Yesterday I mentioned the spin-miesters at the Discovery Institute doing their level best to spin the Dover Decision in their posts called the '10 Myths About Dover' in my "Merry Kitzmas!" post. I had a little time tonight and looked at their Myth No. 7, " Ten Myths About Dover: #7, "The Dover Case Showed ID Is 'Religious' and a Form of 'Creationism'" ". I was planning on commenting on just the title, at least at first, but then I read it . . . all of it . . .warning, it's huge! What they are trying to do is re-try the case, seriously . . . read it yourself. Of course they are re-trying the case by only presenting their side! It's hilarious!
In all honesty, I don't see anything new here. It's a re-hash of things said time and time again since the trial, including their comments in the Montana Law Review. It really is funny. Especially this part:
Here's what Scott Minnich testified:Now a question . . . would you expect anything else from two of the ID Proponents during their testimony? Of course the DI forgets all about the cross examination? If they are going to re-present their side, they should at least present the entire argument. Well, their definition of fair and mine are obviously different. However, did they forget that in order for ID to be science, Behe wanted to expand the definition of science to allow supernatural causation? So under cross-examination Behe admits supernatural causation, but under examination by defense he denies the need. And they wonder why the Judge didn't accept everything they said as gospel?
Q. Do you have an opinion as to whether intelligent design requires the action of a supernatural creator? A. I do.Similarly Michael Behe testified:
Q. What is that opinion?
A. It does not.
Q. Does intelligent design require the action of a supernatural creator acting outside the laws of nature?
(Scott Minnich, Nov. 3 PM Testimony, pp. 45-46, 135.)
Q. Do you have an opinion as to whether intelligent design requires the action of a supernatural creator? A. Yes, I do.
Q. And what is that opinion?
A. No, it doesn't.
(Michael Behe, Oct. 17 AM Testimony, p. 86.)
One more laugh. Over in Ten Myths About Dover: #9, "The ID Movement Had Its Day in Court" they claimed to have not had their day in court . . . yet in addition to their proponents testifying, they bring up in this 'myth' the amicus brief they gave to Judge Jones to try and 'help' during the trial. According to a google search, in legal terms it means:
"An amicus curiae (literally, friend of the court; plural, amici curiae) is someone who is not a party to a case and offers information that bears on the case, but who has not been solicited by any of the parties to assist a court. This may take the form of legal opinion, testimony or learned treatise (the amicus brief) and is a way to introduce concerns ensuring that the possibly broad legal effects of a court decision will not depend solely on the parties directly involved in the case." (Wikipedia)Yes they weren't party, but they certainly had a vested interest. All on their own they provided this information . . . and yet they claim to not have had their day in court! I underlined one part of the definition I wanted to mention: 'possibly broad legal effects of a court decision '. So, the DI provided an amicus brief designed . . . pun intended . . . to insure that any possible broad legal effects had their input. After the trial they whined that Jude Jones overstepped, yet they themselves were hoping for a broad legal effect . . . but only if it went in their favor.
Well, you can read the rest of their post if you want, but be prepared to take some time. They pretty much re-tried and re-presented their entire side of the trial . . . a trial in which they keep trying to distance themselves. If you want a quick laugh you can read how they re-wrote history with their re-telling of the story of "Of Pandas and People'. This part is particularly amusing:
"Again, up to this point, "creationism" was the only game in town. Sometimes in the earliest days, in fact, ID advocates used that very term. But they clearly meant something different by it than did actual "creationists." Obviously, they could not have anticipated the way Darwin defenders would later seize on the strategy of using ambiguous or multivalent language ("creationism," "evolution") to sow confusion among the public and in the media. "ID advocates used the term 'creationism', but meant something different that how 'creationists' used it. Does anyone believe this? And, pretty typically, they accuse real science of sowing confusion, their own favorite tactic. Remember the bait and switch with the word 'Theory' and who could forget 'Academic Freedom' which has nothing to do with actual academic freedom. Ah yes, they love confusion, it's their ironic accusation that amuses me.
OK, enough! I'm not planning to read this one again. I wonder what they have in mind for Myth 6? Eventually they have to renew their attacks on Judge Jones. My guess is Myth #1 will focus there. Who will they attack next? Tammy Kitzmiller? The biology teachers in Dover? How about reporters covering the trial?