Posted by Ed on June 27, 2005 | Comments (39) | TrackBack (1)

After reading the majority opinion in the McCreary case, involving the posting of the Ten Commandments in a county courthouse, I am convinced that the ruling is extremely good news for those of us who are active in fighting the attempts of creationists (in whatever form) to weaken science education in public schools. But in order to understand why, some background is required. We've been waiting with great anticipation for this decision because it would involve the Lemon test, the set of criteria that the court has used (sometimes) for the last 35 years or so to determine whether a policy violates the Establishment Clause. The Lemon test has three prongs - purpose, effect and entanglement. In order to meet the test, a policy must have a clear secular purpose, have the effect of neither advancing not inhibiting religion, and must not unnecessarily entangle church and state.

In the battle against creationism in science classrooms, the purpose prong is very important because those who advocate putting creationism into classrooms invariably make pronouncements of religious intent. In the Dover case, for instance, the school board member who proposed putting "intelligent design" into science classrooms announced he was doing so because "someone died on a cross 2000 years ago" and it was time for someone to "take a stand for Him." But in the course of the last few years, there have been many voices on the court for either modifying or even doing away with the Lemon test, particularly the purpose prong, and many of us feared that the McCreary case might be used to renounce the test, in part or in whole. The appellants in McCreary specifically asked the court to do away with the purpose prong, arguing that it was nebulous and impossible to truly understand the purpose of a person or governing body.

Continue reading  “McCreary Ruling Good News for Science Education”

Posted by Nick Matzke on June 25, 2005 | Comments (48) | TrackBack (0)

(UPDATE: Apparently the dispute has been resolved and Dembski will be paid.  See updated post at Post-Darwinist.  Links here updated.)

Well, we don’t say this very often on The Thumb, but a hat-tip goes to pro-ID journalist Denyse O’Leary and her Post-Darwinist blog for breaking this story:

Key ID theorist threatens to sue intelligent design supporters in Dover, Pennsylvania case

Recently, this blog learned that ID theorist Bill Dembski is threatening legal action against the Thomas More Law Center for refusing to pay him for over one hundred hours of time he clocked as an expert witness in the Dover intelligent design case. The Center recently dismissed Dembski as an expert witness, in what sounds like a falling out with the mainstream ID community.

(Denyse O'Leary, Post-Darwinist)

Continue reading  “Dembski threatens to sue Dover defense”

Posted by Ed on June 19, 2005 | Comments (70) | TrackBack (5)

This story has finally been made public so we can talk about it. Within the last couple weeks, three of the main experts for the defense in the Dover ID trial - William Dembski, Stephen Meyer and John Campbell - have all been withdrawn as expert witnesses in the case. The York Daily Record reports:

Dembski, a mathematician and scientific philosopher, said the Thomas More Law Center, which is defending the school board, basically fired him because he wanted to have his own attorney present during the depositions.

He said he’s puzzled and frustrated by Thomas More’s refusal to let him participate.

"I felt like I was in the crossfire," Dembski said.

The article goes on to note that there is a basic disagreement between the Discovery Institute, of which all three are fellows, and the Thomas More Law Center, over whether the Dover policy of mandating ID in classrooms is a good idea. The DI has taken the position that it should be allowed, but not mandated, while the TMLC is defending the board's policy of mandating that teaching. Both Dembski and Thompson tried to downplay those differences a bit in the article above, but I would maintain that they go a lot deeper than is being admitted.

Continue reading  “ID Experts Withdraw from Dover Trial”

Posted by Nick Matzke on June 15, 2005 | Comments (19) | TrackBack (0)

A seventh amicus brief (pdf) in the Selman case has been put up on the NCSE Selman website (www.ncseweb.org/selman — See the previous PT post).  This brief is by national and Georgia religious groups (National Council of Jewish Women, Interfaith Alliance, and Georgia Interfaith Alliance), and addresses the question of whether the Cobb County Evolution Warning Label violates the Bill of Rights of the Georgia Constitution:

Paragraph VII. Separation of church and state. No money shall ever be taken from the public treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any church, sect, cult, or religious denomination or of any sectarian institution.

(Bill of Rights of the Georgia Constitution)

It is often the case that state constitutions are even stronger on civil rights than the Federal Constitution, so constitutional challenges to policies will often invoke the local state constitution as well as the federal constitution.

The plaintiffs’ brief in the appeal (pdf) is also now available.

Posted by Nick Matzke on June 10, 2005 | Comments (5) | TrackBack (2)

Regular patrons of The Thumb will be familiar with the case Selman v. Cobb County School District (see previous PT posts, e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6).  This was the case that tested the constitutionality of school-district mandated evolution “warning labels” in biology textbooks.  In January 2005 Judge Clarence Cooper of the Northern District of Georgia ruled that these warning labels were unconstitutional because they had an impermissable religious effect, violating the Lemon test. 

In May 2005 the disclaimers were finally removed from Cobb textbooks, but the Cobb County School Board has appealed the decision to the Eleventh Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals.  Today, the National Center for Science Education and People for the American Way filed an amicus brief explaining the history of creationist attempts to place “warning labels” about evolution in kids’ textbooks.  See the NCSE Press Release.  The history of creationist attempts to infere with the teaching of evolution, via “warning labels” and other methods, seems to have been an important consideration in Cooper’s trial court decision, and so will likely be important at the appeals court level as well.

NCSE has set up a special webpage on Selman.  NCSE’s amicus brief is not alone: so far, we know of seven other amicus briefs that are supporting Judge Cooper’s decision.  The briefs come from diverse perspectives, including scientists, science teachers, civil liberties, religious groups, grassroots groups opposed to creationism, etc.  PDFs of the briefs are being uploaded to NCSE’s Selman page as they are sent to NCSE.  See the NCSE press release and the NCSE Selman FAQ for more information, and spread the word.

Continue reading  “NCSE files amicus brief on the history of evolution "warning labels"”

Posted by Reed on April 28, 2005 | Comments (85) | TrackBack (0)

I’ve gotten a hold of five amicus briefs recently filed in support of the disclaimers placed on Cobb Country, GA biology textbooks.  These briefs have been filed with the 11th circuit court and can be found here along with other documents.

The lowlights:

1. The states of Alabama and Texas argue that separation of church and state does not exist, that biology books are innately hostile towards religion and thus may require a disclaimer to make them neutral towards religion, that the disclaimers accommodate religious students—Do these states accommodate blind students by requiring all textbooks be in Braille?—and that the disclaimers have no creationist language.

2. Chemists and other scientists, organized by the Discovery Institute, use the standard (and discredited) intelligent design talking points to argue that “neo-Darwinism” and the “chemical origin of life” are controversial, despite the fact that neither of these things are mentioned in the disclaimer.  (This brief is a reworking of an amicus brief submitted to the trial court.)

3. Roy Moore and his Foundation for Moral Law argue that the Lemon test is unconstitutional and that First Amendment does not apply in this case because the disclaimers are not a law establishing a state church.

4. The Alliance Defense Fund argues that there was only one reason that the trial court found against the disclaimer—There were actually several reasons cited by the trial court.—and that the disclaimer should be upheld because it is similar to anti-liquor, anti-homosexual, and anti-choice laws.

5. Hare Krishnas argue that the disclaimer does not just support Christians, that ruling against it is being hostile towards religion, and that the disclaimer promotes tolerance towards religious people.

Posted by Timothy Sandefur on April 26, 2005 | Comments (85) | TrackBack (2)

A parent and ID creationist in Roseville, California, has filed a libel lawsuit against National Center for Science Education Director Dr. Eugenie Scott on the basis of statements made in her recent article in California Wild magazine. The parent, Larry Caldwell, claims that Dr. Scott has impugned his character and should pay for it. But in fact, the lawsuit is a frivolous waste of the court's time and a character study in the mind of the modern ID creationist activist.

Continue reading  “Nuisance libel lawsuit against Eugenie Scott”

Posted by Timothy Sandefur on February 17, 2005 | Comments (88) | TrackBack (1)

The Texas Tech Law Review recently published an article about evolution disclaimers, which contains some interesting arguments about the creationism/evolution controversy generally. Chad Edgington, Disclaiming Darwin Without Claiming Creation: The Constitutionality of Textbook Disclaimers And Their Mutually Beneficial Effect on Both Sides of the Origins Debate, 5 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 135 (2004). Edgington (whose article was published before the Cobb County decision) argues "not only...that disclaimers which call for a critical approach to evolution are constitutional, but that a liberal policy allowing for their placement in textbooks is the most satisfactory solution to controversy surrounding the teachings of origins." Id. at 138.

Continue reading  “The heckler's veto over evolution”

Posted by Timothy Sandefur on January 31, 2005 | Comments (22) | TrackBack (1)

Francis Beckwith has an article about the Cobb County disclaimer case in Legal Times which is misleading and alarmist. According to Professor Beckwith, the decision is a threat to religious tolerance. Nothing, however, could be further from the truth.

Continue reading  “Beckwith's "burden": the First Amendment itself”

Posted by RBH on January 09, 2005 | Comments (29) | TrackBack (1)

Matt Brauer, a founding contributor to Panda’s Thumb, has been noticeably absent lately.  Courtesy of Ed Brayton we now know why.  With Constitutional scholar Stephen Gey and philosopher/historian of science Barbara Forrest (of Creationism’s Trojan Horse fame), he has been working on a massive analysis of the constitutionality of teaching ID in public schools, Is it Science Yet?: Intelligent Design Creationism and the Constitution.  Be warned!  It’s a 195-page document.  I won’t reproduce the Abstract here: the link above is to it and the working paper itself is available for download at that link.

Posted by Timothy Sandefur on January 08, 2005 | Comments (13) | TrackBack (0)

Thanks to the reader who passed on this very interesting opinion of the Attorney General of Tennessee. It turns out that in that state,

There shall be no public exhibition or display of Native American Indian human remains, except as evidence in a judicial proceeding.

Tenn. Code Ann. § 11-6-117. According to the definition section of the law, "remains" means "the bodies of deceased persons, in whatever stage of decomposition. . .." Tenn Code Ann. § 11-6-102 (7) (emphasis added).

Continue reading  “The head bone's connected to the [CENSORED]”

Posted by Timothy Sandefur on January 04, 2005 | Comments (30) | TrackBack (1)

The Spring 2004 issue of the Louisiana Law Review contains an article about the evolution/creationism controversy: Arianne Ellerbe, We Didn't Start The Fire: The Origins Science Battle Rages on More Than 75 Years After Scopes, 64 La. L. Rev. 589 (2004). (Sorry, it's not on line.) Ellerbe, a summa cum laude graduate of LSU, has received awards for her youth-ministry work, and helps run Refined By Fire Ministries. Her article, however, demonstrates significant misunderstandings of the legal issues surrounding the religion clauses of the First Amendment in general, and evolution education specifically.

Continue reading  “Law review follies (part 4,242,535) [Updated]”

Posted by Nick Matzke on December 21, 2004 | Comments (26) | TrackBack (4)

Over on Evangelical Outpost, Joe Carter just posted the following shocking passage that pretty clearly associates:

1. The statistically lower average qualifications of black students applying to law school, with
2. Natural “ability or aptitude.”

Since I’ve read Stephen Jay Gould’s Mismeasure of Man, this kind of thing really bugs me (and gives us the connection of this topic to The Panda’s Thumb).

Read it for yourself:

Continue reading  “Mismeasures on Evangelical Outpost”

Posted by Timothy Sandefur on December 17, 2004 | Comments (37) | TrackBack (6)

In a comment regarding the Dover school board case, Grand Moff Texan asks,

Isn't teaching bad science as science an act of fraud?

Couldn't parents sue a public institution for willfully damaging their children's education?

Oh, how I wish. I've long said it's one of my dreams in life to be the first attorney to successfully sue a government school teacher for malpractice. Alas, it can't be done.

Continue reading  “Suing schools for negligent science education?”

Posted by Timothy Sandefur on July 21, 2004 | Comments (35) | TrackBack (3)

The current issue of Nexus: A Journal of Opinion* features a deeply flawed student article by Crystal V. Hodgson, Coercion in The Classroom: The Inherent Tension between The Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses in The Context of Evolution. Hodgson's analysis is more honest than that of most proponents of creationism; nevertheless, her understanding of the First Amendment partakes of the confusion so common among them.

Continue reading  “Get Out of Evolution Free?”

Posted by Timothy Sandefur on June 28, 2004 | Comments (119) | TrackBack (0)

A new article in the Wake Forest Law Review provides a shoddy legal which is, alas, all too common in the religion context. Beginning with a deeply flawed understanding of the roles of the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses, the article ends up making foolish statements about creationism in the classroom.

Patrick M. Garry, Inequality Among Equals: Disparities in The Judicial Treatment of Free Speech And Religious Exercise Claims 39 Wake Forest L. Rev. 361 (2004), argues that courts tend to pay too much attention to freedom of speech, as opposed to other freedoms, and that they ought not to do this. Now, broadly speaking, this is true.

Continue reading  “More bad legal analysis”

Posted by Timothy Sandefur on April 15, 2004 | Comments (27) | TrackBack (0)

There's rumbling in Darby, Montana. The school board there seems to be ready to adopt an ID curriculum, and they anticipate lawsuits over it, although they have support from the Speaker of the House of the state legislature. But now, the board's in trouble because they held a behind-closed-doors meeting where they apparently decided to rescind a job offer extended to a new superintendent of schools, and offer it instead to another person because of his "a sense of strong spirituality."

The Ravalli Republic, a local newspaper, has filed suit against the board for its closed meetings. Now, Montana law on open meetings appears to be pretty strong--the state Constitution, Art. II s 9, declares that "No person shall be deprived of the right to...observe the deliberations of all public bodies...except in cases in which the demand of individual privacy clearly exceeds the merits of public disclosure," and under the statutes enforcing open meetings requirements, courts can void decisions made at closed-door meetings. See, e.g., Bryan v. Yellowstone County Elementary School Dist. No. 2, 312 Mont. 257, 274 (Mont.,2002) ("open meetings violations remain of utmost concern to this Court. Nothing in this opinion should be interpreted to suggest that violations of open meeting laws by any entity subject to those laws will not result in voiding decisions so reached. We will not hesitate to affirm a district court's determination to void such decisions or reverse a court's refusal to do so." quoting Common Cause of Montana v. Statutory Committee to Nominate Candidates for Com'r of Political Practices, 263 Mont. 324, 333-34 (1994)). Why the school board secrecy, though? Because not all the parents are real thrilled about their kids being taught lies. Not to mention the fact that "Both federal and Montana's civil rights acts forbid religious discrimination by employers." Wolfe v. State, Dept. of Labor and Industry, Bd. of Personnel Appeals ex rel. Helena Educ. Ass'n, 255 Mont. 336, 339 (1992). See also McCann v. Trustees, Dodson School Dist., 249 Mont. 362, 364 (1991).

Posted by Steve on April 13, 2004 | Comments (22) | TrackBack (0)

They say that sometimes truth is stranger than fiction. But for our good friends at Answers in Genesis (AiG), fiction and truth are freely interchangeable. The latest bit of hilarity comes courtesy of AiG's legal counsel, who, aside from not being able to take a joke, apparently has a poor grasp of both the legal and ethical meaning of intellectual (sic) property law.

To begin with the beginning, AiG is America's leading young-earth creationist outfit, and like all high-caliber scientific organizations, it has its own resident cartoonist. Dan Lietha writes two cartoon series which appear on AiG's website: CreationWise and After Eden. The drawings are kind of nice in an Ziggy sort of way, but they're not quite as funny as Mary Worth. Basically, they're not much more than inane creationist claims made to look cartoonish. . . um, that is, being made into visual form. But they certainly contain lots of unintentional humor, so there's only one thing left to do: Poke fun at them.

Making parodies of visual materials over the web is hardly a new thing, and as anyone familiar with the frequent Photoshop contests on Fark.com can tell you, they're a great venue for fun and artistic talent. So when participants of the Humor forum of the Internet Infidels Discussion Board (IIDB) decided to do a parody of AiG's cartoons, they were just having harmless, legally permissible fun. Right?

Continue reading  “Answers in Nemesis”

Posted by Timothy Sandefur on April 10, 2004 | Comments (26) | TrackBack (0)

Just in case you aren't as tired with the whole NCSE-violating-the-Establishment-Clause thing as I am. . .

Continue reading  “Last Word on Establishment (I Hope)”

Posted by Timothy Sandefur on April 07, 2004 | Comments (47) | TrackBack (2)

I've dealt already with the argument that the NCSE website's funding by the National Science Foundation violates the Establishment Clause, and Francis Beckwith's article really makes no new points. But I have a few more thoughts about it--and about the sloppy thinking it reveals (which is pretty common among creationists).

Continue reading  “More on Establishment”

Posted by Ed on April 07, 2004 | Comments (16) | TrackBack (0)

The ID crowd just continues to push this ridiculous argument that the Understanding Evolution website, by pointing out that evolution is not necessarily in conflict with religion and that many Christians and other types of theists accept evolution without giving up their faith, violates the establishment clause. The latest is from our old friend Francis Beckwith. This argument has been completely shredded by Timothy Sandefur, in a piece that Beckwith has no doubt seen. Yet he continues to push this, on his blog and in print. I'm sure he made a few bucks with the article in the American Spectator, but I still think it's kind of silly to keep pushing an argument this silly.

In fact, I think it's time for a challenge. Frank, I know you read this blog. If you really think you have an argument here, take it to court. If you really think this is a violation of the establishment clause, file a suit. John West is making the same argument and the DI has lots and lots of money to cover the legal fees. You and David Dewolf can design the legal strategy. I predict that you won't do it, because you know that this argument would be greeted with exactly the kind of response it is due, primarily laughter. I think you know how bad this argument is, but continue to push it, and ignore the criticisms that have been made of it, because it suits the DI's public relations agenda.