Nick Matzke posted Entry 2517 on August 14, 2006 12:31 PM.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/2512

Someone didn’t get the DI memo in Arkansas:

One of the assembly’s officers, former state lawmaker Gunner DeLay of Fort Smith, is the Republican candidate for attorney general.

DeLay said he wrote a paper in law school on what he says is a teacher’s “right to academic freedom” under the First Amendment to the U. S. Constitution to teach subjects that are “scientifically valid.”

He said that could include intelligent design.

“The basis of my paper was that although legislative mandated efforts to teach creation science or intelligent design have been struck down, the courts have left open teaching those theories under an instructor’s First Amendment right to academic freedom,” DeLay said.

Such protected speech would have to have a “scientific basis,” DeLay said, adding that a science teacher “could not come in and say we’re all born under a cabbage leaf.”

“The old creation science is the new intelligent design. And yes, I think it’s scientifically valid,” DeLay said.

Hat Tip: Eric Meikle.

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 #119511

Posted by Corkscrew on August 14, 2006 12:43 PM (e)

I’d be interested to know what definition of “scientifically valid” he argued for in his paper. I can’t think of any that ID actually passes.

Comment #119518

Posted by Marlene on August 14, 2006 12:59 PM (e)

And, this from a State where: 1) Perhaps 90% of the kids are left behind; 2) Kids that elude the Baptists and Pentecostals and get an education in the workshop of the devil (i.e., any non-faith-university or college) move away mostly FOR GOOD; 3) Has a Reverend Governor with delusions of grandeur that he can do what Bill Clinton did (get real!).

AR beats Turkey to the bottom of the creationism belief list.

Comment #119521

Posted by Michael Suttkus, II on August 14, 2006 1:07 PM (e)

Even Behe admits creationism is only scientific if you change the definition of science so that astrology qualifies! Teachers have a right to teach scientifically valid astrology!

Maybe Arkansas is upset that Kansas is getting all the publicity.

Comment #119523

Posted by Jim Wynne on August 14, 2006 1:21 PM (e)

I think “Gunner DeLay” would be a great trade name for a premature ejaculation therapy.

Comment #119525

Posted by Coin on August 14, 2006 1:25 PM (e)

Delay wrote:

“The basis of my paper was that although legislative mandated efforts to teach creation science or intelligent design have been struck down, the courts have left open teaching those theories under an instructor’s First Amendment right to academic freedom,” DeLay said.

Really? Then what was PELOZA v. CAPISTRANO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT about?

Comment #119526

Posted by Matt on August 14, 2006 1:26 PM (e)

As ID’s political and cultural significance continues to diminish, I wonder if we’re going to see more of this kind of return to “Creation Science”.

At least until the DI gets together whatever the new disguise will be.

(My fear is that we’re seeing the “New ID” emerging over on DembskiBlog, and that it will consist entirely of a Tom Delay/Ann Coulteresque “kill the judges” fascism.)

Comment #119547

Posted by Ken Baldonieri on August 14, 2006 2:14 PM (e)

My favoriste part of thye article:
“The Republican candidate for lieutenant governor, state Sen. Jim Holt of Springdale, said teachers should have the option to teach about intelligent design and that students should have the option to learn about it.

He called evolution ‘a fraud theory’ and said that keeping intelligent design out of public schools is censorship.

‘It is not scientific to censor other theories or hypotheses,’ Holt said.”

What the hell is Holt talking about?

Comment #119554

Posted by Glen Davidson on August 14, 2006 2:21 PM (e)

Never mind, both creationism and ID must be science, just look at the logic here:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1442

Just think, scientists who accepted evolutionary theory won Nobels at the same time that kids were being lied to about evolution and creationism in the schools. ID must be science.

Anyway, isn’t the above conclusion the implication of its being written on a pro-ID site?.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Comment #119555

Posted by Bruce Thompson GQ on August 14, 2006 2:30 PM (e)

Currently, the Arkansas science standards require students to

NS.10.B.1
Explain why science is limited to natural explanations of how
the world works
NS.10.B.2
Compare and contrast hypotheses, theories, and laws
NS.10.B.3
Distinguish between a scientific theory and the term “theory” used in
general conversation
NS.10.B.4
Summarize the guidelines of science:
explanations are based on observations, evidence, and testing
hypotheses must be testable.
understandings and/or conclusions may change with additional
empirical data
scientific knowledge must have peer review and verification
before acceptance
. [italics mine]

Since ID does not meet B1 or B4 it will take rewriting the standards to something resembling the Kansas standards. Science will have to be redefined allowing unnatural explanations and testable hypotheses will not include the designer. Peer review will consist of articles in mainstream journals that do not address ID, in house publications, books, and pubjacking.

I predict the DI fog machine will blanket Arkansas in the near future.

Delta Pi Gamma (Scientia et Fermentum)

Comment #119581

Posted by Peter on August 14, 2006 3:34 PM (e)

Bruce, wow, I am actually really impressed with these standard! I doubt my school ever really taught those things, but thank Gutenberg for books!

Comment #119598

Posted by elbogz on August 14, 2006 4:33 PM (e)

Do you ever get the feeling your watching Groundhog Day? Every morning you get the same news story, and you think, “wait, didn’t I just drive off the cliff with the groundhog yesterday”? I’m certain the groundhog died.

Comment #119606

Posted by KC on August 14, 2006 4:56 PM (e)

Considering Arkandas brought in Kent Hovind as an expert witness on evolution the most recent time it considered a creationism/ID bill, I’m not surprised.

Comment #119614

Posted by DragonScholar on August 14, 2006 5:18 PM (e)

Matt wrote:

(My fear is that we’re seeing the “New ID” emerging over on DembskiBlog, and that it will consist entirely of a Tom Delay/Ann Coulteresque “kill the judges” fascism.)

I have noticed a post-Dover shrillness over there, along with more “anything that sticks” kinds of postings.

ID frankly has taken some stinging defeats, and it doesn’t have much left (look at the recent arguments). I’m not sure it will go as far as you say, but I can certainly see them ratcheting things up. I mean, what else can ID offer?

Comment #119635

Posted by MYOB on August 14, 2006 6:32 PM (e)

These people honestly do think that if they proposed legislation prompting cabbage patches and stork deliveries replace sexual education in schools they’d do it and expect us to sit there and obey it.

MYOB’
.

Comment #119637

Posted by steve s on August 14, 2006 6:33 PM (e)

As a long time reader of UD, let me make a comment here. I don’t see any reason why Dembski has to change anything. Dover, Kansas, I don’t think any of that has affected him. He’s out to look sciency and sell books and ‘consulting’ hours and get free plane tickets to new vistas. Since when have religious fundamentalists let a court decision stop them? From reading UD, while I agree that they unhinged a little bit, his acolytes are no less blind, no less aggressive, no less confident in The Truth™. I don’t think his income stream is in any jeopardy, so I don’t see that he’d have to change anything. Dembski’s not out to win anymore. That’s not his goal. While he may have initially believed in his efforts, he now knows he’s beaten. The goal is no longer to win. The goal is to make some Benjamins.

Comment #119642

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on August 14, 2006 6:41 PM (e)

I predict the DI fog machine will blanket Arkansas in the near future.

I hope so. I love the smell of creationists frying themselves in court in the morning.

And, of course, the more Federal district courts the IDers lose in, the less likely it becomes that the Supreme Court will ever even agree to hear an ID case.

Finally, I really like to see the fundies wasting all their money on losing court cases.

Comment #119650

Posted by Barbara R. on August 14, 2006 6:51 PM (e)

Comment #119526, “Matt” wrote:

“My fear is that we’re seeing the ‘New ID’ emerging over on the DembskiBlog, and that it will consist entirely of a Tom DeLay/Ann Coulteresque “Kill the Judges” fascism.”

Matt, what do you mean by “fascism”? What does fascism have to do with it?

Why are you so insulting? Insults do advance the cause of science and acceptance of evolution over supernaturalistic creation.

Geez!

Barbara R.

Comment #119655

Posted by Coin on August 14, 2006 7:05 PM (e)

“My fear is that we’re seeing the ‘New ID’ emerging over on the DembskiBlog, and that it will consist entirely of a Tom DeLay/Ann Coulteresque “Kill the Judges” fascism.”

Matt, what do you mean by “fascism”? What does fascism have to do with it?

You mean, what does fascism have to do with promoting a view of society based around a strong, unitary government which exists at the center of all life and is unchecked by oversights such as an independent judiciary or autonomous academic culture, the rationale for which is subtly linked with supporting rhetoric glorifying the military and stressing the unity of a single-demographic monolithic culture based around traditional values?

Why, nothing at all, of course. Obviously he’s just a loony leftist slinging ad hominem. Ignore him.

Comment #119661

Posted by Matt on August 14, 2006 9:11 PM (e)

I did not use the term “fascism” as a glib insult. I used it to describe a potential direction that the radical religious right (including disillusioned ID supporters) could easily turn towards.

To be specific, by “fascism” I mean the bullying and threatening with bodily harm of judges, journalists, academics and other citizens who disagree with you. Tom DeLay, Ann Coulter and many others have been skirting the edge of fascist rhetoric for years now.

Dembski’s increasing use of bullying tactics (see Pianka) and violent imagery (see the “Vise Strategy”) in his posts is not just a humorous little game he’s playing. Now that he and his supporters have placed themselves firmly in the Coulter camp, I don’t think it’s at all premature to speculate about where all those rants about Judge Jones’s supposed venalities could be leading.

I didn’t say (and I don’t think) that they are fascists. I think, however, that they are allowing themselves to get obsessed about the supposed agents of their losses. They show a disturbing propensity to scapegoat those agents, such as Judge Jones, instead of examining their own behavior. That tendency, along with the reification of Ann Coulter et al., could be seen as taking a disturbing fascist turn.

As to “advancing the cause of science”, take one look over there at the steadfast refusal of anyone to even look at the copious scientific references that have been provided to them. They’re all about the culture war – nothing else.

Comment #119674

Posted by sparc on August 15, 2006 1:09 AM (e)

steve s:
I don’t think his income stream is in any jeopardy, so I don’t see that he’d have to change anything. Dembski’s not out to win anymore. That’s not his goal. While he may have initially believed in his efforts, he now knows he’s beaten. The goal is no longer to win. The goal is to make some Benjamins.

Therefore you will find the Intelligent Design Bookstore on the UD pages. In the FAQ section they even admit to make money from it.

Do you make money from this?

By passing you as a customer to our online booksellers, we are given a 4.5% to 10% commission on each sale depending on the number of books we sell each quarter.

According to the list of available books they sell pro-evolution books as well. Thus, they even benefit if they sell anti-ID literature.
Quite hypocrite …

Comment #119682

Posted by Matt on August 15, 2006 2:33 AM (e)

According to the list of available books they sell pro-evolution books as well. Thus, they even benefit if they sell anti-ID literature.
Quite hypocrite …

Nah, I doubt they make anything to speak of. There’s good evidence that a very large fraction of their hits comes from PT readers. Heck, Steve S himself probably accounts for 25% of their sitemeter stats. You’re not buying any books hawked by Dembski, are you Steve?

Comment #119700

Posted by Grey Wolf on August 15, 2006 6:24 AM (e)

Lenny wrote:

Finally, I really like to see the fundies wasting all their money on losing court cases.

Do they really loose money in court cases? This last time their buts were kicked, IIRC, the only money on the line was that of the school district. The bunch of idiots that pushed ID got voted out, but they were shielded from responsibility, weren’t they? (A mistake, in my view - they should be put to jail for sheer incompetence if not malice, but I’m sure that there are reasons why school district boards are not responsible for their actions - the guy that even lied to court has not even been charged, has he?).

In fact, have creationists ever had to pay money from their own pockets in court? Yes, they *spend* money in the PR campaigns and waste money from their sheep-like creationist followers to buy ID books for schools, but have they actually had to pay for their misdoings? To my knowledge, even Hovind has managed to not pay for his multiple court cases (although I’m hoping this time around he will be made to pay or at least his property will be confiscated or something).

I’d appreciate links or examples,

Grey Wolf

Comment #119701

Posted by Grey Wolf on August 15, 2006 6:30 AM (e)

Lenny wrote:

Finally, I really like to see the fundies wasting all their money on losing court cases.

Do they really loose money in court cases? This last time their buts were kicked, IIRC, the only money on the line was that of the school district. The bunch of idiots that pushed ID got voted out, but they were shielded from responsibility, weren’t they? (A mistake, in my view - they should be put to jail for sheer incompetence if not malice, but I’m sure that there are reasons why school district boards are not responsible for their actions - the guy that even lied to court has not even been charged, has he?).

In fact, have creationists ever had to pay money from their own pockets in court? Yes, they *spend* money in the PR campaigns and waste money from their sheep-like creationist followers to buy ID books for schools, but have they actually had to pay for their misdoings? To my knowledge, even Hovind has managed to not pay for his multiple court cases (although I’m hoping this time around he will be made to pay or at least his property will be confiscated or something).

I’d appreciate links or examples,

Grey Wolf

Comment #119703

Posted by Michael Suttkus, II on August 15, 2006 8:20 AM (e)

Grey Wolf wrote:

Do they really loose money in court cases?

Time is money, as they say. The idiot trial team that took up the school board’s case pro bono lost money because they weren’t spending time on cases where they could make a profit.

Grey Wolf wrote:

The bunch of idiots that pushed ID got voted out, but they were shielded from responsibility, weren’t they? (A mistake, in my view - they should be put to jail for sheer incompetence if not malice, but I’m sure that there are reasons why school district boards are not responsible for their actions - the guy that even lied to court has not even been charged, has he?).

I remember reading at the time that the prosecutor’s office was considering criminal charges against at least some of the school board members, but if anything has come of itI haven’t heard about it.

Comment #119708

Posted by Michael Suttkus, II on August 15, 2006 8:20 AM (e)

Grey Wolf wrote:

Do they really loose money in court cases?

Time is money, as they say. The idiot trial team that took up the school board’s case pro bono lost money because they weren’t spending time on cases where they could make a profit.

Grey Wolf wrote:

The bunch of idiots that pushed ID got voted out, but they were shielded from responsibility, weren’t they? (A mistake, in my view - they should be put to jail for sheer incompetence if not malice, but I’m sure that there are reasons why school district boards are not responsible for their actions - the guy that even lied to court has not even been charged, has he?).

I remember reading at the time that the prosecutor’s office was considering criminal charges against at least some of the school board members, but if anything has come of itI haven’t heard about it.

Comment #119713

Posted by Michael Suttkus, II on August 15, 2006 8:26 AM (e)

Grey Wolf wrote:

Do they really loose money in court cases?

Time is money, as they say. The idiot trial team that took up the school board’s case pro bono lost money because they weren’t spending time on cases where they could make a profit.

Grey Wolf wrote:

The bunch of idiots that pushed ID got voted out, but they were shielded from responsibility, weren’t they? (A mistake, in my view - they should be put to jail for sheer incompetence if not malice, but I’m sure that there are reasons why school district boards are not responsible for their actions - the guy that even lied to court has not even been charged, has he?).

I remember reading at the time that the prosecutor’s office was considering criminal charges against at least some of the school board members, but if anything has come of itI haven’t heard about it.

Comment #119714

Posted by Michael Suttkus, II on August 15, 2006 8:30 AM (e)

See, now that’s annoying.

I tried to post the response and the server went down.

I waited until the main page reloaded and checked to see if it listed any new posts by me. It did not, so I posted again. The server timed out again.

So, again, I waited until the main page would reload, checked to see if anything I had sent had gone through, confirmed that it had not, and posted again, only to find that the server had gone down again.

I continued this sequence for about 40 minutes. It’s lucky only three copies of my post have appeared.

Comment #119723

Posted by stevaroni on August 15, 2006 9:39 AM (e)

Do they really loose money in court cases? This last time their buts were kicked, IIRC, the only money on the line was that of the school district.

Yeah, but that’s enough. DI can’t fight without proxies ready to carry the flag into battle, and now there’s a clear precedent that any school district foolish enough to actively promote ID is at risk of a million-dollar fine.

Regardless of the personal views of the school board, the district lawyer pointing out a million dollar liability that’s not covered by insurance gets a lot of attention.

The kind of attention that instills enough caution that it’s often going to result in “Lets pass and let someone else fight this battle”, and that’s good enough in my book.

Comment #119724

Posted by Grey Wolf on August 15, 2006 9:44 AM (e)

Michael Suttkus, II wrote:

Time is money, as they say. The idiot trial team that took up the school board’s case pro bono lost money because they weren’t spending time on cases where they could make a profit.

See, I don’t count that anymore than Behe’s time. Since there is no such thing as bad publicity, the time spent on this case promoted the Thomas More Law Center far more than any PR campaign could’ve - particularly amongst their target demographics, far right christian groups. They can say that they have defended Christianity from the attack of those “dastardly atheist scientists” and if they lost was only because of that “fascist and activist judge”.

What is worse, it is painfully obvious that they didn’t spend that much time on the case anyway - as someone has pointed out recently, the whole “presenting Behe with 30+ articles that talked about the evolution of the immunology system” should’ve been seen coming from a mile away, and the defense lawyers only sat and stared while their main expert was completely annihilated.

No, I do not think that we can count the time spent on this trial as “payment” - it is, like the millions they spend in PR campaigns, money spent in promotion of ID.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf

Comment #119731

Posted by Grey Wolf on August 15, 2006 9:58 AM (e)

stevaroni wrote:

Regardless of the personal views of the school board, the district lawyer pointing out a million dollar liability that’s not covered by insurance gets a lot of attention.

The kind of attention that instills enough caution that it’s often going to result in “Lets pass and let someone else fight this battle”, and that’s good enough in my book.

Until you get a district lawyer that is also deluded by the DI, or a board that will rather listen to the DI and the Thomas More Law Center and believes them when they say that *this time* they will not mention Jesus in the meetings and that yes, they will win the case court if it comes up.

Remember, the creationists *are* gullible. They have to be, to believe the transparent lies of the creationists think tanks. And anyone is far more likely to put money on the line when that money is not actually their money. In this case, the children in the Dover school area now have a $1.000.000 less budget to improve installations, pay for books, etc. Did it cost creationists anything? Well, two of them got kicked out of the school board. That is *it*. That is the whole sum of their responsibility in this issue! They weren’t fined, or imprisoned, or punished in any way. Yes, ID is now completely useless, but in five years’ time they will have come up with a new set of soundbites, a new formula that makes them look scientific at first glance and another school area will pay for it.

No matter how much I look at it, I don’t actually see creationists paying for their crimes against knowledge, except in very abstract ways of “their work for the last ten years is now in the bin”. They have made a lot of money in this 10 years, and I’m sure they will cheerfully spend another 10 collecting money from church-goers to pay for their great life style while they come up with the next disguise for creationism. It is certainly not going to stop them or even discourage them.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf

Comment #119735

Posted by Michael Suttkus, II on August 15, 2006 10:14 AM (e)

Maybe what we need is a civil suit against the Dover creationists. Since the idiots deprived the school of valuable funding, any person now lacking those resources should have the right to sue them for suffering entailed.

Comment #119792

Posted by Bruce Thompson GQ on August 15, 2006 12:10 PM (e)

The good Rev Dr writes:

I love the smell of creationists frying themselves in court in the morning.

I prefer bacon at Denny’s.

Delta Pi Gamma (Scientia et Fermentum)

Comment #119876

Posted by fnxtr on August 15, 2006 8:25 PM (e)

So, Mr. Delay: what’s the difference between teaching kids we’re all born under a cabbage leaf and teaching Genesis?

Comment #119877

Posted by Anonymous_Coward on August 15, 2006 8:39 PM (e)

And their reluctance to comment when asked if other religions should get equal time in the classroom only goes to show they are all liars.

Comment #120029

Posted by Aagcobb on August 16, 2006 1:51 PM (e)

Maybe what we need is a civil suit against the Dover creationists. Since the idiots deprived the school of valuable funding, any person now lacking those resources should have the right to sue them for suffering entailed.

You can’t, the schoolboard members who voted for the ID policy are immune from suit. But thats a good thing; otherwise, the creationists would undoubtably be threatening to sue members of other school boards for allowing evolution to be taught.

Comment #120036

Posted by steve s on August 16, 2006 2:43 PM (e)

no doubt the UDers are going to get all pissed off about this part of the article:

“The old creation science is the new intelligent design. And yes, I think it’s scientifically valid,” DeLay said.

Comment #120131

Posted by Anonymous_Coward on August 17, 2006 3:24 AM (e)

“The old creation science is the new intelligent design. And yes, I think it’s scientifically valid,” DeLay said.

I agree with DeLay.

It has been scientifically proven that the old creation science IS the new intelligent design.

Comment #135995

Posted by jonny on September 30, 2006 2:10 AM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'script'