Courts

Judge Jones ruled that rational and evidential challenges to Darwinian orthodoxy cannot be tolerated in public education because they violate the First Amendment. It now appears that using religious images in a high school art class assignment is unconstitutional, but only if those religious images are Christian.

A high school student has filed a lawsuit because he was “expelled” for drawing a cross and using a biblical reference in an art class assignment.

MADISON, Wis. — A Tomah High School student has filed a federal lawsuit alleging his art teacher censored his drawing because it featured a cross and a biblical reference.

The lawsuit alleges other students were allowed to draw “demonic” images and asks a judge to declare a class policy prohibiting religion in art unconstitutional.

“We hear so much today about tolerance,” said David Cortman, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal advocacy group representing the student. “But where is the tolerance for religious beliefs? The whole purpose of art is to reflect your own personal experience. To tell a student his religious beliefs can legally be censored sends the wrong message.”
Read More ›

I’m pleased to announce the IDEA Center’s new Executive Director has just rolled out her own website:

IntellectualHonesty.info

I met with Dr. Crocker recently at a screening of the movie Expelled. She will be featured prominently in the movie!

The Darwinists have framed the ID debate as being about what should and should not be taught in the public school science classroom. I speculate that the debate over the public school classroom is another example of Bulverism.

As I pointed out here, the real issue is whether life is designed. If so, most every other question pales in comparison. And also lost in the Darwinist Bulverism is whether individuals in universities will have the chance to answer the question of design for themselves, and whether these individuals will have the freedom to tell others what they discover.

The whole time I was a part of the GMU IDEA club, our club officially refrained from taking a position on what should or should not be taught in science classes both in the public schools and universities. Not that the issue was unimportant, but the issue was not to be the focus of IDEA at GMU. In fact, I personally have lobbied that for the time being, instead of the science classroom, ID and creation science could be discussed and studied elsewhere. [See: My correspondence with Eugenie Scott on ID in the universities.]
Read More ›

From Evolution News and Views: More than 50 years ago two playwrights penned a fictionalized account of the 1920s Scopes Trial called “Inherit the Wind” that is now universally regarded by historians as inaccurate propaganda. Last night PBS aired its “Judgment Day: Intelligent Design” documentary, which similarly promotes propaganda about the 2005 Kitzmiller trial and intelligent design (ID). Most of the misinformation in “Judgment Day” was corrected by ID proponents long ago. To help readers sift the fact from the fiction, here are links to articles rebutting some of PBS’s most blatant misrepresentations:

I highly recommend this from the Discovery Institute: (Free Video) How To Teach the Controversy Legally (DvD Order Details) How To Teach the Controversy Legally

The act, often abbreviated “PERA” (Public Expression of Religion Act) was introduced introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives in 2006 and was passed by a strong majority. It was not considered by the Senate in 2006. Sam Brownback (R-Kansas) has reintroduced it to the Senate for 2007. The act prohibits the award of attorney’s fees in 1st amendment establishment clause cases which are characterized by citizens suing the government (federal or local) for things like having a cross in a city seal, a monument with the ten commandments in a courthouse, or (directly relevant to ID) putting a sticker in a textbook saying evolution is a theory not a fact (Cobb County), or telling a biology class that there Read More ›

This from Ooblick.com, Andrew Arensburger’s Blog. He’s planning a re-enactment podcast of the Dover trial, and is looking for voice talent to participate. PZ Myers advertised it on his website, so was jokingly named as Casting Director, and I guess that I have to shoulder the blame for that, since I’m the one who lied about PZ Myers’ casting directorship, and now I’m having to take the heat.

Andrew said he had asked PZ to advertise the project, since he has a large audience. Well OK Andrew, now you have your thunder back. You’re the casting director, and anyone interested can reach you at Ooblick.com/pandas/ (record corrected), and please Andrew, don’t get on DonaldM so hard. You know, chutzpah is not such a bad quality to have (actually ḥuá¹£pâ). By Wikipedia’s definition, “Chutzpah can be used to express admiration for non-conformist but gutsy audacity.” Does that not fit PZ or what!?

I thought it would be nice to help Andrew with the podcast, so I offered a few suggestions, not just for a podcast, but for a four act play that would definitely bring in some bucks. So I commented on his blog, an put forth some ideas:

Don’t believe everything you read Andy, but thanx anyway for taking me literally! And good luck with you podcast. I really think a four act play would be better, tho. Here’s a compendium:
Read More ›

The Scientist reports today on the unfolding Congressional probe into the Sternberg case. The following paragraph caught my attention: NCSE spokesman Nicholas Matzke said his group was not part of an effort to dismiss Sternberg. “A lot of people at the Smithsonian were mad because their journal was dragged into a political issue. We wanted them to focus on the science and not persecute or discriminate against Sternberg on religious grounds,” Matzke told The Scientist. “We advised them not to fire Sternberg,” he said, “and they eventually followed our advice.” My understanding is that the NCSE did everything just short of asking the Smithsonian to fire Sternberg (does the “S” in “NCSE” stand for sleazy?). But hey, let’s not beat Read More ›

Barbara Forrest, the official historian for the anti-ID side, has a piece of revisionist history in the latest Skeptical Inquirer (see here). It is titled “The Vise Strategy Undone.” Since I’m the inventor of the Vise Strategy and one of the principal targets of her piece, let me offer a few corrections: (1) I wrote up the Vise Strategy for the Thomas More Law Center to assist them in interrogating the expert witnesses on the other side (for the full Vise Strategy go here; by the way, I gave this to the Thomas More people as a freebee). Forrest’s piece suggests that the Vise Strategy was tried and found wanting. In fact, the Thomas More attorneys never implemented it — Read More ›

Settlement puts lid on thought

By LARRY TAYLOR
Published on: 12/21/06

Once again, the potent combination of a liberal judge and the deep pockets of the American Civil Liberties Union have proved too much to overcome. Read More ›

The “science” of evolution can’t withstand even mild criticism so they resort to financial intimidation to win the day. Cobb county, Georgia, didn’t teach evolution at all in their high schools. A few years ago they decided to start teaching it and placed the following sticker in the textbook: This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered. The ACLU sued the school district, won in the lower court, the ruling was appealed, and the higher court remanded the case back down to the lower court for a do-over saying the original trial evidence was flawed. Read More ›

The Rembrandt of flash animation and I are working to enhance “The Judge Jones School of Law.” As a first step we have made the animation less offensive to more refined sensibilities. All the overt flatulence has therefore been removed. Go to www.overwhelmingevidence.com for the less objectional version of this animation (we are keeping the original, however, so that when the history of evolution’s demise is written, all versions of this animation will be available to historians).

Judge Jones — by accepting widespread praise for the most salient and important part of his decision in its written form, without acknowledging the true authors — has implicitly taken credit for what was not his. In my view, this constitutes de facto plagiarism, and it should be called what it is. What say you?

ID is dead and has been defeated by real science. But if so, why is Judge John E. Jones III the plenary speaker at the big Botany & Plant Biology Joint Congress this summer (see below)? Could it be that the scientists at this meeting have failed to defeat ID on scientific grounds and thus are looking to do it in on legal and political grounds? Plenary Speaker Judge John E. Jones III Plenary Address Sunday, July 8, 7:30 pm Title & Location to be Announced ———————————— In 2005 Judge Jones presided over the landmark case of Kitzmiller v. Dover School District, after which he held that it was unconstitutional to teach intelligent design within a public school science curriculum. Read More ›

A hilarious flash animation of Judge Jones as a pull-string doll appears over at www.overwhelmingevidence.com. The humor is, granted, adolescent, but this is a site for high school students, and they are, after all, the ones that Judge Jones’s decision disenfranchised.

Judge Jones tours the American countryside seeking the adulation of our intellectual elite and extolling the genius of his Kitzmiller v. Dover decision. The press release below indicates that Jones let the ACLU essentially dictate his decision. Instead of original and impeccable reasoning, Jones uncritically took extensive material from the ACLU’s proposed “findings of fact and conclusions of law” and either copied it directly or modified it ever so slightly. Outside the legal system this is called plagiarism. But since judges are allowed to draw on briefs of the parties, this is called legal scholarship. Even so, courts frown on decisions in which judges extensively copy and paste from other briefs — which is exactly what Jones did! Wired Magazine voted Jones one of the sexiest geeks of 2005. Time characterized him as a legal genius. Truth be told, Jones is a narcissistic putz.

In case you have trouble downloading the Discovery article cited below, i.e., “A Comparison of Judge Jones’ Opinion …”, I’ve uploaded it on the UD server here: www.uncommondescent.com/documentation/Comparing_Jones_and_ACLU.pdf.

“Masterful” Federal Ruling on Intelligent Design Was Copied from ACLU

Seattle — The key section of the widely-noted court decision on intelligent design issued a year ago on December 20 was copied nearly verbatim from a document written by ACLU lawyers, according to a study released today by scholars affiliated with the Discovery Institute. [Go here.]

“Judge John Jones copied verbatim or virtually verbatim 90.9% of his 6,004-word section on whether intelligent design is science from the ACLU’s proposed ‘Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law’ submitted to him nearly a month before his ruling,” said Dr. John West, Vice President for Public Policy and Legal Affairs at Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture.

“Ironically, Judge Jones has been hailed as ‘an outstanding thinker’ for his ‘masterful’ ruling, and even honored by Time magazine as one of the world’s ‘most influential people’ in the category of ‘scientists and thinkers,'” said West. “But Jones’ analysis of the scientific status of intelligent design contains virtually nothing written by Jones himself. This finding seriously undercuts the credibility of a central part of the ruling.”

The study notes that, while judges routinely make use of proposed findings of fact, “the extent to which Judge Jones simply copied the language submitted to him by the ACLU is stunning. For all practical purposes, Jones allowed ACLU attorneys to write nearly the entire section of his opinion analyzing whether intelligent design is science. As a result, this central part of Judge Jones’ ruling reflected essentially no original deliberative activity or independent examination of the record on Jones’ part.”

Jones’ copying was so uncritical that he even reprinted a number of factual errors originally made by ACLU attorneys.

For example, Jones claimed that biochemist Michael Behe, when asked about articles purporting to explain the evolution of the immune system, responded that the articles were “not ‘good enough.'” Behe actually said the exact opposite: “it’s not that they aren’t good enough. It’s simply that they are addressed to a different subject.” Jones’ misrepresentation of Behe came directly from the ACLU’s “Findings of Fact.” Read More ›