Am I psychic or what?

Posted 20 December 2005 by Nick Matzke

Heck, we have like 10 posts on the Kitzmiller decision up today, so why not one more?

Now that Ed Brayton and Burt Humburg have told the story (direct link to Skeptic article) of how the Pandas drafts were discovered -- trust me, it was obvious if you really paid attention to the available historical sources -- I will share one other event that is leading me to suspect that I may have psychic abilities. (Note to sticklers: this is a joke. There is no evidence for psychic abilities, although the Defense in Kitzmiller regularly brought up paranormal research as an example paralleling ID. I'm not sure why they thought this would help their argument -- I think they got it from Steve Fuller.)

Two days before the decision came out, I privately posted my predictions about the decision to the PT contributors (so, I have them as witnesses). Now, it seems to serve as a pretty good summary of Jones's decision:

X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.1.0.6
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 11:34:38 -0800
To: [PT email list]
From: Nick Matzke
Subject: [PT list] Re: narrow ruling

>From: Timothy Sandefur [email deleted]
>To: [PT email list]
>Subject: Re: [ptbc] Maybe maybe...
>Date: Dec 18, 2005 9:52 AM
>
>What would "ruling narrowly" be?

This is an excellent question. Much of the media analysis has superficially said that the judge could either rule narrowly on the purpose of the school board, or broadly on the issue of the scientific/religious status of ID.

However, even the Edwards decision was allegedly a "narrow" ruling on the purpose of the Louisiana legislature, but because the legislature's "rationale" was that creation science was science and not religion, the failure of that argument seems to have set a broad precedent for future cases.

The Dover school board and the Thomas More Law Center, bless their hearts, have set up exactly the same dynamic, and have basically staked their whole case on the idea that ID is science and not religion, therefore passing the ID policy had a legitimate secular purpose despite whatever religious motivations a few of the board members had.

So, I don't think the judge can avoid ruling on the question of whether or not ID is science or religion. And based on the media attention, the rumor that the opinion will be long, the fact that Judge Jones seems to be a class act, and just the general carpet-bombing on ID that we conducted at trial, I am placing my bets on the decision as follows:

(I say this now so that I can perhaps post these afterwards)

The ruling will:

* Be like the McLean decision -- a review of origins and history of "intelligent design". It will conclude that ID is just the newest label for creationism, and furthermore is essentially the same stuff that Wendell Bird and Dean Kenyon tried to sell to the Supreme Court in 1986-1987 as a refined, vague version of "creation science."

* This is proven by the Pandas drafts and numerous other evidence, and Pandas on its face is clearly advocating special creationism

* All of the founders and players in ID are clearly on a primarily religious/cultural mission, not a scientific one

* Thus ID is religion just like creation science, and the decision on its constitutionality has already been made, by the Supreme Court in 1987.

* Scientifically, the "positive argument for ID", basically purposeful arrangment of parts, is at best a piece of Paley's natural theology. This has led to no substantial research even from Behe and Minnich, and its not clear how it could.

* Introducing "purpose" as a scientific explanation, in the context of evolution, clearly raises immediate problems of warring designs, diseases, etc., and even the defense witnesses said that this then becomes a theological discussion

* The positive argument is not testable because it involves supernatural final causes

* The negative arguments against evolution are often dubious or wrong, as shown by unrebutted testimony from plaintiffs experts

* ID has gained no support in the scientific community, and the normal process of textbook development, first you win the scientific battle, then you get into the textbooks

* Evolution, in contrast, has massive support from the scientific community, and furthermore has supported a great deal of research on topics like the immune system, in contradiction to Behe.

* However, the issue of the constitutionality of ID in public schools says nothing about who may pursue or explore ID in other contexts <--[this is perhaps the most likely bit that will get quoted out-of-context by IDists to snatch victory from defeat]

The judge will also undoubtedly discuss the specific history of the Dover area school board policy and note the obviously unconstitutional stuff there, but that will be less interesting from the national perspective. I bet he will note the eerie parallels between the evolution of the policy in Dover, and evolution of creationism into ID nationally.

For me the real question is whether or not the judge will say something explicit about the creationist history of switching labels, and criticize all such attempts. It may come up if he discusses the "theory not fact" and "gaps/problems" bits of the Dover policy, and doesn't just focus on "intelligent design".

While I'm gazing into the crystal ball:

* The DI will accuse the Thomas More Law Center of incompetence just before the decision comes down.

* There will be something in the decision that, like every previous decision, will be taken as a victory by the creationists

* The Thomas More Law Center will not take any more ID cases for a good long time, and we may see some serious infighting on the ID/creationism/evangelical community between the larger evangelical movement and the ID true believers over these sorts of questions:

Why didn't the founders of ID tell us about these Pandas drafts

We've been sold a false bill of goods by the Discovery Institute -- look at how their rhetoric/experts/materials melted when they finally got challenged in court

Shouldn't we just be honest and call ourselves God-did-it creationists, if that's what we really think, otherwise we should make our peace with evolution. In-between strategies like ID are clearly not going to impress the courts, and it's probably bad theology also.

My 2 cents, we'll know in a few days...

Nick

If anyone needs any help betting on basketball games, my services are available...

42 Comments

Ed Brayton · 20 December 2005

Just a slight correction - Ed Brayton and Burt Humburg told the story.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 20 December 2005

There will be something in the decision that, like every previous decision, will be taken as a victory by the creationists

Well, you were wrong about THIS one. ;> There is nothing anywhere in the decision that IDers can possibly spin as a "victory". Even Dembski has, on his Uncommon Descent fanfest, been reduced to pointing to his pre-ruling handwaving and glumly saying that he has nothing to add. Before the ruling, I predicted on t.o. that it would be a nuke that would obliterate everything on the ID landscape. I was wrong. It was an entire ARSENAL of nukes.

Shouldn't we just be honest and call ourselves God-did-it creationists

There's precedent for this one --- it's what ICR did after the Maclean/Aguillard decisions. Now, ICR openly declares itself a "Christian ministry", and makes its living selling religious tracts to the gullible. DI will be forced to do the same, once Howie Ahmanson's checks stop coming. After all, the only reason ID pretended to be "science" was to win in court. And now that they've LOST in court (crushingly and embarrassingly), well, there's not much point in maintaining the pretense any more, is there. (shrug) DI will now follow ICR into political impotence and obscurity. TMLC will do the same. Dembski was right about Dover --- it WAS a Waterloo. Isaac just had the wrong losing general. (snicker) (giggle) (peals of laughter)

Steve Reuland · 21 December 2005

Well, you were wrong about THIS one. ;> There is nothing anywhere in the decision that IDers can possibly spin as a "victory".
— Lenny

I think you may have misunderestimated the forces of ID. This is from an article just out in Salon.com:

Despite Jones' ruling, the Discovery Institute, the Seattle-based engine of the I.D. movement, is claiming victory. "Anyone who thinks a court ruling is going to kill off interest in intelligent design is living in another world," says John West, associate director of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, in a press release. "Americans don't like to be told there is some idea that they aren't permitted to learn about. Banning intelligent design in Dover will likely only fan interest in the theory."

You have to be capable of admitting fault before you can admit defeat.

James Taylor · 21 December 2005

Before the ruling, I predicted on t.o. that it would be a nuke that would obliterate everything on the ID landscape. I was wrong. It was an entire ARSENAL of nukes.
— Lenny

Dembski was right about Dover ---- it WAS a Waterloo. Isaac just had the wrong losing general...
— Lenny

*snicker*

You have to be capable of admitting fault before you can admit defeat.
— Steve Reuland

*sigh*

Norman Doering · 21 December 2005

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank claimed:

DI will now follow ICR into political impotence and obscurity. TMLC will do the same.

I think the neocons have to follow them into political impotence and infamy in order for that to work. Impeach Bush. A lot of those neocons were vocal ID supporters. They're can't be considered politically impotent when the polls might still say 80 percent or more Americans doubt evolution. What are we talking about when we talk about politics - the ability to get votes? If the neocons still get votes, then ID is not politically impotent.

Swoosh · 21 December 2005

I'm curious, Flank, why do you think Ahmanson's fundie funding will dry up?

From my perspective, all of the players in the ID organizing and funding game (Ahmanson and Johnson especially) are well aware that ID is and always has been an empty scientific vessel. You and I and them all know that the real purpose behind the Discovery Institute is a ministry.

The DI's message is successful because it provides the scientifically credulous population with enough jargon to give their ridid belief system a modern scaffold. Whether or not the "science" backing the DI's message actually holds water is irrelevant. The people they want to convince are seldom persuaded by cogent scientific arguments anyway, if it disagrees with their Biblical interpretations.

This decision also appeals to that strange "persecution" complex that seems to be so widely promoted by the fundies.

So at least from where I see their position, it doesn't matter what Judge Jones says. It doesn't matter if those evil evolutionist scientists disagree with Behe and Dembski and the other Designists--the amoral, atheistic scientific community has clearly been brainwashed by the Devil. The "science" really is beside the point. Its the "message" that matters, and plenty of credulous America is sitting up and paying attention to them.

Anyway, I'm going to stick my neck out here and disagree with you. I don't believe that Ahmanson will cut off the juice. At least he won't over the Kitzmiller decision. If Ahmanson cuts off the funding, it will be because of differences of opinion between his interpretation of the Bible and the Discovery Institute's key players. But I don't see that happening anytime soon. Say, for example, the DI takes a firm stance that the earth actually IS as old as the evil geologist conspiracy says, or that Noah's flood didn't actually happen. Maybe then Ahmanson would cut off the allowance. But the Big Tent plan is still in effect as far as I can see. ID still has plenty of traction with creationists, obviously. The DI still has plenty of clout as a ministry.

Mike · 21 December 2005

Will the school district have to pay the ACLU attorney fees?

I found the Jones to be especially angry about the lying under oath. Will there be charges of perjury?

Norman Doering · 21 December 2005

Will there be charges of perjury?

If he's going to call them liars -- he ought to back that up with perjury charges.

Mike · 21 December 2005

Interesting mention of this site on a conservative blog:

http://www.therealitycheck.org/GuestColumnist/jbendewald122105.htm

"Evolutionist blogs such as The Panda's Thumb are hailing this as a watershed event, and one newspaper is calling it a Waterloo victory. "

"The Thomas More Law Center, which defended Dover Area School District, previously said that if they lost they would take the case to the Supreme Court. This is not the case to pursue. That would lead to more embarrassment. Rather, a new case that challenges the validly of evolution as science is needed."

roger Tang · 21 December 2005

The Thomas More Law Center, which defended Dover Area School District, previously said that if they lost they would take the case to the Supreme Court. This is not the case to pursue. That would lead to more embarrassment. Rather, a new case that challenges the validly of evolution as science is needed."

Reality check, indeed.

How about SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH that challenges the validty of evolution? Methinks that would be FAR more effective....

James Taylor · 21 December 2005

Jim Bendewald

So what can Intelligent Design proponents do now to renew the challenge against evolution in public schools? I propose that concerned families in a school district be found to challenge the teaching of evolution as science when it is clearly a form of religion. One of the definitions of religion is: "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith".* For what empirical evidence is there for matter and energy coming from nothing, life naturally arising from chemicals and macroevolution? This view is based solely on faith. The religion of metaphysical naturalism needs to be challenged in court, not Intelligent Design.

Ah, Science = Faith Faith = Religion therefore Science = Religion ... Sounds like Dembski. ... More proofs and no proof. If only there was one poof. ... How exactly do you disprove that nature exists?

KiwiInOz · 21 December 2005

I just had to send this email to Jim Bendewald.

Dear Jim

"I propose that concerned families in a school district be found to challenge the teaching of evolution as science when it is clearly a form of religion."
From this statement of yours I take it that you get some sort of perverse delight in seeing well meaning but ill-informed people get humiliated in court.
Religion requires faith.
Science requires evidence.
Courts require evidence.
Check mate.
As for Dembski and Meyer not being called to give evidence - the TMLC did not want them to give evidence because they are the weakest links in a chain of weak links with regard to the TMLC's argument to the Court that ID is not religiously based and that it has some scientific credibility.
Regards,

Norman Doering · 21 December 2005

I'm losing it and not making sense:

They're can't be considered politically impotent when the polls might still say 80 percent or more Americans doubt evolution.

At any rate, courts are one thing -- but courts don't elect politicians, politicians appoint judges or they're elected. This was a Bush judge but that won't stop the spin. Politics is about winning elections and that means you've got to educate people and shift those poll numbers. ID is still politically effective and the DI is spinning that "activist judges" angle. That could work politically. The best thing you do with the court at this time is soak up ID money and try to drain their resources. Can the Dover school board sue the Thomas Moore law center? Didn't that Salon article say that the law center was encouraging the stickers to get a court case?

Stephen Elliott · 21 December 2005

From the realitycheck link

So what can Intelligent Design proponents do now to renew the challenge against evolution in public schools? I propose that concerned families in a school district be found to challenge the teaching of evolution as science when it is clearly a form of religion. One of the definitions of religion is: "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith".* For what empirical evidence is there for matter and energy coming from nothing, life naturally arising from chemicals and macroevolution? This view is based solely on faith. The religion of metaphysical naturalism needs to be challenged in court, not Intelligent Design.

I am considering joining the "Church of Gravity".

Burt Humburg · 21 December 2005

Nick, you might be psychic, but you're also blind. Ed wasn't the only author! :)

PT readers don't know that the first day I stepped foot into the courtroom, Nick didn't recognize me until I stated my name, birthdate, and blood type. (He went on to blame it on the glasses, but I think this is pretty clear evidence that I just don't fit into his worldview.)

BCH

Tim Hague · 21 December 2005

I'm going to agree with Swoosh and Norman Doering in that ID isn't quite finished yet. As this is the 'prescience' thread I'll post a link to my blog from October 28th when I concluded that the plaintiffs were going to win and that ID is probably here to stay...

This is a notable PR victory for science though, and should be milked as much as possible.

RupertG · 21 December 2005

Now it's had time to sink in, the importance of Judge Jones' ruling just seems the greater. The ID/Creationist vs science arguments have been static for a long time - nobody's had anything new to say, because the IDers have no data and the science side has run out of new ways to point out the staggeringly obvious. (This could be called the Lenny Flank Statis, after the Rev Dr's indefatigable fondness for dead equine abuse).

With the ruling, Judge Jones has taken a snapshot of the debate (for want of a better word) and said that one side is right and one side is wrong. That's it. There's no way the losing side can bypass this without coming up with new information that explicitly addresses the points on which Jones based his verdict -- which, clearly, they are incapable of doing.

That was the end of term exam. They've failed.

jpf · 21 December 2005

One of the definitions of religion is: "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith".*

I am considering joining the "Church of Gravity".

Better yet, join the Church of the High School Football Team. There's a "cause" that is "held to with ardor and faith." Will Jim Bendewald be petitioning to have that challenged in court on First Amendment grounds? (* You gotta love how Jim footnoted the definition: "Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, 10th Edition". That's not just argumentum ad Websterum, that's scholarship!)

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 21 December 2005

They're can't be considered politically impotent when the polls might still say 80 percent or more Americans doubt evolution. What are we talking about when we talk about politics - the ability to get votes?

No, the ability to pass things that they want. The Bush-ites control the House, the Senate, the White House AND the Federal courts ------ and they STILL haven't passed any of the fundie agenda. They know it would be political suicide. As for the neocons, I think they shot themselves in the head in Iraq, and will find themselves, after the next election, outside looking in.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 21 December 2005

I'm curious, Flank, why do you think Ahmanson's fundie funding will dry up? From my perspective, all of the players in the ID organizing and funding game (Ahmanson and Johnson especially) are well aware that ID is and always has been an empty scientific vessel. You and I and them all know that the real purpose behind the Discovery Institute is a ministry.

No. A "ministry" is what DI will become (if it survives at all). But that was NOT its purpose, nor was it why Howie sent them checks. What Howie wanted (and DI tried to provide) was a method to push Howie's religious opinions into government, using political strength. After Dover, DI is no longer capable of that, and Howie will lose interest and find another outfit that offers a better chance of it. It's not preaching that Howie is itnerested in funding -- it is using the power of the state to force his preaching onto others. DI can no longer do that.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 21 December 2005

So what can Intelligent Design proponents do now to renew the challenge against evolution in public schools? I propose that concerned families in a school district be found to challenge the teaching of evolution as science when it is clearly a form of religion. One of the definitions of religion is: "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith".* For what empirical evidence is there for matter and energy coming from nothing, life naturally arising from chemicals and macroevolution? This view is based solely on faith. The religion of metaphysical naturalism needs to be challenged in court, not Intelligent Design.

And once again, ID wants to duplicate the (losing) history of creation "science". After the creation "scientists" lost, crushingly and embarrassingly in Arkansas and Louisiana, they also tried to switch horses and ride the "evolution is religion" thingie, in California (Peloza v New Capistrano). They lost so badly that the judge declared the case to be a "frivilous lawsuit". I look forward to seeing IDers gallop headlong down that path, too. The more time, effort and money they waste on lawsuits that are losers right out of the gate, the better it makes me feel. As I noted before, even earthworms can learn to avoid pain through unpleasant previous experiences. Creationists, apparently, aren't that bright.

Rob Knop · 21 December 2005

How about SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH that challenges the validty of evolution? Methinks that would be FAR more effective....

Heh. Except for the fact that the vast, overwhelming body of scientific resesearch that is out there supports the validity of evolution, and nobody who pays attention has any reason to suppose right now that any futher scientific research would do otherwise.

As such, since making the science case by using science isn't gonna work, they have to find a way to make the science case using something else, and convince themselves that that will work. (The sad thing is, I suspect it could, if they find just the right court of public opinion in which to try their case. The victory would be transient, of course, for evolution does have the advantage of empirical evidence and truth on its side, and eventually that will unambiguously win out. However, the "transient" cultural acceptance of antievolution could last for decades or more.)

-Rob

Ed Brayton · 21 December 2005

Burt Humburg wrote:

PT readers don't know that the first day I stepped foot into the courtroom, Nick didn't recognize me until I stated my name, birthdate, and blood type. (He went on to blame it on the glasses, but I think this is pretty clear evidence that I just don't fit into his worldview.)

I propose two counter-hypotheses: A. He didn't recognize you because you were sober and the last time he saw you, you were not. B. He didn't recognize you because he was sober and the last time he saw you, he was not. And by the way, Zinfandel is not a blood type. [/making fun off]

Steven Thomas Smith · 21 December 2005

Time to recall H. Allen Orr's conclusion from Fantastically Flawed Proofs:

Dembski, Behe and associates may in the end prove a thorn in the side of not only biologists but also the devout. By promising devastating objections to evolution but delivering half-baked technobabble that disintegrates upon close inspection, they subject certain religious persons to unnecessary and traumatic cycles of expectation and dashed hope. The point is that all skirmishes involve risk of friendly fire and the faithful will, sooner or later, have to ask who poses the greater actual danger: those who merely suggest that life evolves or those who routinely announce "proofs" of the handiwork of an interventionist Designer---proofs that have, so far, been fantastically flawed, noisily imploding almost immediately after their much publicized debuts.
— H. Allen Orr

Ed Darrell · 21 December 2005

Despite Jones' ruling, the Discovery Institute, the Seattle-based engine of the I.D. movement, is claiming victory. "Anyone who thinks a court ruling is going to kill off interest in intelligent design is living in another world," says John West, associate director of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, in a press release. "Americans don't like to be told there is some idea that they aren't permitted to learn about. Banning intelligent design in Dover will likely only fan interest in the theory."

Maybe someone could sue the Discovery Institute for keeping secret the theory of intelligent design. After all, Americans don't like to be told there is some idea they aren't permitted to learn about, and the DI's refusal to reveal what ID is plainly is a disservice to science. Perhaps a class action suit by all cancer victims would get DI's attention and appropriate sympathy.

MrDarwin · 21 December 2005

Good decision, but it's not going to end the push to get "intelligent design" into science classrooms. They will just learn what to spin and what not to spin, repackage it slightly and just take it to another state (which they have basically already done).

BTW according to a hissy fit by John West posted on the DI's website, "He [the judge] has conflated Discovery Institute's position with that of the Dover school board, and he totally misrepresents intelligent design and the motivations of the scientists who research it."

In other words, they are already blaming, and distancing themselves from, the Dover school board (although I still can't find any mention on their website of the pro-ID school board members being voted out of office).

Russell · 21 December 2005

Despite Jones' ruling, the Discovery Institute, the Seattle-based engine of the I.D. movement, is claiming victory. "Anyone who thinks a court ruling is going to kill off interest in intelligent design is living in another world," says John West

West may be right about that. After all, major newspapers all over the country publish a daily horoscope, and I believe tabloids peddling stories of alien inseminations, hagiographic tortillas, and lucky lottery numbers continue to fly off the supermarket shelves. I think it's just time that the I.D. movement take its proper place in the landscape of ideas.

MrDarwin · 21 December 2005

Oops, I should have read just a bit further in the same article I just quoted from, as they do acknowledge that the Dover school board was voted out. But now I'm a bit confused because the article goes on to say:

Luskin pointed out that the ruling only applies to the federal district in which it was handed down. It has no legal effect anywhere else. The decision is also unlikely to be appealed, since the recently elected Dover school board members campaigned on their opposition to the policy. "The plans of the lawyers on both sides of this case to turn this into a landmark ruling have been preempted by the voters," he said. "Discovery Institute continues to oppose efforts to mandate teaching about the theory of intelligent design in public schools," emphasized West. "But the Institute strongly supports the freedom of teachers to discuss intelligent design in an objective manner on a voluntary basis. We also think students should learn about both the scientific strengths and weaknesses of Darwin's theory of evolution."

So did the DI, or did they not, support the Dover school board, which had indeed MANDATED the teaching--in the form of the statement that had to be read--of "intelligent design"?

Pete Dunkelberg · 21 December 2005

So did the DI, or did they not, support the Dover school board, which had indeed MANDATED the teaching---in the form of the statement that had to be read---of "intelligent design"?

Yes. There's been a post on that, probably by Pim. btw The DI Ministry has earned its acronym.

Nick (Matzke) · 21 December 2005

I have fixed the bit about Burt, aka Official Kitzmiller Trial Junkie.

k.e. · 21 December 2005

MrDarwin I think I have picked up some error on the DI spin

"Discovery Institute continues ~~to oppose~~ efforts to mandate teaching about the theory of intelligent design in public schools," emphasized West. "But the Institute strongly ~~supports~~ opposes the freedom of teachers to discuss intelligent design in an objective manner on a voluntary basis in non science classes. We also think students should learn about both the scientific strengths and weaknesses of ~~Darwin's theory of evolution~~ politics mixed with religion....ooops."

MrDarwin · 21 December 2005

At any rate, it sounds like the DI is going to be placing some (most? all?) of the blame on the Dover school board, since they can't possibly accept any of the blame themselves. They're going to have trouble making it stick to the judge (although they're trying), since he was appointed by a Republican president (Bush Sr.), is not a liberal and does not seem to be an "activist" judge by any stretch of the imagination. And they're going to be very careful about how they blame the pro-evolution side (although again, they will try) because that runs the risk of admitting that scientists actually have a good case to make against "intelligent design".

Stephen Erickson · 21 December 2005

You are certainly a better oddsmaker than Dembski, who gave the actual outcome less than a 10% probability of occurring.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/371

Who knew that he was bad at assigning probabilities to events?

DJ · 21 December 2005

"Anyone who thinks a court ruling is going to kill off interest in intelligent design is living in another world..."

could just as well read:

"Anyone who thinks a court ruling is going to kill off interest in creationism is living in another world..."

"Anyone who thinks a court ruling is going to kill off interest in astrology, UFO's, and homeopathic medicine is living in another world..."

Yep.

Steviepinhead · 21 December 2005

Norman Doering:

If he's [Judge Jones] going to call them [the ex-school board members] liars --- he ought to back that up with perjury charges.

It's difficult not to sympathize with this general sentiment, but our system of separation of powers--in this case the prosecutorial and judicial powers--requires someone else besides the judge to actually bring any perjury charges. Which is probably, in the larger scheme of things, a good thing. Also, not to wax too legal-technical, but "lying" and "perjury" are arguably different things. "Perjury" typically requires "lying," but may also require other things (for examply, a wilfull intent to obstruct justice) that may not always be easy to prove on top of "simple lying." (And please note that my example here is not based on any research into Pennsylvania perjury law; I'm just trying to make the point that "perjury" may require proof of legal elements in addition to telling an obvious untruth in a courtroom.) All that having been said, I fervently hope that some U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Pa. is taking a good hard look at this very question.

AJF · 21 December 2005

I am considering joining the "Church of Gravity",
— Steven Elliot

Let's beat them to the punch! I vote that we all declare that evolution is INDEED a religion, and claim all of the tax incentives that go along with that!! When that case gets thrown out of court, we have our precedent :) Anyone want to take one for the team???

Swoosh · 21 December 2005

Well, Flank, we'll just have to wait and see on this one.

I suspect you are correct to say that other avenues might be fruitful for him, so Howie may diversify somewhat, if he hasn't already. I'd be very interested to know what else he supports currently. But I think the DI is his baby, and while its an imperfect child who has just been spanked by principal Jones, its still a force to be reckoned with. I still see the DI as having serious clout among the conservative Christian demographic, many of which seem to be lawyers and politicians and are thus in a prime position to enact changes in government that will favor their mutual vision. My prediction is that Ahmanson will continue to strongly support the DI so long as they continue to agree on the basic points of a theocratic nation.

It sounds to me like you think that he will pull out any time now. Predictions?

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 21 December 2005

But I think the DI is his baby

No, Chalcedon Foundation was his baby. He abandoned it for DI. And I'm betting he's regretting that now.

My prediction is that Ahmanson will continue to strongly support the DI so long as they continue to agree on the basic points of a theocratic nation.

Ahmanson is a businessman. He understands why it's stupid to throw good money after bad. He will find a more effective investment for his cash. DI is no longer effective. After Kansas, DI will no longer even have a pulse.

It sounds to me like you think that he will pull out any time now. Predictions?

After Kansas, DI will be dead. Howie will pull out. The DI-ites will all scatter, to live out the rest of their lives writing religious tracts and lecturing church audiences about their, uh, glory days. Just like ICR.

Swoosh · 21 December 2005

I hope you're right about the DI, Flank. I'm not nearly so optimistic.

And I admit I would find some comfort in the situation if Ahmanson stuck with the DI. Good money after bad, yet still highly visible money, is better for us than good money funding some other less obvious monstrosity. If nothing else, at least the Designists are pretty predictable. So it could be I'm projecting my hopes here. But I don't think so.

Kenneth Fair · 22 December 2005

Will the school district have to pay the ACLU attorney fees?
— Mike at #63737

Yes. From last page of the opinion:

Because Plaintiffs seek nominal damages, Plaintiffs shall file with the Court and serve on Defendants, their claim for damages and a verified statement of any fees and/or costs to which they claim entitlement. Defendants shall have the right to object to any such fees and costs to the extent provided in the applicable statutes and court rules.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 22 December 2005

I hope you're right about the DI, Flank.

I'm *always* right. I *thought* I was wrong once ---- but I was mistaken about that. :)

k.e. · 22 December 2005

Swoosh I think you are projecting your hopes "Good money after bad" but H.A. is if not a dirty rotten schemer, a rat cunning dirty rotten schemer ....so after my reading the of rats entrails, he will consult his masters for changing reality(and other despots), the ungodly prophets of God(fear of the unknown and outsiders) and elite wealth, the traditional tools of power since long before Jesus..... propaganda money will be tied to deeds.... Fundies who promise to get the those dirty rotten Liberals right where it hurts...their liberties.....you have been warned.