The Discovery Institute says it, they believe it, that settles it

That bumper sticker might come back to haunt them. The normal version is "God said it. I believe it. That settles it." So, they've explicitly set up the Jones/Evolution vs. God/ID dichotomy. Pretty strange behavior for a bunch of (supposed) scientists.

Sometimes I really wonder if the Disco Institute has staff meetings at which they slap their foreheads and cry in Homeric chagrin, "Doooh!" For instance, after Behe on the stand at Dover, or after one of many "about face"-s on their policy towards El Tejon, testifying in Dover, etc. etc.

Obviously, even if they do recognize the amount of stupidity that overtly comes across to even the general public, they immediately throw it in the spin cycle of the Media Complaints Division, print up flyers, and pray that the Designer covers it with grace.

It must be either an American thing or I am thick (both a possibility with the latter being more likely) but this seems to me to be saying that they agree with the Dover decision. Is this sarcasm from an institute that REALLY doesn't get sarcasm?

Was I reading a different decision? The Dover decision basically said that the Dover School Board could not teach ID in science classes (a DI cop out of convenience I note), that ID was religiously motivated despite protestations, that ID is the latest guise of creationism, and that ID was not science.

If I were an IDCist I would want people to forget that Judge Jones (a judge not a scientist) noticed the religious underpinnings and scientific vacuity of ID. Isn't this bumper sticker reminding them? Are they merely trying to insinuate that Jones is acting as god and that all us ID critics are the moronic followers of an authoritarian mandate? Do these people have NO sense of irony at all?

louis:

They are using the tactics of all fundies. deny and deny.

No, they have no sense of humor.

Because they are followers they assume everyone is.

I would like to propose to the faculty that we promote "the dr rev lenny flank' the the high honor of pope.

No, they have no sense of humor.

— ts

I love those Judge Jones bumper stickers! I can't help but feel that the DI haven't quite grasped the concept of subtle irony there.

I constantly struggle with myself over the distinctly antisocial tendency I have to roll around on the floor laughing and pointing at people and writing sarcastic and satirical rants about ridiculous behavior, and my understanding that I am not without sin and probably shouldn't throw any stones.

I sometimes feel like they are my children making silly mistakes and I should feel empathy and allow them their moments of utter stupidity and lack of understanding.

But in the midst of my search for common ground, they speak. Or write. And I realize that there is no common ground. So, until I can find some common ground, Judge jones said it, I believe it, that settles it.

Hee Hee.

As a law student, I have been amazed that this most important of Kitzmiller holdings is unsupported by any legal reasoning.

— Michael Francisco

I'd like to offer a more accurate bumper sticker:

The School Board believed it.
Kitzmiller didn't.
Judge Jones settled it!

"The breathtaking inanity of the board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial."

Actually, isn't the "Judge Jones said it, I believe it, that settles it" bumper sticker rather ironic? I gather it's supposed to be facetious, but that's actually the attitude fundamentalists profess about the Bible. So even at this level they're two-faced. I guess that's what happens when you've convinced yourself that any idea is a good one as long as you believe it. I guess that's why they don't like science because it requires rigor, empirical data, clear thinking and precludes the use of dogmatic assumptions.

" The scientists recent finding on the chimp that it has stunning similarities with man having a difference of 3 to 4% in DNA test has revived the controversy. It has not only made it live but also set a proper battle to be fought between the champions of ID and supporters of Darwin's theory of Man's evolution. Dr. Raj Baldev, Cosmo Theorist from India, the head of SAROUL (Scientific Advance Research of Universe and Life) is quite confident that the discipline of ID is a scientific reality. He said, "It is the strongest of the strongest, and I want all the champions of Intelligent Design (ID) to come on one platform to counter them with a proper argument so as to save the people from being misled by Darwinism.

oops, published that last one in the wrong thread. Sorry.

Once again, Matzke sees controversy and contradiction where none exist. He's grasping at straws here. For example the supposed "contradictory" quotes under the heading To put ID in science curricula, or not to put ID in science curricula?, are not at all contradictory. Supporting the inclusion of ID in science curriculum is not the same as supporting that the teaching of ID be (pay close attention now Matzke), mandated. Sure the DI would favor the former, but they have not and do not support the latter. These are two completely different things. One seeks to remove obtacles to the inclusion of ID, the other would seek a regulatory mandate.

The same thing is true of every one of the other supposed "contradictions". The supposed "contradictions" that Matzke sees are vapor.

Posted by Donald M on January 29, 2006 03:24 PM (e) Once again, Matzke sees controversy and contradiction where none exist. He's grasping at straws here. For example the supposed "contradictory" quotes under the heading To put ID in science curricula, or not to put ID in science curricula?, are not at all contradictory...

Comment #76030 posted by PvM on January 27, 2006 12:10 PM Michael Francisco wrote: "As a law student, I have been amazed that this most important of Kitzmiller holdings is unsupported by any legal reasoning." And yet, the Discovery Institute's own amicus brief argued that since ID is science it serves a secular purpose and cannot violate the establishment clause. Perhaps Michael is onto something, namely that the DI's own amicus brief is unsupported by any legal reasoning?

Why would an ID proponent want it taught in a classroom? Shouldn't they do some research first?

Donald,

You seem, most unusually for a multiple poster, sincere in asking your question. Do take your question and approach it as objectively as you can.
If you try at all, you are sure to find why you were warned about having your head in the sand: nothing about "I.D." is composed of even the smallest percentage of honest scientific inquiry, or directed toward educating children about the present state of what is known about science. It is entirely the position of a powerful minority of fanatics (and charlatans) perhaps entirely UNABLE to present more than that selected, most-untruthful and dishonest, half portion of "truth."

The Discovery Institute says it, they believe it, that settles it Nick Matzke posted Entry 1947 on January 27, 2006 02:53 AM. (opening comment in thread) I have been reading some of the responses to the Kitzmiller decision from the Discovery Institute and essays they have linked to. There are some interesting contradictions between the various current essays, and between the current essays and past statements from ID advocates.

I see no reason why the scientific challenges that the ID paradigm has posed to Darwinian evolution can not be discussed or mentioned in a science classroom...even at taxpayer expense. No one is suggesting, let alone advocating that such discussions include religious content.

Re "One of the briefs, from 85 scientists, actually asked Judge Jones to not rule on the scientific merits of ID."
A bunch of people asked the judge to not rule on the matter that was being brought to court for a ruling? Did I miss something here?

Henry

This misses the point entirely. What the DI has consistently supported is the removal of outright bans on even mentioning let alone teaching ID in science class.

Russell:

I don't have the decision handy, but I could've sworn Jones said that the request to "mention but not teach" was disingenuous, because ID is a religious doctine and not science. So he said something essentially meaning that a "non-religious" mentiion of a religious doctrine is neither possible nor permitted, and that even mentioning *as potentially scientific* a religious doctrine is not constitutional.

What Jones made clear (to me, at least) that he was concerned about was that some high school biology teachers ARE creationists, the distinction between "mentioning" and teaching creationism is certainly not at all clear, and that anything along the lines of Donald M's "permitted but not mandated" constitutes a loophole through which one could march a small army of preachers, if one were (as too many are) so inclined.

And so I'll ask you just what I asked Donald M: Just how would you go about mention ID (or reincarnation, for that matter) in science class, without lending the weight of the venue to whatever doctrine you mention? What is mentioned in science class IS SCIENCE ipso facto. Jones knows it, I know it, and you can bet Donald M knows it too. The DI RELIES on it.

I don't have the decision handy,...

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1. A declaratory judgment is hereby issued in favor of Plaintiffs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 such that Defendants' ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and Art. I, § 3 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 2. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 65, Defendants are permanently enjoined from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District. 3. Because Plaintiffs seek nominal damages, Plaintiffs shall file with the Court and serve on Defendants, their claim for damages and a verified statement of any fees and/or costs to which they claim entitlement. Defendants shall have the right to object to any such fees and costs to the extent provided in the applicable statutes and court rules.

Russell:

OK, maybe my memory is playing tricks. But nonetheless, I wonder how you would go about "mentioning but not teaching" ID in a science class. How would you make it clear that this is not science? How would you justify mentioning it in the context of a science class? How would you word it? How would you field any questions about it?

When you get right down to it, having the administrators read that now-disallowed statement before the class, surely constitutes the sort of "mention but not teach" the ID advocates were trying to accomplish. If that wasn't a mention-without-teaching, what is? And it was STILL held unconstitutional.

Second, the administrators made the remarkable and awkward statement, as part of the disclaimer, that "there will be no other discussion of the issue and your teachers will not answer questions on the issue." (P-124). Dr. Alters explained that a reasonable student observer would conclude that ID is a kind of "secret science that students apparently can't discuss with their science teacher" which he indicated is pedagogically "about as bad as I could possibly think of." (14:125-27 (Alters)). Unlike anything else in the curriculum, students are under the impression that the topic to which they are introduced in the disclaimer, ID, is so sensitive that the students and their teachers are completely barred from asking questions about it or discussing it.[footnote 7] [footnote 7:] Throughout the trial and in various submissions to the Court, defendants vigorously argue that the reading of the statement is not "teaching" ID but instead is merely "making students aware of it." In fact, one consistency among the Dover School Board members' testimony, which was marked by selective memories and outright lies under oath, as will be discussed in more detail below, is that they did not think they needed to be knowledgeable about ID because it was not being taught to the students. We disagree. Dr. Alters, the District's own science teachers, and Plaintiffs Christy Rehm and Steven Stough, who are themselves teachers, all made it abundantly clear by their testimony that an educator reading the disclaimer is engaged in teaching, even if it is colossally bad teaching. See, e.g., Trial Tr. vol. 6, C. Rehm Test., 77, Sept. 28, 2005; Trial Tr. vol. 15, Stough Test., 139-40, Oct. 12, 2005. Dr. Alters rejected Dover's explanation that its curriculum change and the statement implementing it are not teaching. The disclaimer is a "mini-lecture" providing substantive misconceptions about the nature of science, evolution, and ID which "facilitates learning." (14:120-23, 15:57-59 (Alters)). In addition, superintendent Nilsen agrees that students "learn" from the statement, regardless of whether it gets labeled as "teaching." (26:39 (Nilsen)). Finally, even assuming arguendo that Defendants are correct that reading the statement is not "teaching" per se, we are in agreement with Plaintiffs that Defendants' argument is a red herring because the Establishment Clause forbids not just "teaching" religion, but any governmental action that endorses or has the primary purpose or effect of advancing religion. The constitutional violation in Epperson consisted not of teaching a religious concept but of forbidding the teaching of a secular one, evolution, for religious reasons. Epperson, 393 U.S. at 103. In addition, the violation in Santa Fe was school sponsorship of prayer at an extracurricular activity, 530 U.S. at 307-09, and the violation in Selman was embellishing students' biology textbooks with a warning sticker disclaiming evolution. 390 F. Supp. 2d at 1312.

Accordingly, we find that the classroom presentation of the disclaimer, including school administrators making a special appearance in the science classrooms to deliver the statement, the complete prohibition on discussion or questioning ID, and the "opt out" feature all convey a strong message of religious endorsement.

In summary, the disclaimer singles out the theory of evolution for special treatment, misrepresents its status in the scientific community, causes students to doubt its validity without scientific justification, presents students with a religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory, directs them to consult a creationist text as though it were a science resource, and instructs students to forego scientific inquiry in the public school classroom and instead to seek out religious instruction elsewhere. Furthermore, as Drs. Alters and Miller testified, introducing ID necessarily invites religion into the science classroom as it sets up what will be perceived by students as a "God-friendly" science, the one that explicitly mentions an intelligent designer, and that the "other science," evolution, takes no position on religion. (14:144-45 (Alters)). Dr. Miller testified that a false duality is produced: It "tells students . . . quite explicitly, choose God on the side of intelligent design or choose atheism on the side of science." (2:54-55 (Miller)). Introducing such a religious conflict into the classroom is "very dangerous" because it forces students to "choose between God and science," not a choice that schools should be forcing on them. Id. at 55. Our detailed chronology of what a reasonable, objective student is presumed to know has made abundantly clear to the Court that an objective student would view the disclaimer as a strong official endorsement of religion or a religious viewpoint.

Russell:

OK, hopefully we're together on this. "Mentioning (or "making students aware") but not teaching" seems to be explicitly identified and disallowed. So that answers the question you asked Donald M. It's a no-no. Can't do it.

Oh, Russell, by the way let me mention to you that if you're chopping jalapeno peppers be sure to wash your hands very thoroughly afterwards, and even then I'd suggest that you don't rub your eyes for a day or so.

OK, I just mentioned in passing some lore. If you heeded my advise you learned about how to handle peppers. If you didn't heed my advice then you would experience some pain before comprehending what I mentioned. In passing.

Was that teaching? I'd say so.

I think there's a big difference between the school administration announcing "The football game will start at 8pm on Friday" and announcing "Darwin's theory of evolution is wrong and you can read all about it in that book at the back of the classroom."

Get my drift?

What the DI has consistently supported is the removal of outright bans on even mentioning let alone teaching ID in science class. What they do not support or advocate is that the inclusion or teaching of ID be mandated. This goes directly to Matzke's point in the OP that there's some supposed "contradiction" in the DI's position, when there is not.

The status of ID research is of no consequence to this point.

How stupid.

The status of ID research has EVERYTHING to do with this "ban" (which is restricted to the science class, by the way).

Given the past history of challenges to evolution, any challenge will probably have to reach much higher level of scrutiny, particularly when such a challenge as ID has been SHOWN to have mimicked so closely previous, religious based arguments.

No research? Then the position is not going to pass constitutional muster, given that past challenges, with similar wording and rhetoric, was explicitly religion based. One of the key ways to show that it was different was to point at actual work and evidence ID has generated.

doc bill:

I get your drift, but your drift somewhat misses the point here. Context is critical. Your advice about peppers is generically good advice. But your statement "The football game will start at 8pm on Friday" might be a neutral announcement in some classes, but it would NOT be neutral in a course teaching the dangers of violent contact sports. In THAT context, it would be a way for the school to say "we don't really mean this stuff about danger, you know." Remember, the entire goal of "mention" is to undermine the substantive content of the remainder of the lessons.

OK, hopefully we're together on this. "Mentioning (or "making students aware") but not teaching" seems to be explicitly identified and disallowed.

Jones goes to considerable length to refute the defendants' contention that they weren't teaching ID, and to show that the board's ID policy consisted of something significantly beyond "a mention".

I really don't see how you could construe what the judge wrote to forbid a science teacher making a comment like "there was an article in the newspaper this morning about evolution and ID". That would be a "mention".

Russell:

Come to think of it, the DI was pimping for *precisely* the sort of mention you just related. The only difference was, instead of an article in the newspaper, they were intending to "just mention in passing" a book of which they had 60 copies in the school library!

Not taking any position at all, oh no! Just mentioning.

Sheesh.

DI submitted two amicus briefs, not one. One of the briefs, from 85 scientists, actually asked Judge Jones to not rule on the scientific merits of ID.

Defendants' expert will show this Court that intelligent design theory, IDT, is science, a theory that's advanced in terms of empirical evidence and technical knowledge proper to scientific and academic specialties. It is not religion. . . . Indeed, the evidence will further show that intelligent design theory is really science in its purest form, the refusal to foreclose possible explanations based on the claims of the dominant theory or the conventions of the day, to proceed from the same sort of perspective that led Newton to explore and ultimately explicate gravity.

You seem, most unusually for a multiple poster, sincere in asking your question.

I see no reason why the scientific challenges that the ID paradigm has posed to Darwinian evolution can not be discussed or mentioned in a science classroom

What the DI has consistently supported is the removal of outright bans on even mentioning let alone teaching ID in science class. What they do not support or advocate is that the inclusion or teaching of ID be mandated. This goes directly to Matzke's point in the OP that there's some supposed "contradiction" in the DI's position, when there is not.

Comment #76259 posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on January 30, 2006 12:08 AM

Andy H. wrote: DI submitted two amicus briefs, not one. One of the briefs, from 85 scientists, actually asked Judge Jones to not rule on the scientific merits of ID.

From the Opening Statement in the case, made by TMLC lawyer Patrick Guillen: "Defendants' expert will show this Court that intelligent design theory, IDT, is science......"

Comment #76262 posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on January 30, 2006 12:22 AM

Donald M. wrote: What the DI has consistently supported is the removal of outright bans on even mentioning let alone teaching ID in science class. What they do not support or advocate is that the inclusion or teaching of ID be mandated. This goes directly to Matzke's point in the OP that there's some supposed "contradiction" in the DI's position, when there is not.

Since ID has been ruled illegal to teach, it doesn't matter a flying fig whether or not DI is in favor of mandating teaching it. (shrug)

The defendants were represented by the Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), not by the Discovery Institute (DI), and there is no reason why the positions of DI and TMLC should always be the same. Anyway, the plaintiffs were bringing their own expert witnesses to argue that ID is not science, so TMLC was compelled to respond by bringing its own expert witnesses to argue the opposite.

Also, there seems to be a notion here that DI is forever barred from arguing that the courts should not rule on the scientific merits of ID because DI argued in court that ID is good science. That is a very strange notion indeed.

Comment #76274 posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on January 30, 2006 07:50 AM "Also, there seems to be a notion here that DI is forever barred from arguing that the courts should not rule on the scientific merits of ID because DI argued in court that ID is good science. That is a very strange notion indeed." What is strange is your simultaneous argument that (1) ID is science and (2) no one should decide whether or not ID is science. How about you make up your friggin mind.

A quick question:

If ID is science, can you please provide me with links to studies with clearly spelled out laboratory procedures, methodology, data sets, and results?

Failing that, I'll take legitimate statistical analysis and real-world observational studies, but again, please make sure they have a properly constructed and referenced data set.

I've never seen any of these things from ID, and it appears to me to fail at a very fundamental level with regard to being science because:

- ID has not published/performed any science. They have "opinion" articles, but those are a dime a dozen. I've never seen a legitimate testable study.

- ID does not posit a non-supernatural, falsifiable, or testable theory. If this is clearly spelled out somewhere and used to predict, please let me know. Again, I'd really like to see it.

- ID always seems to be inherently religious, thanks to attributing supernatural cause to things. Regardless of what CAUSE that is, it's always supernatural. That's religion, one way or another.

But, as I said, if I'm wrong and ID is science, you should have no trouble referencing those things, so please post the links. I would like to see actual evidence for this.

There is absolutely nothing inconsistent with arguing that the courts should not decide whether ID is science and at the same time arguing that ID is science just in case the courts decide that issue.

Huh?

This is mind boggingly stupid.

It IS inconsistent; there's no two ways around that. If it's science, YOU WIN THE ARGUMENT IN COURT. You pass Go, you collect $200 and you start teaching your concepts in the classroom.

It's the ultimate winning argument---and when you argue that the judge shouldn't decide that, you raise HUGE questions in the mind of that judge, as well as everyone else's. If you had that legal/rhetorical point in your, why in hell are you throwing it away???? It looks more like you know that ID isn't science, and---ah.......hm.....

Posted by Andy H. on January 30, 2006 08:47 AM (e) ... There is absolutely nothing inconsistent with arguing that the courts should not decide whether ID is science and at the same time arguing that ID is science just in case the courts decide that issue.

If ID was science there would be no need to go to court in the first place.

ID scientists would be in the field or laboratory collecting data, performing experiments and writing papers for scientific revue.

Particularly if it were the Discovery Institute, homes to the foremost "thinkers" of ID.

And even if they weren't, their best strategy, if ID were a science, would be to point to ID research and argue THAT in court.

As it is, their charter is a bit of a muddle, with a rather confusing mission statement with respect to ID--if it were a legitimate scientific enterprise.

There is absolutely nothing inconsistent with arguing that the courts should not decide whether ID is science and at the same time arguing that ID is science just in case the courts decide that issue.

arguing that the courts should not decide whether ID is science

From the Opening Statement by TMLC attorney Patrick Guillen: Defendants' expert will show this Court that intelligent design theory, IDT, is science, a theory that's advanced in terms of empirical evidence and technical knowledge proper to scientific and academic specialties. It is not religion.... Indeed, the evidence will further show that intelligent design theory is really science in its purest form, the refusal to foreclose possible explanations based on the claims of the dominant theory or the conventions of the day, to proceed from the same sort of perspective that led Newton to explore and ultimately explicate gravity.

This misses the point entirely. What the DI has consistently supported is the removal of outright bans on even mentioning let alone teaching ID in science class. What they do not support or advocate is that the inclusion or teaching of ID be mandated.

Comment #76287 posted by gwangung on January 30, 2006 10:40 AM "There is absolutely nothing inconsistent with arguing that the courts should not decide whether ID is science and at the same time arguing that ID is science just in case the courts decide that issue." This is mind boggingly stupid. It IS inconsistent; there's no two ways around that. If it's science, YOU WIN THE ARGUMENT IN COURT. You pass Go, you collect $200 and you start teaching your concepts in the classroom. It's the ultimate winning argument----and when you argue that the judge shouldn't decide that, you raise HUGE questions in the mind of that judge, as well as everyone else's.

Comment #76350 posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on January 30, 2006 06:52 PM "arguing that the courts should not decide whether ID is science" I'll repeat once more for you, since you don't seem to be too terribly bright:

Posted by Andy H. on January 31, 2006 03:01 AM (e) .... You also get to start teaching your concepts in the classroom if the courts don't rule on the scientific merits of ID and irreducible complexity (IC) but simply rule that ID or IC is not a religious concept. There is only a constitutional separation of church and state --- there is no constitutional separation between the state and bad science, pseudoscience......

Andy H wrote: ...it may be even harder now for articles on irreducible complexity to be accepted by the mainstream peer-reviewed scientific journals

You also get to start teaching your concepts in the classroom if the courts don't rule on the scientific merits of ID and irreducible complexity (IC) but simply rule that ID or IC is not a religious concept.

I'll repeat once more for you, since you don't seem to be too terribly bright: Your above post is a virtual repetition of your Comment #76259 and the second part of your Comment #76274. My answers are in Comment #76276 and Comment #76382.

Many evolutionists who complain about evolution theory being "singled out" for criticism see nothing wrong with asking the courts to "single out" irreducible complexity for condemnation and censorship. As a result of Jones' Dover decision, it may be even harder now for articles on irreducible complexity to be accepted by the mainstream peer-reviewed scientific journals. What kind of a level playing field is that ?

Comment #76396 posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on January 31, 2006 08:17 AM "You also get to start teaching your concepts in the classroom if the courts don't rule on the scientific merits of ID and irreducible complexity (IC) but simply rule that ID or IC is not a religious concept." Um, in case you didn't notice, the courts HAVE ruled on the scientific merits of ID. They ruled it has none. You lost. Get used to it.

OK, since this is just Larry the Crank, I will no longer respond to him.

This is somewhat off-topic, but in honor of LAndy Hman proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is violating Rule 6 (just like Of Pandas and People!), I thought I'd bring attention to an article in the York Daily Record. Basically, Judge Jones has ordered the plaintiffs' attorneys to submit their claims by February 15th, and the board has until March 10th to respond. So we should know the actual costs by mid-month - which just happens to be my birthday. Just 15 days until we can determine just how "inflated" (snicker) those attorneys fees really are, in a case the good judge described thus: "This is -- if it's not the largest trial that's been heard in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, it equates with the largest trial, certainly in recent memory."

Oh and btw, Larry/Andy/John (who would you like to be today?), the ruling is binding on not just the Dover Area School District, but the entirety of the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

One last aside, while I've got your attention, B.H.man - I've uncovered a bit more information about the email from the solicitor. If you admit to posting as Larry, Andy, and John, I'll let you know what I discovered. As an added bonus for you, I will even admit to an error I made.

Comment #76642 posted by W. Kevin Vicklund on February 1, 2006 12:58 AM The ruling is binding on not just the Dover Area School District, but the entirety of the Middle District of Pennsylvania.