So You Want To Know What's Wrong with Religion? (10)

Apparently Vista Print is being sued by a Gay couple who ordered wedding programs and were slightly (heavy sarcasm) perturbed when they opened the box the evening before the event and found anti-gay propaganda pamphlets instead. They are suing! Read a little about it yourself: "A Gay Couple Ordered Wedding Programs; They Got Anti-Gay Pamphlets Instead".  If had been just a messed up order, they would be upset, but not to the point of suing.  The fact it was some pretty vile anti-gay pamphlets makes more than likely a deliberate act.

Now, unlike some organizations, Vista Print does not have a history of being anti-LGBT.  So what probably happened is an employee took it upon themselves to make the change.  What I figure will probably happen is the Vista Print investigation will find the employee who decided printing programs for a Gay wedding violated their sincerely-held religious beliefs.  I hope Vista Print has the testicular fortitude to fire them!

You know, now that I think about it, Vista Print also should sue them for any damages they [VP] ends up paying because of the screw-up.  I mean they are being sued by the Gay couple, and at first glance, the responsibility certainly is their responsibility.  It also might be more than one person because I would assume some quality control.  

The more I think about it, I am willing to bet the person, or persons, get fired also sues Vista Print for a perceived violation of their religious rights.  I mean theists are known for not accepting responsibility for their actions, they try and pass it all onto their deity, don't they?

In any event I hope Stephen and Andrew have a long and happy life together and this incident didn't wreck what should have been a joyous occasion.

Most Christians do not agree with AIG!

Interesting article in the Centre Daily Times from State College PA, "Noah's Ark theme park is impressive, but its ‘facts’ don’t hold water".  It's from Tom Eblen, a Christian, and it shows a point of view not mentioned often enough in the news.  There are hundreds, if not over a thousand different Christian denominations and they differ in many things, including doctrine and authority.  Little kennie ham speaks for very few.  What interested me the most is the Tom's description of kennie ham and his belief set [I added the underlines]:

"Answers in Genesis’ young-earth creationism is the product of a strain of evangelical Christianity only about a century old that now seems to thrive on authoritarianism, conservative politics and feelings of persecution."

Authoritarianism, conservative politics, and feelings of persecution!  Wow, did he hit the nail on the head or what?  Think about the authoritarian control kennie has on his followers.  If you don't toe the line, you can't even be hired . . . and his line is absolute!  Conservative politics . . . who pulled Kentucky out of the lawsuit over sales tax incentives?  The new Republican Governor, tea-partier Matt Belvin.  Who how many posts of kennie's do you need to read before you realize what a marketing point he's turned the perceived persecution of Christians into?  It's a common theme of his!  I do have to wonder if he really believe this persecution complex or is it just another tactics of his?

I did like his closing comment, and one I wish would make more news than it ever will.  

"Answers in Genesis has built an impressive ark, and those who believe its theology are welcome to it. For me, though, this pseudo-science doesn’t hold water."

The Ark is news, but the simple fact that most Christians don't agree with kennie on anything he represents to be science gets little mention. Every tactic he uses is designed to confuse and obfuscate the fact that he has nothing but he own belief set without any supporting evidence at all.

Push him hard enough and he falls on "Were you there?" argument against actual science. Well, kennie, were you there when Jesus was born, died, or there in the hundreds of years the Bible was written and re-written? We all know the answer, but he will never admit it.  You see to kennie, it doesn't matter that he wasn't there personally, after all God was there.  But when it comes to science, the fact a person wasn't personally there mean it can't possible be true.  Such a ridiculous rationalization, but one he uses . . . religiously.

What little kennie reminds me of, and this is also why I refer to him as little kennie, is a toddler throwing a tantrum.  I once watching a toddler throw an absolute fit because Mom wouldn't buy him candy.  She was very firm and them I watched this  . . . probably about 4 to 5 year old . . . throw a fit and announce to the world how mean his mommy was and how unfair it was . . . he actually used the word 'unfair' which surprised me.  Intelligently, Mom picked him up and took him out of the store.  I don't know what happened after that, but if it had been one of my daughters . . . they might be sitting gingerly for a while and candy would not have been on the foreseeable horizon.

But in all seriousness, that's what little kennie reminds me of.  Suggest public school shouldn't visit his church . . . and you get a tantrum with lots of name-calling.  Withhold tax money because he reneged on his promise to uphold non-discriminatory hiring practices and you get a tantrum and a lawsuit . . . the list is endless.  Anytime you disagree with kennie, you are anti-religious regardless of fact you might believe in a completely different religious tradition.  Little kennie doesn't care, you are either supporting him or he claims you are some sort of atheist anti-religious zealot, he's a toddler who uses the concept of a deity to get his way.

If you disagree with my comment as to most Christians disagree with kennie, just look up the Clergy Letter Project and see the various denominations supporting it.  Right there is one major area where kennie is way out of step with the clear majority of Christianity.  As the author put it, it's their theology . . . I would add that they are welcome to it, because I sure don't want it . . . but their pseudo-science doesn't hold water, and neither will their ark 'replica'.  [Quotes added because you cannot make a replica of something that never existed.]

Casey Strikes out

More out of curiosity than anything else, I read through the rest of Casey Luskin's paper on various court cases (already blogged about it in general here Luskin's Turn). I was really curious how he commented on the Dover Court Case.

He opens with a summary that is actually a pretty good summary. But as he dove into his commentary, I think he missed a point. One of the factors that he missed completely is when the court examined what an impartial observer would take from the disclaimer the School Board wanted read. He completely ignored that part of the trial that determined that a typical student would hear the disclaimer and take it as an indictment against the Theory of Evolution.

I also think Casey missed the boat with his own disclaimer trying to absolve the Discovery Institute of their involvement. Yes, when it reached a point of Trial, the DI backpedaled with the best of them and tried to dissuade the School Board from their action. But up until that point they were involved, and advised, and provided the text book 'Of Pandas and People" that was so central to the case. Lauri Lebo made an interesting point in her book "The Devil in Dover" that during the trial the school board members seemed to be waiting for support from the DI that never materialized. The DI did the same thing with the school teacher/soccer coach in Tejon CA. After the suit was filed they claimed to have advised them to settle. But how much pushing and coaching did the teacher received before that point? We will never know because it didn't actually come to trial, but I believe the DI was one of the sources for the videos supporting ID that she was planning on showing.

Now I always thought Casey was a lawyer, well he must be out of practice because I see nothing wrong with the Court setting up their ruling as a primer for other Courts. They did it

" . . . in the hope that it may prevent the obvious waste of judicial and other resources which would be occasioned by a subsequent trial involving the precise question which is before us."

So apparently Casey would prefer to be able to hold this trial over and over again. Talk about a waste! You know when the outcome would be different? If those sluggards over at the DI would get off their collective butts and try and do some actual science. I mean look at it, a Federal Judge, a Conservative Federal Judge could not rule in their favor! A Judge so conservative that many people thought the trial was a slam dunk -- until it actually got underway. If they can't win in that courtroom, where could they win? So the Judge making a sweeping decision that went beyond the bounds of the immediate case is perfectly reasonable. in fact many cases are so decided in order to do exactly what Judge Jones tried to do -- set a precedent other Courts can look to for guidance. That's part of the whole judicial process!

But in reality, I bet Casey and his friends would love this to be tried in school districts across the country. Sooner or later the odds would grant them at least a temporary victory and they would just go insane! However Courts have been forever making their rulings with an eye towards the future. the case may not be binding outside of the small Pennsylvania area, but it's impact has been felt across the country. That is what Casey and his pals do not like!

Here is one of the funny things to me. If the Judge had ruled that ID was science, would Casey and his cohorts have been complaining about a lack of judicial restraint? Oh Hell No! They would have been crowing like roosters! Instead they have to attack a conservative judge and accuse him of a lack of judicial restraint and judicial activism mainly because they got their collective butts handed to them.

I love this quote of Casey's:

"The judicial over-reach and activist, policy-making intentions of the judge may cause other courts to question whether the Kitzmiller ruling represents carefully considered legal work."

Of course he never answers this question, he just tried to raise it as a doubt and then just walks away. Does he support this comment? No! Does he offer evidence that other courts are not going to consider this case? No! He simply tries to cast a shadow of doubt and then leaves you hanging. This a a common gambit to raise doubt in a readers mind where there really isn't any.

Here is another one:

"Another aspect of the Kitzmiller ruling that may cause jurists to doubt its persuasiveness is the fact that over 90% of its celebrated section on whether ID is science was copied verbatim or nearly-verbatim from the plaintiffs’ “Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law,” proposed by attorneys working with the ACLU.277 While there is no question that courts are permitted to draw upon such documents when constructing rulings and that such behavior does not constitute any kind of unethical “plagiarism,” case law suggests that large-scale judicial copying is highly disapproved of by courts,278 even when the extent of the copying does not provide grounds to overrule the lower court."

OK, this one circulated quite soon after the ruling was published. Judge Jone did copy a great deal of information form the plaintiffs findings of facts. However, there is nothing wrong in this. But look at Casey's wording: "may cause", "verbatim or nearly-verbatim", "While there is no question that courts are permitted to draw", "unethical 'plagiarism' ", and "suggests". How mealy mouthed can one lawyer get? Without coming out and saying it he, and the others at the DI, didn't like that the judge used the winners documents as a basis for the ruling. I do love the slipped in 'nearly-verbatim' line. So if you use words that are similar and mean the same thing, are you being 'nearly-verbatim'? Only a lawyer can tell you -- but be prepared for a long confusing session.

Casey also thinks, and I use that word loosely, that

"The Kitzmiller ruling was predicated upon a false definition of intelligent design."

I have to disagree. The definition before the Court was the presented by both Michael Behe and Scott Minnich. Even though the DI didn't like the caveats they had to use under cross-examination, it was pretty clear that ID involves supernatural causation, even if the official definition of the DI doesn't use those terms, they were clearly evident in the trial transcript. Here is a quote from Judge Jones' ruling with appropriate references made by the defense witnesses:

" . . . defense expert Professor Fuller agreed that ID aspires to “change the ground rules” of science and lead defense expert Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science, which encompasses ID, would also embrace astrology. (28:26 (Fuller); 21:37-42 (Behe)). Moreover, defense expert Professor Minnich acknowledged that for ID to be considered science, the ground rules of science have to be broadened to allow consideration of supernatural forces. (38:97 (Minnich))."

This article, at least specifically where Casey discusses the Dover Trial. does not represent an objective look at the trial and how a teacher, lawyer, or other policy maker should see it. It represents a very specific spin on the trial that is not represented in the ruling nor the results of the ruling. Over 3 years since the trial and Casey and his buds are still trying to spin things their way.

Michael Behe Presentation at Penn State

Lehigh Professor Michael Behe gave a presentation at Penn State and this article caught my eye: "Author defends intelligent design". There were several things, starting with the title of the article. Apparently the reporter saw this as defensive in nature and I think that was understood from Behe's own presentation or the opinion of the author going into the presentation.

Apparently Behe started with a disclaimer that his beliefs were not supported by Lehigh University nor his colleagues. He supported his position by identifying what he considered obvious indicators of intelligent design. OK, here is one of my many question, 'obvious to whom?'. Just because they are obvious to him doesn't make them obvious to anyone else. in fact if they are so obvious, why doesn't his own colleagues see them?

Well I guess they sort of do because another comment Behe said was

" . . . that those in the science field agree that aspects of biology appear designed . . ." [I am quoting the article, these may not be Behe's exact words].

Please note another point I have made in other posts, 'appear designed'. Since when is the appearance of design the confirmation of design, let alone intelligent design? How about never! Just because things share an appearance doesn't mean they must be designed, nor does it mean even if you manage to prove design, that there is a guiding intelligence behind it! You could make the argument for Natural Selection could very well be the guiding 'force' behind the appearance of design, but you would never hear that from Professor Behe.

Then Behe went off on his usual material on how non-living things that have been obviously designed and how that easily supports his contention. I have to disagree. His whole idea of irreducible complexity has been a non-starter for any serious scientific research, another point behe admitted during the Dover Trial. Neither he, nor anyone he knows, is performing the research to prove his ideas. Of course he claims a massive conspiracy of silence to quiet down his supporters . . . Hmm so how many bills were offered in the Pennsylvania Legislature against him? I am of course referencing Oklahoma State Representatives trying to silence pro-evolution advocate and outspoken atheist Richard Dawkins. Hmm, so which side of this discussion can be accused of a conspiracy?

Here is the fun part, and one he certainly stated during the Dover trial.

"Many people think science should stay away from something beyond nature," Behe said. "I disagree."

So here is a basic question, should science address things beyond the bounds of the 'natural'? I have a better question, by what possible methodology can science do this? None that I know of! This is not a question for science, but a question for metaphysics. Behe did state that for intelligent design to be accepted as part of science the basic definition of science would have to change to include supernatural causation. He's just re-stating the opinion that pretty effectively destroyed his own arguments during the trial.What I also question is this:

"A conclusion of intelligent design is rationally justified," Behe said.

Granted I wasn't there to hear his presentation, but I read the Dover Trial transcripts, I have read his "Darwin's BlackBox" book and a number of other books on Intelligent Design and I do not find a shred of empirical evidence to support his conclusion. It all comes down to 'appearance' and 'belief'.

The final point I found interesting was the two student reactions to his presentation:

"I thought it was very comprehensive but it was chockfull of fallacies," said Tristan Buckley (sophomore-film).

Tim Chopourian (freshman-meteorology) agreed, adding that "it felt like what he was doing was explaining evolution but where we have blanks, he filled those in with God," he said.

'Chockfull of fallacies' and 'filling gaps with God'. Apparently not a very effective presentation. I'm sure other students from the group that sponsored him, the Science and the Bible club, have a different opinion. I would be interested to know if those two are members of the club, or if any members of the club offered any other opinions of the talk. In fact I email the club advisers with those questions and I am very interested in the result.

I do applaud the club for bring such a speaker on campus to give his presentation. I can understand why they would sponsor him and not say the Biology Department, but that is neither here nor there. The fact he has such a forum open to him is a pretty considerable argument against any form of conspiracy. I wish he, and his compatriots, over at the Discovery Institute would do the actual science to support intelligent design and get away from this 'appearance = fact' argument. But so far, the science side has been very quiet!