Nuisance libel lawsuit against Eugenie Scott

I am an attorney, who has been practicing in California for nearly 25 years. I received my Juris Doctorate from The George Washington University Law School, in Washington, D.C., where I studied constitutional law under some of the leading experts on First Amendment law in the country. In recent years, I have spent a fair amount of time researching the constitutional issues regarding the teaching of origins science in public schools. The truth is that not a single reported court case in the country has held that it is unconstitutional or otherwise illegal to teach ID in public schools.

To the contrary, prominent constitutional scholars such as Francis J. Beckwith

are of the opinion that it would be constitutional for a science teacher to teach ID in addition to evolution, or for a school board to include ID in its science curriculum.

the squirrels didn't turn into chipmunks (let alone elephants); they remained squirrels, albeit with different features. The finches didn't turn into ostriches (let alone whales or butterflies); they remained finches with different kinds of beaks.

like i said in another thread; why don't we sue the DI for discrimination? after all, they don't have any african americans or women on their board as far as I know (actually, i think they may have one woman), or represented in their statements.

or would that be frivolous?

Hey JAD, you should be able to leave the Bathroom Wall for a while and post on this thread. If i remember correctly from a discussion a few months ago, Mr. Sandefur was strongly opposed to inhibiting trolls.

Good job Tim. Caldwell makes a bigger fool of himself than Dr. Scott could if she had tried.

Is there someway that Caldwell could be forced to pay for the wasted court time?

Re. Sir_Toejam's question, it would be frivolous and, I think, of questionable ethics to assume that DI must be engaged in illegal racial discrimination just because they happen (so far as we know) not to have any black persons on their staff They are also under no legal or moral obligation to consider the race of any person when considering whether to hire that person or not, nor are they under any obligation to give preferences to any group in their public statements. Using the anti-discrimination laws against them just because we disagree with their message would be an extremely improper abuse of the legal system, in my view.

Re. steve's post, perhaps I should clarify. I do not believe in comments at all. No offense, dear readers, but I don't give a damn what any of you think about anything. But PT is not my property. Its proprietors have chosen to include comments from their belief that doing so helps PT's educational mission. That being the case, I believe in keeping a loose rein in comments, because even where a person is a "troll," there are good-faith readers who might, from simple lack of knowledge, share the troll's miscomprehensions of evolution. I know, because there was a time when I considered myself a creationist, and it was only because people like Philip Kitcher and Richard Dawkins took time to explain evolution that I understand it today. This is why I do not believe in ignoring trolls when responding to them might be educational to third parties. But I will strictly enforce PT's comment integrity policy, including banning commenters who have been banned by the rest of the PT management.

In answer to Mr. Hurd, yes, California Civil Procedure Code section 128.5 allows trial courts to require a person to pay reasonable expenses including attorney's fees incurred by another party as a result of a frivolous lawsuit.

Recommended References: Darwin on Trial by Phillip Johnson, Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No! by Duane Gish,Evolution: A Theory in Crisis by Michael Denton, Bones of Contention by Marvin L. Lubenow, Refuting Evolution by Jonathan Sarfati, or see the IDEA Center website Fossil Record page at "http://www.ideacenter.org/fossrec.htm".

"As a testament to the power and value of your evolution blog,"[sic] Caldwell recently told us, "the Press-Tribune was getting so many complaints ...."

"Re. Sir_Toejam's question, it would be frivolous and, I think, of questionable ethics to assume that DI must be engaged in illegal racial discrimination just because they happen (so far as we know) not to have any black persons on their staff "

uh, not to belabour the obvious, but I was being sarcastic.

"Using ... laws against them just because we disagree with their message would be an extremely improper abuse of the legal system, in my view"

or were you being sarcastic too?

Watch out Tim, you called Caldwell a creationist, you'll be next on his lawsuit list!

the squirrels didn't turn into chipmunks .... they remained squirrels, albeit with different features

" This is why I do not believe in ignoring trolls "

Mr. Sandefur, I don't think you understand the meaning of the word troll. None of us here throw rocks at people willing to listen, only those who obviously and repeatedly refuse to, and continual disrup topical discussion on the threads posted here. It's fine if you don't agree with poking fun at those who ask for it, but at least understand what we talk about when we say "troll".

http://www.searchlores.org/trolls.htm

why don't you email John Davison and ask him to explain his PEH to you?

" and it was only because people like Philip Kitcher and Richard Dawkins took time to explain evolution that I understand it today"

It is nice to hear someone who is able to change their mind after hearing all the evidence. In 25 years of listening to creationists, you are the very first i have ever heard of who did so (er, post high school anyway).

congratulations.

OTOH, "I don't give a damn what any of you think about anything" so I guess you probably won't bother reading this.

cheers

Perhaps it's just me, but it appears Caldwell is trying to play the "teach the controversy" game, and get a legal ruling in favor of it. He's trying to pass himself off as someone who's not promoting Intelligent Design Creationism, or any other sort of creationism, but is instead promoting the teaching of the mysterious and elusive "evidence against evolution". To reinforce this appearance, and because he's failed with his local school board, he's framing his frivolous lawsuits around the claim he's not a creationist, IDC or otherwise, or at least not promoting any specific alternatives to evolution.

He's trying to play to the IDC script and doing a poor job of it.

Sir_Toejam: my apologies. I hear serious proposals like this so often that it is extremely hard to tell the jokes from the serious things.

This is quite possibly the most in-your-face hypocrisy I've ever witnessed. And coming from the ID people, that's saying a lot.

I simply cannot fathom what kind of human being can file a lawsuit claiming that he's been wronged by a falsehood (however trivial), and then in the very press release about said lawsuit, he makes up blantant, obvious falsehoods. What kind of nerve does that take? Did he really think that no one would bother to read the original article? Is he so deluded that he actually sees things that just aren't there? Is he illiterate?

And to top it off, he goes on a tirade about how "Darwinists" are always lying about the ID people (despite the complete lack of evidence that there was any lie in Scott's article). This comes immediately after his own lie about the creationist activities that were supposedly attributed to him.

I honestly just don't understand these people. What the hell is wrong with them?

Ill-conceived libel lawsuits are especially amusing because of the way they backfire.

Remember when that Men Are From Mars bozo threatened to sue some blogger because the blogger dared to refer to the diploma mill where he received his degree as a diploma mill?

To paraphrase Caldwell, "I never heard of that guy before" he threatened to sue. But now whenever I see his book I think -- oh yeah, that's the guy with the Ph.Dud from some junky ninth tier college of the "human arts".

Likewise with Caldwell. I hadn't been paying much attention to his bogusness.

Now Caldwell has branded himself forever as the litigious attorney/crank who kisses Disclaimery Fellow butts to high heaven. "I'm not a scientist" he admits, as he pompously recites creationist talking points and works himself into a hot lather over finch beaks.

Please: pass the popcorn!

Has Scott found it so difficult to locate someone who actually fits her preconceived stereotype of a Bible-thumper

As co-blogger Steve Reuland pointed out, though, the first quote, attributed to Caldwell, appears almost word for word in a blog post written a few days ago by John West, in which the words are attributed to West: "Has Scott found it so difficult to locate someone who actually fits her preconceived stereotype of a Bible-thumper trying to ban evolution that she must now resort to reinventing someone to fit her stereotype? It will be interesting to see whether Scott and the California Academy of Sciences have the decency to correct the record." How, precisely, did the quote mutate from a blog post into the words of another man in a later-issued press release?

May I sue Caldwell for collateral libel? Or can I at least get an injunction against his mention that he graduated from George Washington U's law school, to avoid his contaminating my chances at better employment?

Caldwell was there before I attended, but I doubt the con law section improved so dramatically between the time he and I attended. I think his understanding of the Constitution and libel is low.

that I purportedly subscribe to a number of creation science beliefs discussed in the article-- none of which I in fact agree with--;

Creation science proposes that [n]o substantial change in ... biological phenomena has taken place since [the creation of the earth]

Re "How, precisely, did the quote mutate from a blog post into the words of another man in a later-issued press release?"

Evolution in action, maybe?

---

Re "after all, they don't have any african americans or women on their board as far as I know "

Is it discrimination, or is it that they couldn't find any members of those groups willing to join them?

Henry

The parent, Larry Caldwell, claims that Dr. Scott has impugned his character and should pay for it.

"Sir_Toejam: my apologies. I hear serious proposals like this so often that it is extremely hard to tell the jokes from the serious things."

yeah, i get that a lot :)

i guess my moniker doesn't help much on first impression either.

cheers

Gosh, that sure sounds like "[n]o substantial change in . . . biological phenomena has taken place" to me.

— GWW

Where's the tort? Is it in calling Mr. X a creationist, thus ruining Mr. X's nomination into the Academy of Sciences, or is it the goat comment for which Mr. X is drummed out of the Cattlemen's Association?

"I honestly just don't understand these people. What the hell is wrong with them?"

hmm. something popped into my head when i read this. I once had a friend who accidentally hit someone elses car one day. Not a bad accident, mind you. just enough to get the insurance companies involved. He of course was concerned for the person he hit, so he checked to see if there was any injury, even tho it was not a bad accident. She assured him she was completely unhurt, and there was no problem He figured the insurance company would handle the damages, and that would be that.

8 months later, he was served with a lawsuit claiming the woman had suffered whiplash from the accident. The upshot is, i just happened to actually know the woman whom my friend had hit (and that she was in fact uninjured), and i knew that a lawyer had just told her to sue for damages because the insurance company would settle out of court for at least 10 grand.

long story perhaps, but the point is that i doubt that Caldwell is acting on his own. He is probably getting legal advice to do just what he is doing, perhaps in order to set a legal precedent, perhaps so that they can claim "there is a lawsuit against Dr. Scott for liable".

If i am right, we should see the resolution of the lawsuit get delayed and delayed, so the IDers can play the "lawsuit against Dr. Scott" angle for as long as possible.

cheers

If i am right, we should see the resolution of the lawsuit get delayed and delayed, so the IDers can play the "lawsuit against Dr. Scott" angle for as long as possible.

gee golly willikers mr. wonder, heck no!

:p

Caldwell is trying to walk the fence on intelligent design. His stuff at the IDEA website, when considered in context, reveals his true goals. He writes that he is not asking for intelligent design to be inserted into the curriculum, despite his asking that the material that ID advocates use is the material he's asking to be inserted. He says, probably believing it himself, that he's asking only that the "strengths and weaknesses" of evolution be discussed.

Of course, nowhere does he ask that the strengths of evolution be discussed, nor does he enumerate them.

Consider what a course that actually discussed the strengths of evolution theory would include:

- The fact that evolution theory explains why fossils are found where they are.
- Evolution theory's explanation for why animal husbandry works.
- The way evolution theory rather predicts something like genes.
- Genetics
- Evolution's contributions to medicine, especially surgery.
- The use of DNA evidence to confirm familial relationships in court, and how the same DNA evidence also confirms Linnean classifications (and falsifies others).
How many other things?
- The use of evolution to plot the methods of eradication for the cotton boll weevil.
- The way evolution explains exactly how and why the Argentine fire ant is such a fierce competitor in North America.
- Evolution's explanation of sickle cell disease.
- The Human Genome Project.
- How evolution illuminates the spread of HIV/AIDS, and how evolution theory offers hope for treatments and cures.
Etc., etc., etc.

We should, perhaps, make certain that every time someone like Caldwell complains that "strengths and weaknesses" are not explained, pains are taken to tally the strengths and to insist that they be taught first. The list would be a long one.

long story perhaps, but the point is that i doubt that Caldwell is acting on his own. He is probably getting legal advice to do just what he is doing, perhaps in order to set a legal precedent, perhaps so that they can claim "there is a lawsuit against Dr. Scott for liable".

— sir_toejam

Interesting that for one of his claims to have even the slightest hint of merit, to wit, that Dr. Scott accused him of "advocat[ing] a number of creationist activities in public schools that are enumerated in the article---including the banning of evolution from science classes", given Scott's statement -- that "[t]he history of creationism has followed a pattern. First, creationists attempted to ban evolution, then to teach creation science, next to teach ID, and now, most commonly, they lobby to teach EAE" -- Caldwell would have to also claim to be a "creationist" ... something he implicitly denies elsewhere.

But these folks aren't real strong in the logic and consistency department....

Cheers,

"To the contrary, prominent constitutional scholars such as Francis J. Beckwith..."

"But instead, he has to embellish the whole thing with lots of wild-eye accusations, most of which are clearly not true..."

stupid is as stupid does.

sometimes even the lawyers can't shut their clients up.

cheers

Hello,

I am distinctly out of my element among you scientists. However, I find many of your discussions very interesting.

Concerning Mr. Caldwell's lawsuit, I offer the suggestion that someone find and post the actual complaint as it is submitted to the court, before attempting to apply the law and analyze the facts to determine whether or not there exists a viable cause of action against Ms. Scott.

In the real world of civil tort law, the typical attorney will listen to (or read) the prospective plaintiff's recitation of facts, and then the attorney will:

1. Examine the California Civil Jury Instructions and try to determine whether the claimed facts, if proven, fit any of the possible jury instructions;

2. Consider whether the prospective defendant has the means to pay a substantial judgment, and also whether the defendant may have a reason to want to negotiate a settlement, rather than try the case;

3. Consider whether or not the plaintiff seems like he would be a credible and believable witness before a jury, and;

4. Decide whether or not the case is viable enough to take on contingency, or whether to offer only to accept the case if the plaintiff is willing to pay an hourly billing rate.

I point out the above, because (1) issues of appellate/constitutional law are usually fairly far down an attorney's list of considerations as to whether or not to file a lawsuit (mainly because 90% of all cases settle out of court, and less than 1% are resolved at the appellate level), and (2) in this particular instance, the plaintiff is apparently an attorney, so the only real factor, of those just mentioned, in whether or not to file the lawsuit, is factor #2 -- can the defendant pay, and does the defendant have a motivation to settle in advance of trial?

Moreover, in the case of this particular lawsuit, Mr. Caldwell's motivation is probably not to obtain a money judgment, at all. Rather it is an opportunity to cause Ms. Scott to expend resources on litigation that would otherwise be used in the promotion of her organization's political/scientific/philosophical positions. And, of course, it gets Mr. Caldwell some media attention, which could be generally good for business.

Once all this is recognized, it becomes immediately obvious that any legal discussions re the actual merits of a libel action, or some other tort action, such as a "false light" claim, are meaningless. Mr. Caldwell doesn't need to win on the merits of his case. He will win, by doing nothing more than dragging the case out for as long as possible, because Ms. Scott will have to expend hard dollars to defend, while Mr. Caldwell will expend only his time.

Beyond the above strategic analysis, and unless and until I read the actual complaint, any comment as to the viability of this lawsuit would be premature.

PS. Also, please be advised that I am presently persuaded that evolution is the most credible theory to explain the development of life on Earth. My reason for posting here is merely to try to present an alternative view of what's goin' on.

:)

There is also a quirk in California's Code of Civil Procedure that favors dismissing the matter. Under § 425.16, a frivolous SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) suit can be dismissed with a privileged motion (that is, must be heard first)… and, if dismissed, the original filer must pay the defendant's attorney's fees.

Caldwell is attempting to silence Dr. Scott on an issue of public concern by filing an action that would penalize Dr. Scott for his previous speech on the issue. This is the classic tactic used in some real-estate suits (developer sues an environmentalist to keep him/her from making public statements, especially in front of a zoning board). Thus, California created a procedural defense for activists. That means that Dr. Scott can not only win; not only get his attorney's fees reimbursed; but can etch a significant black mark against an individual whose acquaintance with truth appears to be at best coincidental.

Is he so deluded that he actually sees things that just aren't there?

It is nice to hear someone who is able to change their mind after hearing all the evidence. In 25 years of listening to creationists, you are the very first i have ever heard of who did so (er, post high school anyway).

sometimes even the lawyers can't shut their clients up.

— Sir_Toejam

There is also a quirk in California's Code of Civil Procedure that favors dismissing the matter. Under § 425.16, a frivolous SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) suit can be dismissed with a privileged motion (that is, must be heard first) . . . and, if dismissed, the original filer must pay the defendant's attorney's fees. Caldwell is attempting to silence Dr. Scott on an issue of public concern by filing an action that would penalize Dr. Scott for his previous speech on the issue. This is the classic tactic used in some real-estate suits (developer sues an environmentalist to keep him/her from making public statements, especially in front of a zoning board). Thus, California created a procedural defense for activists. That means that Dr. Scott can not only win; not only get his attorney's fees reimbursed; but can etch a significant black mark against an individual whose acquaintance with truth appears to be at best coincidental.

— c.e. petit

Socrateaser, there are two different suits involved here, one that Caldwell filed in Federal District Court back in January against the Roseville School District---you can download that filing at the Discovery Institute website---and a threatened suit against Eugenie Scott and the California Academy of Sciences, that presumably would go to a California State Court if and when filed. To date Caldwell has only sent a letter to Scott and the Academy specifying his claims and demanding a retraction. Publicly, Scott, the Academy and the NCSE have yet responded to Caldwell's letter, which included a deadline at the end of last week. We do understand via the grapevine that they have or are consulting counsel. So stay tuned.

Caldwell's efforts remind me of the old saw about "He who represents himself has a fool for a client." It would seem to apply to Caldwell both with regard to Caldwell's suit against the Roseville School District in Federal Court which bears only his name as plaintiff and counsel (although late last month, two months after the original filing, the Pacific Justice Center joined that suit as co-counsel) and his threatened suit against Eugenie Scott and the NCSE. He's apparently not yet filed any papers in the latter suit but his threatening letter was probably over his own signature and not that of independent counsel. The man has long displayed too much hubris to need outside counsel.

Sir Toe-jam: It is nice to hear someone who is able to change their mind after hearing all the evidence. In 25 years of listening to creationists, you are the very first i have ever heard of who did so (er, post high school anyway).

Ric Frost: Make that two, thanks to TalkOrigins. Thirty-five years believing lies, five and counting learning the truth.

Make that three, thanks to sound college General Education requirements at a good school.

Shenda

Keanus,

According to the last line of Mr. Sandefur's opening post in this thread, there is State court complaint filed as "SCV 17921, Placer County Superior Court."

After reading the Federal District Court complaint, to which you have kindly provided a link, I find that the allgations include a very large number of separate events. This suggests to me that Caldwell genuinely believes that his rights have been seriously impaired. Thus, I feel obliged to now retract the comments of my prior post that suggested that Caldwell's main rationale may be to cause Scott to expend resources. Nevertheless, Scott will likely expend considerable resources, because Caldwell doesn't appear to be the type of person who lets go of the tiger's tail, once he grabs hold.

Regardless, Caldwell certainly appears to know how to do what he's doing, and Scott may be better served by simply offering to settle by publishing a retraction, and thereby save NCSE's funds to fight some other, more significant future battle.

:)

To date Caldwell has only sent a letter to Scott and the Academy specifying his claims and demanding a retraction.

— Keanus

Could it be the Jehovah Witness comment that he is upset about?

I mean... to some Christians the thought is horrifying...

In the real world of civil tort law, the typical attorney will listen to (or read) the prospective plaintiff's recitation of facts, and then the attorney will: [do a number of rational things]

Paul:

As a clarification, the JWs are Christians, as are the Catholics, the Orthodox, the Quakers, and every one of the countless sects and denominations that trace the origins of their beliefs to one "Jesus (the) Christ".

"Sir Toe-jam: It is nice to hear someone who is able to change their mind after hearing all the evidence. In 25 years of listening to creationists, you are the very first i have ever heard of who did so (er, post high school anyway).

Ric Frost: Make that two, thanks to TalkOrigins. Thirty-five years believing lies, five and counting learning the truth.

Make that three, thanks to sound college General Education requirements at a good school."

rockin!

I wonder if it would be worthwhile to get a summary post together that goes into just how many people HAVE changed their minds, and why.

I think it could be very valuable, at least to show that it happens, and that those who might be on the fence have a few examples.

thoughts?

"Sir Toe-jam: It is nice to hear someone who is able to change their mind after hearing all the evidence. In 25 years of listening to creationists, you are the very first i have ever heard of who did so (er, post high school anyway).

Ric Frost: Make that two, thanks to TalkOrigins. Thirty-five years believing lies, five and counting learning the truth.

Make that three, thanks to sound college General Education requirements at a good school."

rockin!

I wonder if it would be worthwhile to get a summary post together that goes into just how many people HAVE changed their minds, and why.

I think it could be very valuable, at least to show that it happens, and that those who might be on the fence have a few examples.

thoughts?

I wonder if it would be worthwhile to get a summary post together that goes into just how many people HAVE changed their minds, and why. I think it could be very valuable, at least to show that it happens, and that those who might be on the fence have a few example.

— Sir TJ

Sec. 425.16. Claim Arising from Person's Exercise of Constitutional Right of Petition or Free Speech -- Special Motion to Strike. (a) The Legislature finds and declares that there has been a disturbing increase in lawsuits brought primarily to chill the valid exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and petition for the redress of grievances. The Legislature finds and declares that it is in the public interest to encourage continued participation in matters of public significance, and that this participation should not be chilled through abuse of the judicial process. To this end, this section shall be construed broadly. (b) (1) A cause of action against a person arising from any act of that person in furtherance of the person's right of petition or free speech under the United States or California Constitution in connection with a public issue shall be subject to a special motion to strike, unless the court determines that the plaintiff has established that there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim. (2) In making its determination, the court shall consider the pleadings, and supporting and opposing affidavits stating the facts upon which the liability or defense is based. (3) If the court determines that the plaintiff has established a probability that he or she will prevail on the claim, neither that determination nor the fact of that determination shall be admissible in evidence at any later stage of the case, and no burden of proof or degree of proof otherwise applicable shall be affected by that determination. (c) In any action subject to subdivision (b), a prevailing defendant on a special motion to strike shall be entitled to recover his or her attorney's fees and costs. If the court finds that a special motion to strike is frivolous or is solely intended to cause unnecessary delay, the court shall award costs and reasonable attorney's fees to a plaintiff prevailing on the motion, pursuant to Section 128.5. (d) This section shall not apply to any enforcement action brought in the name of the people of the State of California by the Attorney General, district attorney, or city attorney, acting as a public prosecutor. (e) As used in this section, "act in furtherance of a person's right of petition or free speech under the United States or California Constitution in connection with a public issue" includes: (1) any written or oral statement or writing made before a legislative, executive, or judicial proceeding, or any other official proceeding authorized by law; (2) any written or oral statement or writing made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a legislative, executive, or judicial body, or any other official proceeding authorized by law; (3) any written or oral statement or writing made in a place open to the public or a public forum in connection with an issue of public interest; (4) or any other conduct in furtherance of the exercise of the constitutional right of petition or the constitutional right of free speech in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest. (f) The special motion may be filed within 60 days of the service of the complaint or, in the court's discretion, at any later time upon terms it deems proper. The motion shall be noticed for hearing not more than 30 days after service unless the docket conditions of the court require a later hearing. (g) All discovery proceedings in the action shall be stayed upon the filing of a notice of motion made pursuant to this section. The stay of discovery shall remain in effect until notice of entry of the order ruling on the motion. The court, on noticed motion and for good cause shown, may order that specified discovery be conducted notwithstanding this subdivision. (h) For purposes of this section, "complaint" includes "cross-complaint" and "petition," "plaintiff" includes "cross-complainant" and "petitioner," and "defendant" includes "cross-defendant" and "respondent." (i) On or before January 1, 1998, the Judicial Council shall report to the Legislature on the frequency and outcome of special motions made pursuant to this section, and on any other matters pertinent to the purposes of this section. (j) An order granting or denying a special motion to strike shall be appealable under Section 904.1. (k) (1) Any party who files a special motion to strike pursuant to this section, and any party who files an opposition to a special motion to strike, shall, promptly upon so filing, transmit to the Judicial Council, by e-mail or fax, a copy of the endorsed-filed caption page of the motion or opposition, a copy of any related notice of appeal or petition for a writ, and a conformed copy of any order issued pursuant to this section, including any order granting or denying a special motion to strike, discovery, or fees. (2) The Judicial Council shall maintain a public record of information transmitted pursuant to this subdivision for at least three years, and may store the information on microfilm or other appropriate electronic media.

Caldwell is attempting to silence Dr. Scott on an issue of public concern by filing an action that would penalize Dr. Scott for his previous speech on the issue.

Is Caldwell acting as his own attorney here? If so, need I say more? If not, do we know who his attorneys are, and whether they have a special interest in this sort of crank?

— Russell

Re "It is nice to hear someone who is able to change their mind after hearing all the evidence. In 25 years of listening to creationists, you are the very first i have ever heard of who did so (er, post high school anyway)."

I looked through the titles of the talk.origins archive "post of the month" and found five articles:
2002
Former Creationists
2003
A Crisis of Faith: An Ex-Creationist Speaks
A Former Creationist's Testimony
A Personal Journey
2004
Awake for the First Time

Henry

Since I hadn't read it before, I just read Scott's article in "California Wild" and it's just as Timothy Sandefur described. She makes none of the accusations or assertions that Caldwell apparently claims. In fact she's remarkably level headed and unemotional in her relating the history of Caldwell's efforts in Roseville. I haven't seen Caldwell's complaint against Scott, only what others have reported, but in her piece she ascribes no beliefs of any kind to Caldwell other than his belief that the Holt textbook (which Roseville teachers wanted to adopt) was "one-sided" and " . . . did not invite students to 'think critically' about the subject of evolution . . . " which is in Sandefur's first quote above. I should add that this description, minus the citation of Safarti's book and the one from the Jehovah's Witnesses, is almost identical to one in the Sacramento Bee of last May or June, so I strongly suspect that the description is accurate, even to Scott's citation of the two books.

What Tim doesn't quote from Scott is that the Roseville biology teachers sent Caldwell's suggested supplemental material and Caldwell's analysis of the Holt textbook for review to faculty at the " . . . University of California, Davis' California State University, Sacramento, and Brigham Young University . . . " She wrote the " . . . scientists' reports unanimously declared Caldwell's supplementary materials unscientific" and then adds some juicy quotes from those assessments, none of which mention Caldwell either directly or elliptically.

Granted I haven't read Caldwell's complaint, but I've now read carefully Scott's entire article and there's nothing in it that comes even close to meeting my layman's definition of libel. Scott's article is a factual, dispassionate account of the recent history of evolution/anti-evolution conflicts with the last third devoted to describing the Roseville battle. (If you haven't read Scott's article, do so. It's a quick read. Sandefur has as hot link to it above.)

Keanus

Granted I haven't read Caldwell's complaint

the DI seems to have a hand in this (John West is remarkably precient about what's going on in the case, even to the point of knowing what Caldwell is going to say before he says it).

The DI seems to be the only source for this so far. (They've been the originating source for almost all of this stuff, which indicates to me that they're working closely with Caldwell. I can think of few things more ridiculous to hitch their wagon to.)

What Tim doesn't quote from Scott is that the Roseville biology teachers sent Caldwell's suggested supplemental material and Caldwell's analysis of the Holt textbook for review to faculty at the " . . . University of California, Davis' California State University, Sacramento, and Brigham Young University . . . " She wrote the " . . . scientists' reports unanimously declared Caldwell's supplementary materials unscientific" and then adds some juicy quotes from those assessments, none of which mention Caldwell either directly or elliptically.

Russell:

The State court complaint is public record. Anyone can go to the records department of Placer County Superior Court and obtain a photocopy for a nominal fee.

:)

You know, someone at those schools must have copies of their assessments of the materials available, which I'm sure will include a simple list of the contents. Proving or disproving the claim should be an easy task.

— EmmaPeel

It's a trivial matter, to say the least, yet it prompted Caldwell (with the tacit approval of the DI) to fly off the handle with all sorts of vicious and demonstrably false accusations.

Creationist Sues School District Larry Caldwell, a parent of a California high school student, has sued the Roseville Joint Union High School District alleging violations of his civil rights. Caldwell, who has led a fight to introduce creationist material to the local cirriculum, claims that the district violated his free speech, equal protection and religious freedom in denying his anti-evolution petitions.

Evolutionists don't want REAL learning to take place. Otherwise there would be NO objection to this, OR if Creationism is taught within the classroom. I DON'T CARE IF YOU DON'T CONSIDER IT (Creationism)SCIENCE OR NOT, a LARGE majority of people DO. Learning is about about research, questions, and expanding the mind. This argument about "you would'nt want the alternative gum theory of the world taught" is just bunk. Creationism has been around for over 2000 years (and more). AGAIN I SAY, if they (evolutionists) are SO SURE that their "theory" is correct, then it shouldn't matter if Creationism is taught in the classroom -- they will be able to debunk it right then and there.

Yeah, I used to be a Christian evolutionist. Until I learned about the creationist theory and saw how it made a lot more sense. I think that's exactly what the evolutionists are afraid of.

The State court complaint is public record. Anyone can go to the records department of Placer County Superior Court and obtain a photocopy for a nominal fee.

They tell lies about our side and try to discredit and marginalize everyone on our side by stereotyping people as 'religious nut cases' who are trying to inject Genesis into science classes, or trying to ban evolution from science classes. Neither of which is true

Senator Salazar had attacked Focus on the Family during an interview with KKTV in Colorado Springs on Tuesday, saying, "From my point of view, they are the Antichrist of the world."

Assuming this gets to court and shows signs of running for a while, it might be worthwhile having a look at http://www.groklaw.net/. For those who have the good sense to steer well clear of the politics of the software industry and thus don't know about a company called SCO, Groklaw is a site dedicated to the legal antics of the aforementioned organisation. It covers the ins and outs of each court case by publicising the official moves of all parties, while pulling together a community of the interested who contribute appropriate expertise to help everyone understand what's going on. It's also a fascinating exercise in combining partisanship with objectivity, but that's an essay for another time...

R

Thirty years ago after a particularly laborious effort at producing a science educational program (I was an editor/publisher of science textbooks at the time) and getting it released, I received a 14 page letter threatening legal action for plagarism and both trademark and copyright infringement. All are normal hazards of publishing so my staff had thoroughly vetted all the material, knew it belonged to us and the authors, and had the document trail to prove it. So I was pleased when our outside counsel, known for his prolixity, after looking over our files replied to our nemesis wannabe's counsel with a letter that simply said "You have no case." We never heard from him again.

On what we can see publicly of Caldwell's suit, that's all the reply his suit merits. Here's hoping that's the case or something close to it.

You know, there is a California group that reviews textbooks. According to The Textbook League, some of the materials suggested to the schools in California are pure hokum. Here, go see: http://www.textbookleague.org/53panda.htm

Doesn't the State of California approve texts, too? If Caldwell is urging books be adopted outside of the state-approved texts, why shouldn't he be called a crank?

If anyone happens to be in that neighborhood: I'd be happy to reimburse you the nominal fee if you would scan it and post it!

— Russell

Here's what the California education agency lists as required in biology; I think that Mr. Caldwell's suggested materials do not cover the state standards well. (http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/pn/fd/documents/sci-stnd.pdf)

Evolution 7. The frequency of an allele in a gene pool of a population depends on many factors and may be stable or unstable over time. As a basis for understanding this concept:
a. Students know why natural selection acts on the phenotype rather than the genotype
of an organism.
b. Students know why alleles that are lethal in a homozygous individual may be carried in a heterozygote and thus maintained in a gene pool.
c. Students know new mutations are constantly being generated in a gene pool.
d. Students know variation within a species increases the likelihood that at least some members of a species will survive under changed environmental conditions.
e.* Students know the conditions for Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium in a population and why these conditions are not likely to appear in nature.
f.* Students know how to solve the Hardy-Weinberg equation to predict the frequency of genotypes in a population, given the frequency of phenotypes.
8. Evolution is the result of genetic changes that occur in constantly changing environments.
As a basis for understanding this concept:
a. Students know how natural selection determines the differential survival of groups of organisms.
b. Students know a great diversity of species increases the chance that at least some organisms survive major changes in the environment.
c. Students know the effects of genetic drift on the diversity of organisms in a population.
d. Students know reproductive or geographic isolation affects speciation.
e. Students know how to analyze fossil evidence with regard to biological diversity, episodic speciation, and mass extinction.
f.* Students know how to use comparative embryology, DNA or protein sequence comparisons, and other independent sources of data to create a branching diagram (cladogram) that shows probable evolutionary relationships.
g.* Students know how several independent molecular clocks, calibrated against each other and combined with evidence from the fossil record, can help to estimate how long ago various groups of organisms diverged evolutionarily from one another.

Anyone who has any desire to e-mail Dr. Scott in support should not hesitate to do so. It is scott@ncseweb.org

Scott may be better served by simply offering to settle by publishing a retraction

— socrateaser

Caldwell claims a member of the school board lumped his expert's suggested supplementary materials (which are pro-ID) with creationism and religious texts offered by other parents.

Ed Darrell asked . . .

Doesn't the State of California approve texts, too?[/quote

Historically the State of California only approves (or disapproves) textbooks for K -- 8, meaning schools could only buy and use what the state approved. Textbooks for 9 -- 12 are selected at the discretion of each school district. I was a textbook editor/publisher for nearly 20 years, last being involved in the late '80's so the system could have been modified in the years since, but I suspect not. Approval of textbooks by the state, standard policy in the states of the old Confederacy plus a few other odd states like California (for K-12), attracts politicians and pressure groups like bees to pollen.

Keanus

Posted by Aureola Nominee, FCD on April 27, 2005 01:18 PM (e) (s) Paul: As a clarification, the JWs are Christians, as are the Catholics, the Orthodox, the Quakers, and every one of the countless sects and denominations that trace the origins of their beliefs to one "Jesus (the) Christ".

As a California attorney, perhaps you could graciously agree to assist Dr. Scott pro bono.

— primate

"And, no, I'm not a converted creationist. Like I said, religion didn't take."

thank god.

Um, Moses, Mormons don't hold creationism as a tenet of the faith anyway. Evolution is fine by them.

My dance card is already full . . . However, I notice that Cal. attorney, Joe McFaul, has offered his services . . . And, I would think that the thread originator, attorney Timothy Sandefur, would be highly motivated to take up Ms. Scott's cause.

rockin! I wonder if it would be worthwhile to get a summary post together that goes into just how many people HAVE changed their minds, and why. I think it could be very valuable, at least to show that it happens, and that those who might be on the fence have a few examples. thoughts?

I think it could be very valuable, at least to show that it happens, and that those who might be on the fence have a few example. Yes. I, for one, think this is a very good idea. So good that it may have already been done. It would make especially interesting reading if posters were encouraged to try to put their finger on those crucial points in time when their opinions changed. Some real surprises might turn up.

I looked through the titles of the talk.origins archive "post of the month" and found five articles: 2002 Former Creationists 2003 A Crisis of Faith: An Ex-Creationist Speaks A Former Creationist's Testimony A Personal Journey 2004 Awake for the First Time

sounds like PT needs a "suggestion box" for ideas requiring some form of action.

In the meantime, maybe you could write the host of TO and ask if he would post a compilation of the sort you propose. Then maybe ask those that have posted changed views if you could interview them to add to the compilation.

eventually, patterns would emerge that might be worth summarizing into a new section on TO as well.

cheers

you might also want to examine the exchange between Lenny and Lurker in this thread:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000978.html#c26708

sounds like Lurker might be interested in something along the lines of what you propose.

cheers

Well, this whle thing strikes me as a little odd. I've now heard from a local intelligent design advocate (who, I might add, seemed to be doing a bit of chest-thumping both about this and about the intelligent design "controversy" gracing the cover of Nature) who insists that Eugenie Scott "needs to get her facts straight." I instead submit that, if Scott doesn't have her facts straight, it's very likely that Caldwell submitted a paucity of facts regarding his new curriculum. I feel ID often does that--the case is extremely weak to begin with, but they turn this to an advantage by offering almost no details regarding their position. I'll bet almost every ID advocate at some point has screamed out "you don't even know my position on this subject!" and has been right--because nobody does. The intended message from Caldwell seems to be "fill in the details at your own peril--we strike from the dark, and any attempts to call us out of it will be punished."

"the case is extremely weak to begin with, but they turn this to an advantage by offering almost no details regarding their position"

man, this sounds like almost every political platform i have ever seen a potential candidate take for the last 20 years.

coincidence? doubt it.

Joe has been mentioned a few times in this thread. He has an interesting analysis on his blog:
http://brightline.typepad.com/law_evolution_science_and/2005/04/frivolous_intel.html

It is a bit long for a comment here, but is certainly worth reading.

Caldwell said he's been contacted by two other individuals who say they have been libeled by Scott's NCSE. In 2002, biologist Jonathan Wells, a leading figure in the Intelligent Design movement, claimed his science credentials were impugned by NCSE officials Kevin Padian and Alan Gishlick. Padian and Gishlick wrote that after Wells obtained his Ph.D. in biology, he "followed this with a 5-year postdoctoral position ... during which time he seems to have performed no experiments" and "no peer-reviewed publications resulted." Both claims were false, according to John West of the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, who noted that even after sending documentation, the two authors refused to correct the record.

"Caldwell said he's been contacted by two other individuals who say they have been libeled by Scott's NCSE" . . . "according to John West "

Its not like Caldwell doesn't know them. He spoke along with West, Beckwith, Cooper and John Calvert advocating the teaching of ID at Biola in 2004.