I think I have a new Favorite Newspaper!

Back during the Dover Trial, I enjoyed the coverage from the York Dispatch, which was linked from a variety of sites.  That paper was certainly discussed in Lauri Lebo's book "The Devil in Dover", which I enjoyed immensely and have mentioned in a number of previous posts.  I was on Facebook and caught a post from Lauri pointing at an editorial from the York Dispatch.  It is a masterpiece.

Here a link to the article "EDITORIAL: Ban us, you big baby".  Rather than reproduce it, I will quote a couple of things, but I heartily suggest you click the link and enjoy it in its entirety.  Like most folks, I was aware of Trump's war on the media.  I hadn't realized that some media outlets would see it as a badge of honor to be so banned  . . . and I just have to quote this:

"We also believe you’re [Trump] acting like a spoiled-rotten child — the petty poster boy for why we need a strong Fourth Estate. (It’s how the grown-ups sometimes refer to journalists, dating back to … oh, never mind.)"

I mean . . . damn!  I did also love when they ranked a Trump Event as less important than a new Starbucks grand opening!  At the end, they sign off with:

"Sincerely, and with all the respect you’re due,"

Yes, with all the respect he is due . . . LOL.  I thought it was done, but they added a little editor's note:

"(Editor’s note: This opinion piece has been changed to clarify Donald Trump has the demeanor of an over-indulged 2-year-old.)"

I hope they end up on Trump's sh** list, I cannot imagine a better place to be!  Without a doubt this has been an example of the worst side of American Politics.  Not just Trump, although he is the absolute bottom, but when you look at all of the potential candidates that started back a while ago, you can clearly see what John Oliver recently called the 'Cirque De Dismay', would you trust any of them to pet sit your dog?

Does Judge Jones Misunderstand his Critics?

Caught an article on the Discovery Institute's usual site and it made me think.  Before reading the article, I wanted to just think about the title:  "Ten Years After the Dover Case, Judge Jones Misunderstands His Critics".  Does he really misunderstand his critics?  I don't think so.

Before reading it, I thought back over the past 10 years to the Dover Trial.  I recall the reaction to Judge Jones being the one to hear the case.  In Lauri Lebo's still excellent book "The Devil In Dover", she quoted one of the contributors over on Wild Bill Dembski's blog, Uncommon Descent, describing Judge Jones:

"Judge John E. Jones on the other hand is a good old boy brought up through the conservative ranks. He was state attorney for D.A.R.E, an Assistant Scout Master with extensively involved with local and national Boy Scouts of America, political buddy of Governor Tom Ridge (who in turn is deep in George W. Bush’s circle of power), and finally was appointed by GW hisself. Senator Rick Santorum is a Pennsylvanian in the same circles (author of the “Santorum Language” that encourages schools to teach the controversy) and last but far from least, George W. Bush hisself drove a stake in the ground saying teach the controversy. Unless Judge Jones wants to cut his career off at the knees he isn’t going to rule against the wishes of his political allies. Of course the ACLU will appeal. This won’t be over until it gets to the Supreme Court. But now we own that too. "

 These seemed to be a common theme, a conservative judge, appointed by a Republican President couldn't possibly rule against Intelligent Design (ID).  Of course, as history has shown us, not only did Judge Jones rule against ID, but his ruling pretty well demolished any hope the DI had of ID being taken seriously as anything other than Creationism.  And their reaction was pretty typical, they vilified Jones.  Not only that, he was directly threatened from multiple quarters to the point he needed protection from Federal Marshals. 

John West, President of the Discovery Institute immediately called him an Activist Judge, something Judge Jones even mentioned in his ruling.  Let's talk about that for a moment.  According to most sources, Judicial activism refers to judicial rulings suspected of being based on personal or political considerations rather than on existing law.   Just in case any Creationists are reading, that bears repeating:  "personal or political considerations". 


If the Judge had allowed his Conservative roots to influence his ruling, as expected by many, wouldn't that have been an example of Judicial Activism?   It seems pretty clear to me that too many folks were expecting him to do just that!  So instead of him actually being an Activist Judge, they accuse him of being one simply because he gave a ruling they didn't like, and in a typically knee-jerk reaction call him an Activist Judge.  As I said, Judge Jones expected this and even addressed it in his conclusion:

"Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. 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. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources."

But Westie and his cronies went beyond that, they did what they usually do and wrote a book.  Yes, a Court Ruling explained that Intelligent Design is not science, so instead of going into the lab and proving the judge wrong, they wrote Traipsing into Evolution, a book-length critique of the decision.  Why am I not surprised?  When in doubt, write a book!  Don't do anything that might be mistaken for science, write a book!  Don't address the shortcomings of ID, write a book attacking the Judge who helped open the kimono and show those shortcomings to the world! It's nothing more than another example of marketing rather than taking any actual action.  What else could they have done?  You might notice that no one appealed the ruling.  You might also notice that no other school system has tried to emulate that the Creationists on the Dover Board tried to do.  You would think that the DI would want this case tried again in front of a different judge and if it was truly the act of an Activist Judge, the second ruling could very well correct it.  But for some reason no one is clamoring for a new trial.  The DI simply keeps trying to place the Judge on trial!

Judge Jones has many times addressed his critics.  Just recently he was interviewed as part of a series of articles in the York Daily Register on the Dover Decision:  "Dover intelligent design 10 years later: Q&A with U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III"  

Of course little casey luskin just couldn't resist whining in yet another attempt to try Judge Jones.  You remember casey?  He was the Discovery Institute lawyer whose participation in the trial was offering press releases for a couple of days and then he just disappeared. (Devil in Dover pages 120-121).  I don't know how offering press releases makes him qualified to comment on anything Jones says, but then qualifications aren't something the DI seems to pay much attention to . . . unless they are inflating them (Since the "700" keeps coming up . . .).

So, the first error little casey makes is assuming the DI is the target of Judge Jones comments.  If he actually read for comprehension, he would see that Judge Jones had a number of folks critical of his ruling, and he specifically said 

"What happened was that the punditry, who disagreed with my case, you know, came out and in a sort of firestorm, this sort of Bill O'Reillys and Ann Coulters of the world, and they were very strident and I think misleading in their criticism."

So little casey thinks the DI is on the same level as political punditry, or is it he can't stand the DI being shunted to the side in favor of O'Reilly-ers and Coulter-ites?  Actually that makes more sense than claiming to be an organization dedicated to actual science.  After all, what is a pundit?  Someone marketing their opinion, most often to people who already agree with them.  Sounds like a good definition of the DI, doesn't it?

Little casey's primary point is he think the Judge overstepped.  That as soon as he determined that the Dover School Board's in purpose was religious, he not looked at anything else.  Of course that would have made the DI happier than the actual result.  Dembski even predicted that the results of the trial had about a 70% change of being: 

"The Dover policy is overturned but the scientific status of ID is left unchallenged." (Life After Dover)

Which is exactly what might have happened if the Judge stopped doing his job.  Think about what that would have done for the DI and their pet Creationism/ID.  It would have kept the door open for people just like the Dover School Board's Buckingham and Bonsell to push for the inclusion of religion in science class.  You might not remember Buckingham and Bonsell, but if you read the Dover Decision you will find things like:

•   . . . the Dover School Board members' testimony, which was marked by selective memories and outright lies under oath
• It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy

The judge was talking about the school board members who voted for ID, which included William Buckingham and Alan Bonsell, whose testimony did raise cries of perjury!

So, to little casey's mind, once you achieve the minimalist possible objective, you should always stop there.  I don't know about you, but I wasn't raised that way, and apparently neither was Judge Jones.  I am pretty sure little casey, and the rest of the bunch at the DI, wish the Judge had done just that is because the actual ruling was the one Dembski gave a less than 10% change of happening. 

What I find funny is how Dembski said it really wouldn't be that damaging if it did happen.  Even today, 10 years later, the DI is still trying to spin Dover as pretty much very limited impact on them.  How true is that?  Well since in the last decade where has ID gone?  How many public schools teach it in their science curriculum?  How many presentations to scientific conferences have happened?  How many peer-reviewed papers on ID have been published in reputable scientific journals?  I did specifically use the words science and scientific so anyone can differentiate between DI revival meetings and self-published journals as compared to real scientific conferences and scientific journals.  I believe the answer to all three is 0.  I also specified 'public schools' because the curriculum requirements for non-public schools is very different, however even the majority of non-public schools teach Evolution (Baylor, University of Dayton two nationally ranked Christian universities are good examples).  So in reality, ID hasn't done much but continued marketing.  They certainly have been quiet on the science front . . . and no I do not, nor does the scientific community, consider self-published, popular press, or religious imprint articles and books to be scientific.

So what we have is a Judge doing his job and not just looking at their motivations, but examining the entirety of what was happening in Dover using the precedents previously established in cases like

• Epperson v. Arkansas - 1968
• Daniel v. Waters - 1975
• McLean v. Arkansas - 1982
• Edwards v. Aguillard - 1987

Of course the Judge didn't stop where casey and his little friends would have liked nor where they where they expected him to stop.  Judge Jones made a complete ruling and one that has caused the DI to spend considerable time and energy distancing themselves from, and also attacking Judge Jones pretty regularly.  Judge Jones specifically said:

"The conclusion was probably the toughest part of the opinion, because I felt that I, frankly, given the length of the opinion at 139 pages, that a lot of people would only ever read the conclusion. So I labored over that. Because I wanted to make that as powerful and as clear as I possibly could."

And he most certainly did make a powerful ruling.  One that has had a lasting impact on the modern Intelligent Design Movement, no matter how much casey and pals try and spin things.  Does the Judge misunderstand his critics?  No, I don't think so.  I think his critics misunderstand not just Judge Jones but the law.

If you are interested, there are other articles from the York Daily Register about the 10 year anniversary.  I hope you find them as interesting as I have.  It does stand to reason these articles are much more interesting than anything put out by the DI, especially by their press release mouthpiece luskin.

• Plaintiffs, attorneys drawn together by the case
• Whatever happened to 'Of Pandas and People'?
• Ruling deterred other legal challenges
• Defendant says 'nobody did anything for religious reasons'
• Plaintiff's young son now creating his future
• Evolution cartoons from Dover Area High School
• 'No frontal assault' on evolution since Dover case

What if people stopped believing in Darwin?

Ann Gauger, you know the lady with the non-existent lab over at the Biologic Institute, posted something totally ridiculous:  "What If People Stopped Believing in Darwin?"

First the obvious, people do not 'believe' in Darwin, any more than they 'believe' in gravity.  What people do is accept the explanations from real scientists when it comes to explaining phenomena like Evolution and Gravity.  There is a world of difference between belief and acceptance of an explanation.  I do understand why Ann, and her cohorts at the Discovery Institute, have trouble understanding the difference, they demand faith with no supporting evidence.  But that's the obvious critique.  Let's have some fun.

First off, let us remember who Ann works for, the Biologics Institute, which is the pet apologetic 'lab' of the Discovery Institute (DI).  When you factor that in, you know she's not talking about evolution being out of the picture, but her religious alternative being the only game in town.   That being said, it certainly changes the picture, because everyone knows how open-minded and accepting theists can be, right?

One of her comments was a real corker:

"Biology students might feel free to express their opinions on origins."

Since when does having a religious explanation for anything make people feel free to express their opinions?  Annie's point is that because of Darwin students don't feel free to offer their opinion.  Of course that's not the whole truth, because I have yet to be in a classroom where student's didn't raise their opinion.  One of my students read this blog and wanted to discuss in class -- and I teach Information Technology!  What I think Ann means is that theists do not feel free to raise their non-scientific objections to evolution in science class.  If Ann had said that I would heartily agree.  Raising a religious objection to actual science IN science class is a waste of time and deserves to be shut down.  I did shut down my student by explaining that Life's Origins aren't an appropriate topic during Java Programming.  When he persisted, I invited him to comment on the blog or discuss it after class.  He chickened out and did neither.  But that's the point, Creationism is not science and other than a brief historical perspective, doesn't belong in science class.

Let me give you a for-instance.  Suppose you are a member of a church-going family who for years went to the same church as many of your neighbors, you are involved in church activities, and lived in the area and raised your family there.  Then you get more than a little annoyed when a cross gets burned in your son's arm by his science teacher and you dare to question it.  Not only that, but you learn that the 'science' teacher in question isn't teaching science, but his very evangelical view of science.  You have the audacity to complain.  What happens?

Well according to Ann, you should have been welcomed, your opinions and questioning should be encouraged, and all Christians are nothing but polite and accepting people, right?

However the reality seems a bit different, as an article about the family who dared raise questions about John Freshwater in Mt Vernon Oh:

"We've gotten phone calls, things in the mail, anonymous letters. They send scriptures and how you should raise your children, implying we're not raising our children correctly. Everywhere we go I feel like people know it's us so they don't talk to us or they will say things. Even in church." Eventually it was too much for the Dennis family. They moved 35 miles away."

This isn't an isolated instance, do you recall the Dover Trial, or shall we call it by it's usual name:  "Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al".  What happened to Tammy Kitzmiller and her family?  More examples of welcoming, openness, and acceptance?  No, she and her daughters received hate mail, accusations of being atheists, her children confronted, confrontations in restaurants and in the street.

Sure, religion does nothing but open people's minds and hearts! Maybe other religions do, but apparently not Christianity. In a review of Lauri Lebo's excellent book "Devil in Dover" from the Aetiology blog:

" . . .that even most of the biology teachers at Dover were church-going Christians, yet they were ostracized and bad-mouthed by those supporting the school board’s anti-evolution stance–rejected and slandered by Christians who seemingly had no problem attacking fellow believers."

I have to repeat this phrase:  " . . .no problem attacking fellow believers".  Sure, Ann, dismissing Darwin makes everything sunny and bright.  Really?  As you can see I find it hard to believe that if somehow Darwin disappeared overnight, so much would change for the better.  Look at all the people living under repressive religious regimes.  Are you going to tell me Christianity would be different?  Was it in the past?  Tell me when?  Show me an example!

More from Ann:

"The world would see a new flush of academic freedom."

Since when does religion encourage academic freedom?  Seriously, I am asking.  How many professors and teachers have gotten in trouble for teaching evolution?  Too many to count, like John Scopes, Pamela Hensley, Tom Oord, Gary Scott, Stacy Mendrick . . ..  The impact was directly on them teaching evolution.  They did their job and got in trouble.  People forget that the textbook John Scopes was using included evolution or that Pamela Hensley and Stacy Mendrick were well regarded teachers who were teaching the required elements of their courses.  The list is quite long, and not always at a parochial school, but public schools as well usually due to parental pressure,  So this is how religion improves academic freedom?

Now aside from the marketing campaign by the DI, how many teachers got in trouble for teaching Creationism/ID?  While the DI likes to trot out people like Caroline Coker, John Freshwater, and Guillermo Gonzales, the real story is a little different.  These people were hired to perform a job, usually to teach science.  However they made a personal decision that their religious beliefs precluded them from performing their job.  And when they get held accountable, they whined about religious discrimination and the DI trots them out as victims.  I don't see them as victims.  They took the job under false pretenses -- I see them as liars.  Of course Freshwater did more than just fail in his job, but that's another story.

Now I would like to believe that I wouldn't accept a job that conflicted with my belief set so strongly I couldn't do it.  I would be honest about it rather than say one thing and then perform another.  But that's just me and how I was raised.  I guess that level of honesty isn't needed when you are lying in the cause of your religion.  You could ask kennie ham, but he does the same sort of stuff.


Of course she had to try and drag in 'Academic Freedom', which anyone with a functioning brain knows that's not what the Discovery Institute is interested in.  It's just another tactic to try and wedge their way into the classroom.  Their idea of academic freedom means to be able to teach their religion as if it were science and to remove real science from the classroom.  Don't blame me, it's their stated goal:  to replace science with a more theistic-ally friendly version.  It's again like little kennie ham who's idea of religious freedom is to be free to believe how he wants and force others to believe as he [kennie] wants as well.  Not very open-minded and accepting.

One last thing and then I will go back to ignoring most of annie's posts.  Here final comment:

 "That's why they say scientific revolutions happen one funeral at a time." 

Really, so scientific theories get replaced when the author or supporters die off?  Apparently that hasn't worked for Darwin and the Theory of Evolution at all, has it?  It didn't work for Alfred Wegener, whose theory of Continental Drift didn't get confirmed until 20 or 30 years after his death.  I wonder if she expecting the next generation of scientists to knock Darwin to the curb and instill her organization's pet ideas?  Maybe that does explain why they [the DI, annie, wild bill and the lot], don't bother doing science and only marketing and public relations in their efforts to damage science education.

I wonder where annie expects to next breakthroughs in vaccines, medical treatments, and new technologies to come from?  Divine intervention?  Yea, like that has worked real well so far.  Let's ask Ian, Neil, Matthew, Austin, Amy, Robyn, Andrew, Harrison, Nancy, Dennis, Arrian, Zachery, Troy, Shauntay, and Rhett.  Oh, wait you can't.  They all died because some people, often their theist parents, believed prayer beats out medical care.  Not a great track record.