about this church-state separation thing – it is almost paranoid. I personally am extremely opposed to school prayer – to me it is an invasion of the privacy of religious belief. My reasons for supporting ID are not religious. I also support non-ID criticisms of evolution.

Scary Larry

Comment #67168

Posted by k.e. on January 3, 2006 10:42 AM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'kwickxml'

Comment #67169

Posted by k.e. on January 3, 2006 10:43 AM (e)

Larry
In dear old blighty a Myth is

A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society: the myth of Eros and Psyche; a creation myth.

In the land of the Brave and home of the Free a myth is
A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology

And you have yet to know the difference

Comment #67173

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 3, 2006 11:04 AM (e)

Scary Larry wrote:

Well, you missed this little quote from the British curricular standards that you provided —

“( c ) Science curriculum
*********Schools do teach how scientific controversies can arise from the interpretation of empirical evidence and this is likely to include Darwin’s theory of evolution. Pupils are encouraged to explore different views, theories and beliefs.*********”
——from http://www.angelfire.com/nb/lt/docs/called44.htm…

.. no Larry .. that wasn’t from the ‘curricular standards’ - it was from a parliamentary answer. Us British are proud of having a ‘liberal’ education (you see it’s not a bad word here) - this means ‘atheism’ can be explored amongst those other options - I got top marks in RE for eloquently stating my views on the matter (and my teacher, Mr Bailey, was an evangelical).

Yes the National Curriculum is in force, and not merely as a set of ‘recommendations’. All state funded schools, including the fringe ones, are inspected on it and could lose their funding if they don’t toe the line.

There is controversy here over our prime ministers apparant entusiasm for ‘faith schools’. The public realises that means that this means an increase in Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Orthodox Jewish and evangelical ‘Independant Acadamies’ being supported financially by the state. Not what we really need at a time when we need more integration and understanding of each others cultures than the reverse.
Nearly two thirds of the public oppose further expansion of ‘faith schools’:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4175834.stm

If you want to see the mess that ‘entangling’ state education and religion can get you into then check out this link:

Facts on Faith Schools in Britain

- and then thank your founding fathers for sparing you this nonsense.

The facts are that most people in the UK are not actively religious - most kids attend non-religious or ‘notionally religious schools’ - all schools are required to teach evolution in science classes - religious beliefs can be taught in religious education classes in religious schools - most kids don’t take any notice - and as a result we are an overwhelmingly secular society.

Despite one or two schools coming under the spotlight for their adherance to the standards - their is no widespread enthusiasm for teaching ‘creationism’ ‘ID’ or anything like it.

The enthusiasm for religious extremists of all faiths to get state support for their schools, including even Islamic ‘Madrassas’ where kids spend most of their time learning the Koran by rote - is now alarming many people including many members of parliament. My guess that there will be a backlash to this process, and Tony Blair will be forced to back down on this fetish of his by his own party in 2006.

Oh.. and we have Darwin on our £10 notes - we’re rather proud of the guy.

Comment #67616

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 4, 2006 2:57 PM (e)

… and of course, as usual, Larry MISSES the key point while he quote mines:

Schools do teach how scientific controversies can arise from the interpretation of empirical evidence

do you even know what “empirical evidence” means, Larry?

Nobody here, or on any science website EVER, has rejected controversy in the face of empiracal evidence, Larry.

The problem is that creationism, ID, and whatever else it ends up morphing into, HAS NO EMPIRACAL EVIDENCE, period. no ifs ands or buts about it. Ask the key proponents of the ID concept itself, like Dembski or Paul Nelson, and they will readily tell you so themselves, if you don’t believe me.

Or hell, take a gander at the list of “peer reviewed publications” in “support” of ID over at the DI and tell me if ANY of them contain ANY empiracal evidence whatsoever.

gees, how is it that you are so damn dense?

Comment #68061

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 5, 2006 6:18 PM (e)

Hi Larry!

.. you understand our interest in what happens in your schools - a good arguement to keep ‘wealthy American creationists’ out of our schools when we can say “look! - they only want to teach here what they aren’t allowed to teach over there!”

“Not on your Nelly” as we say…

Comment #68621

Posted by Stephen Elliott on January 7, 2006 5:18 PM (e)

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 1, 2006 11:40 AM (e) (s)

Where would opponents of ID be without the constitutional separation of church and state? In Britain, for example, there is religion in the public schools, so ruling that ID is religious would provide no basis for banning it from public-school science classes there. One big reason why opponents of ID keep insisting that ID is religious is so they can use the church-state separation principle to attack it.

Oh, how little you know!
In the UK, I have never heard of religion being taught in a science class.

I am fairly sure in the USA, even without a church/state separation, it would still be unlawful to teach religion as science.

Would it be OK to teach geography as maths?