Kudos to the NCSE

test

[PvM: This completes the test of PT's emergency broadcasting system]

Rothschild's cross-examination of Behe was the first bit of trial transcription I read, and it's what got me incredibly hooked on this case in the first place. Way to go, Rothschild :)

... and a shout out to Nick, so he won't be forgotten in all this.

Nick did a fantastic job helping prep the ACLU team, Rothschild included.

It's not the last you've heard from me and Steve on this,

— Rothschild

The N.C.S.E did a great job,and I am very proud to be a member.Not to change the subject but, the St Pete Times have a article "Science Goal Short on Evolution" Gov Jeb Bush stated that the Florida science standards need beefing up ,BUT evolution should not be a part of it.
What else should we expect, being dumb must run in the family.

As Rush's rabble would say, "Dittos on the kudos!" Having attended some of the trial in person, it was a real pleasure to watch two lawyers and their teams pursue this case with knowledge, excellence and unfailing vigor. Kudos also to Nick who, along with the rest of NCSE, must have done a phenomenal job of preparing the legal wizards. It is unfortunate that so many Americans fail to appreciate the value of a good education including a good science education. After attending the trial, I have a much higher and better appreciation of lawyers, too. Very professional!

What else should we expect, being dumb must run in the family.

— JONBOY

Corkscrew,I agree some what with your comments,but dont mistake success with being devious.The Bush family surround themselves with smart people,who do their thinking for them.

Corkscrew: I'm with Jonboy on this. The Bush dynasty already had the money and the political connections. Bush Sr. won an apparently-honest election. His administration was distinctly hostile to my own (liberal) political values, but he was at least serving as a real President. His sons represent a drastic decay of the family line, not just in intelligence, but in moral character.

Shrub made his earlier career running a sucession of companies into the ground, apparently for the tax purposes of his family friends. He then did the same for the state of Texas. *Then* he had two elections handed to him by manipulation. His policies and actions aren't just hostile to liberalism, they're hostile to American principles and welfare as a whole, and his behavior and actions indicate that he's not even aware of that, and probably wouldn't care if he was. I'd guess that his "legacy" will probably leave the Bush name in the brushpile. Too bad for Bush Sr., but hey... "shit happens".

but that he evidently thinks the idiots in the audience are more worth cultivating than the smart folks

if you want to win an election, you have to appeal to the larger caucus...

djlactin wrote,

"if you want to win an election, you have to appeal to the larger caucus..."

Did you mean "caucus" or "circus"? (send in the clowns!)

I apologize for sidetracking the thread, which is apparently about Bush family politics, but I want to say that I thought it was brilliant to ask Behe about astrology. That really brought home the watering down he was attempting with the definition of "science" and "theory".

yes, let's leave the politics and Bush-bashing out of this and get back to the fun. Kitzmiller is a boost to science and education that transcends party lines. I still get gleeful each time I read it.

in fact, I think I deserve kudos, too, for being a card-carrying member of NCSE for over 10 years. so... you're welcome, America!

and obviously greater kudos to the pro bono lawyers at Pepper Hamilton and NCSE themselves. by my count, NCSE contributed not only the formidable Matzke, but three of its board members as expert witnesses: Padian, Forrest, and Alters. hope I did not miss anyone.

I assume the Pepper firm will use the national attention to build their reputation among paying clients. but as someone who believes in the need for continued vigilence, I have to wonder whether NCSE will take advantage of this decision the way they should. otherwise, it risks generating the perverse result of just stimulating donations by disgruntled creationists, and at a time when we've got Kansas and Ohio on the horizon, and maybe the Selman appeal heading to the Supremes.... (anyone know how NCSE's annual budget compares with the Discovery Institute or other creationist orgs?)

and, America (if you're still listening), you're welcome again for all those years, through good times and bad, when I kept donating to NCSE. and my name isn't even Steve.

When I was reading the trial transcripts I was always wondering how the heck a few lawyers were so scientifically astute. Now I know. Very impressive.

I wonder who was teaching/coaching the TMLC about science and evolution? The DI? Behe? No one? Richard Thompson seemed to lack any real scientific grasp. I guess he was relying on his faith to win the case?

Well all is not lost for the TMLC. I get their email alerts and not a week goes by where they do not win a lawsuit for someone who wants to display a nativity scene in their yard or whatnot. Looks like they have found their niche.

..also the Cobb County case in still pending right?

I should be the one to apologize for side tracking the thread, I suspect my motives were to show that we must not be to complacent.
The results in Dover were outstanding,but to quote Sir Winston Churchill
This is not the end,this is not the beginning of the end, but it is the end of the beginning.

Off Topic:

Not only has Dembski's uncommon descent been mothballed, it appears that DI's blog EvolutionNews has had it's url expired.

weird.

I think I recruited another Steve for Project Steve
I see the Steve-o-meter will be topping 700 soon.

I've seen multiple times about these transcripts for the trial, could somebody provide me with a URL to that. I'd love to have been there, but I really didn't know anything about it untill it was almost all over.

Thanks!

I apologize for sidetracking the thread, which is apparently about Bush family politics, but I want to say that I thought it was brilliant to ask Behe about astrology. That really brought home the watering down he was attempting with the definition of "science" and "theory".

in fact, I think I deserve kudos, too, for being a card-carrying member of NCSE for over 10 years. so... you're welcome, America!

— m. child

I'm pretty sure we have links to the transcripts already posted on the Kitzmiller Update thread.

Or just try the NCSE website, or the ACLU, or...

It was inevitable that one ot the two lead attorneys for the reality-based community would be a "Steve," of course!

I apologize for sidetracking the thread, which is apparently about Bush family politics, but I want to say that I thought it was brilliant to ask Behe about astrology. That really brought home the watering down he was attempting with the definition of "science" and "theory".

I've seen multiple times about these transcripts for the trial, could somebody provide me with a URL to that. I'd love to have been there, but I really didn't know anything about it untill it was almost all over.

— Miah

I am totally pulling for Rothschild and Harvey to represent in Ohio when the time comes.

This is a beautiful state with some wonderful IDiots in it. They just need to realize that Separation of Church and State really is for their protectin and defense as well as it is for everyone else (like me!)

Happy (and Slurpy!) New Year!

I, too, started tracking this issue in detail on Oct 19, after reading a CNN.com article that a Defense witness admitted ID required the same definition of science as Astrology. I read the trial transcript for the day's cross-examination when I got home from work. I still love how Behe was pidgeon-holed into the ID/Astrology->science comparison!

Trial transcripts are here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover.html

(Doesn't anyone use google anymore?)

Best regards.

Well all is not lost for the TMLC. I get their email alerts and not a week goes by where they do not win a lawsuit for someone who wants to display a nativity scene in their yard or whatnot. Looks like they have found their niche.

I loved the New Yorker cartoon with Rothschild grilling Behe, complete with spinning bacterial flagellum in the background. (!!) Anyone know whether NCSE or the ACLU will be selling autographed copies as a fundraiser? And if not, can I get a percentage of the take for coming up with the idea?

I'd be willing to start the bidding at $250, but it has to be poster-framing size. And I would promise to display it prominently but safely in our department hallway.

Bush added that evolution should "absolutely" be part of science teachings, but he said there are gaps in the theory and he personally would want science teachers to allow discussions about creationism.

The Watchdog Report asked a follow-up question: Does the governor believe in Darwin's theory of evolution? Bush said: ``Yeah, but I don't think it should actually be part of the curriculum, to be honest with you. And people have different points of view and they can be discussed at school, but it does not need to be in the curriculum.''

wow.

so... simple schizophrenia, or multiple personality disorder?

or too much alcohol? oxycontin?

$350 for an autographed copy of the New Yorker drawing!

$400, seriously.

Is it available?

I think it's obvious that a lot of people simply have never been exposed to evolution and don't understand how fundamental an organizing principle it is to modern biology. To a biologist, it's completely clear that evolutionary theory has important implications for cell biology, biochemistry/molecular biology, genetics, ecology, environmental science, agriculture, medicine, physiology, zoology, botany, microbiology, and any other subspecialty one can think of. To someone whose biology education began and ended with a 10th-grade course that (s)he didn't like, it's easy to say, in essence, "What's the problem? Why should a high school biology student have to bother with evolution?"

I'm not politically naive, and can recognize what I'm convinced is Gov. Bush's obvious pandering to the religious right as well. It is, however, very easy to slide evolution out of the curriculum by minimizing its importance, especially when your political audience has never been taught much about it either. Even people who are not opposed to teaching the subject might just read the governor's statement in the papers and assume that it wasn't an important enough topic to raise a fuss over.

And, in the meantime, the kids get dumbed-down science lessons, and miss out on a wonderful, fascinating part of the big picture -- one that would help all the little pictures make more sense and be more interesting.

$500

I'm surprised that nobody seems to have chortled over a recent Doonesbury.

Kudos to the NCSE PvM posted Entry 1862 on December 30, 2005 02:40 AM. (opening comment in this thread) I argued that the Discovery Institute by arguing that the Judge should not rule on the status of Intelligent Design as a science while also arguing that because Intelligent Design is scientific, its primary purpose is not religious, almost begged the judge to rule on this issue.

The actions of the Discovery Institute in this trial may have been instrumental in the final ruling.

Larry [A Revisionist who denigrates The Holocaust]**

Shows how the DI crowd will do ANYTHING to devalue the Judges ruling including denigrating without even reading the testimony
"I have not read a transcript of his testimony." Larry says

Now why would that be Larry?
Could it be similar to the techniques favored by Fundamentalists and Despots around the world ? Create a strategy that includes in its design a systematic demonizing of your opponents while at the same time claiming to be the real victim provoking an irrational zeal in its followers.

**http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/12/desparate_pathe.html#comment-66607

What was most instrumental in the final ruling was the fact that it could not be appealed. ...

— Larry Fafarman

I disagree that the position of the Discovery Institute "almost begged" the judge to rule on this issue. The DI's primary position was that the judge should not rule on ID's status as science, but in case he did rule on this issue, the DI of course wanted him to rule that ID is scientific and also that therefore its primary purpose is not religious.

— Larry

The DI was just trying to cover the bases. Anyway, I think that there was a general consensus that the judge could not rule on whether ID is primarily religious without first ruling on whether ID is science, so asking him to not rule on ID's status as science also in effect asked him to not rule on ID's status as religion.

— Larry

What was most instrumental in the final ruling was the fact that it could not be appealed. This fact emboldened the judge to show a lack of restraint in writing the opinion.

— Larry

The lawsuit should have been dismissed as moot because the cause of action had ceased to exist. I used to qualify such statements with "I think" or "in my opinion," but then 'Rev. Dr.' Lenny Flank would often comment, "no one cares what you think. (shrug)." So now I make such statements here as fact.

— Larry

The plaintiffs' legal representatives are giving themselves too much credit. The defense was a pushover because of the defendants' blunders and lies and the defense witnesses' blunders (notably Behe's).

— Larry

As for Behe, I think that maybe what forced him to say that ID is like astrology was that he probably tried to present ID as a complete explanation for the origin of species rather than as just a criticism of evolution theory (this time it is OK for me to say "I think," Lenny, because I don't know). I don't know ---- I have not read a transcript of his testimony.

— Larry

Where would opponents of ID be without the constitutional separation of church and state? In Britain, for example, there is religion in the public schools, so ruling that ID is religious would provide no basis for banning it from public-school science classes there. One big reason why opponents of ID keep insisting that ID is religious is so they can use the church-state separation principle to attack it.

— Larry

Also, Larry, check out Behe's transcript here on days 10-12.

Comment #66711 Posted by jim on January 1, 2006 12:41 PM Larry Fafarman wrote: What was most instrumental in the final ruling was the fact that it could not be appealed.... (emphasis mine) Larry, You keep saying this but it isn't true. The DASD has every right to appeal the decision if it wants to. However, they choose to not appeal it.

So, go read a Jr. High law text book (something on the history of American law), so that you can learn the very basics of our legal system before you start making legal pronouncements against a US Federal Judge.

I meant that the individual defendants could not appeal it because they are no longer on the school board.

Larry:

Arn.

Go.

*snicker*

So the bottom line is that everyone knew that the decision was not going to be appealed. And the judge took advantage of that fact by showing no restraint in the opinion.

If the individual defendants try to appeal, the new board would just pull the rug out from under them by formally repealing the ID rule (rather than just hiding behind the judge's decision to ban it), thus rendering the appeal moot.

— Larry

What does FCD mean? And can you elaborate on Delta Pi Gamma? I might be interested in joining.

But does Larry understand the legal situation here correctly?

Sure he does. He's taken two cases to the Supreme Court. And he has plenty of support in e-mail.

I disagree that the position of the Discovery Institute "almost begged" the judge to rule on this issue. The DI's primary position was that the judge should not rule on ID's status as science, but in case he did rule on this issue, the DI of course wanted him to rule that ID is scientific and also that therefore its primary purpose is not religious. The DI was just trying to cover the bases.

ΔΠΓ is the Darwinist Pressure Group fraternity.  I believe its motto is "Scientia et Fermentum".
FCD is Friend of Charles Darwin.

What does the pressure group do, exactly?

What does the pressure group do, exactly?

Now that's pressure.

As de facto, unelected, proclaimed President of Delta Pi Gamma, I can tell you that we withhold funding from major universities that don't toe the line.

For example, just this summer we withheld funds for Bill's Athletic Stadium from Ohio State University. This multi-million dollar endowed project was cancelled outright as a direct result of OSU's lack of backbone, although one could argue that they displayed a great invertebrateness.

Pending the Jones Decision we were prepared to withhold funds for the entire state of Pennsylvania. However, now we are reconsidering and may propose the building of Bill's Library of Environmental Science in Dover, Pa., pending permission, funding, etc.

Currently, we are working on securing a fraternity company car, red BMW M5, pending permission, funding, etc.

Comment #66713 posted by PvM on January 1, 2006 12:52 PM Larry wrote: ***** The DI's primary position was that the judge should not rule on ID's status as science, but in case he did rule on this issue, the DI of course wanted him to rule that ID is scientific and also that therefore its primary purpose is not religious.***** Indeed, and since secular purpose is the first prong of the Lemon test and since the Lemon test was accepted by defendants and plaintiffs as the relevant test, the DI basically raised the argument that the first lemon prong passed since ID is science. What is a judge but to do than to address this claim.

Larry wrote: ****I think that there was a general consensus that the judge could not rule on whether ID is primarily religious without first ruling on whether ID is science.***** The two are indeed intricately intertwined.

Larry wrote: ******What was most instrumental in the final ruling was the fact that it could not be appealed. This fact emboldened the judge to show a lack of restraint in writing the opinion.***** A totally unsupported claim and erroneous as well. The final ruling could in fact be appealed, but the likelihood is small.

Larry wrote: *****The lawsuit should have been dismissed as moot because the cause of action had ceased to exist.***** Neither the action had ceased to exist not the possibility of continued action by another board. The issue was hardly moot.

Larry wrote: ****The plaintiffs' legal representatives are giving themselves too much credit. The defense was a pushover because of the defendants' blunders and lies and the defense witnesses' blunders (notably Behe's).***** The plaintiffs lawyers were incredibly well prepared to address the vacuous claims of Intelligent Design. Forrest, one of the expert witnesses, provided them with the link between pre and post-Edwards version of Pandas showing how intelligent design and creationism were easily interchangable.

Larry wrote: ****As for Behe, I think that maybe what forced him to say that ID is like astrology was that he probably tried to present ID as a complete explanation for the origin of species rather than as just a criticism of evolution theory.**** Reading the actual texts, transcripts, rulings, memoranda can be quite beneficial in understanding the proceedings. Otherwise it becomes quite easy to spin strawmen. It was the excellent cross examination which led Behe down this path.

Larry wrote: ***** In Britain, for example, there is religion in the public schools, so ruling that ID is religious would provide no basis for banning it from public-school science classes there.******. --- just because schools are more integrated in Europe when it comes to religion, this hardly means that anything goes in the science curriculum.

*snicker*

Larry,

Re: the intended vs. "apparent" purpose prong of the Lemon test.

If you had READ the ruling, you'd know both were already addressed.

Re: your straw man saying all school boards can be sued because of what they might do.

We agree that the court is not allowed to speculate on what might happen! But your straw man is exactly the opposite of reality! The school board had already done something unconstitutional. The court was not allowed to speculate on what the board might do in the future (such as repeal its decision to include Panda's).

Re: why Panda's was addressed in court.

Panda's was addressed in court BECAUSE IT WAS THE TEXT USED BY THE SCHOOL BOARD. Incidentally, both the TMLC and DI recommended that book to the board. The court would have been over-reaching its authority if it had investigated other books SINCE THEY WERE NOT USED BY THE SCHOOL BOARD.

Re: you're much more clever and knowledgeable than Behe.

Then why the hell didn't you help your team out at Dover? You could have testified as an expert witness or as a lawyer to supplement the meager 4 that the TMLC provided.

Also I suspect if you had been an expert witness, you would have eventually been backed into the same corner that Behe, Bonsell, and Buckingham were backed into. Bonsell & Buckingham committed perjury to get out and incidentally killed the defense. Behe didn't commit perjury and his honesty ended up killing the defense too.

Hmmm, I wonder why it didn't make a difference whether the defenses witnesses told lies or the truth?! Could it have been the position they were defending was unconstitutional?

Perhaps it's more important for you to learn the facts than you suspected. Go read the trial transcripts and then the ruling. Make sure to read the WHOLE ruling not just your side's witnesses.

Did you know there's a Cardinal (I think in Denver), that also supports ID?

Did you know that this doesn't matter because the Pope (and the position of the church as a whole) is against it?

I think that there is a lot of ambiguity in the Lemon test. The first prong of the test is often simply called the "purpose" prong, and the second prong is often called the "effects" prong. But what kind of "purpose" is the subject of the first prong? Is it the intended purpose (i.e., concerning the motives of the public officials) or the apparent purpose (i.e., what the purpose appears to be without regard to the motives of the public officials)? Or is it both kinds of purposes?

— Larry

The Lemon test has a lot of faults (including ambiguity) and some courts have stopped using it.

— Larry

Pandas is not the sole authority on ID --- there are many references on ID.

— Larry

I heard a rumor that public schools in Austria are going to introduce ID concepts. And Austrian Cardinal Schonborn (also spelled Schoenborn), the chief editor of the Catholic catechism, is apparently pro-ID (contrary to claims that the Catholic church has embraced evolution theory).

— Larry

Facts? we no need no stinkin' FACTS!

really, Larry.

ARN

Go.

You'd be much happier.

try it.

Comment #66769 Posted by Engineer-Poet, FCD, ΔΠΓ on January 1, 2006 05:44 PM That nitwit Larry wrote: ****I meant that the individual defendants could not appeal it because they are no longer on the school board.***** There were no individual defendants; the plaintiffs sued the school board (which is why the case is called "Kitzmiller vs. Dover"). You know, your nonsense would be really good material for an introductory course in critical thinking. The errors are so elementary and so obvious, they're like shooting fish in a barrel

Larry, old bean, I gave you the link to the transcripts of the trial. Have you read them?

Yes or no would be a polite reply.

Best regards,
bill

Larrrrrryyy....

*whisper*

ARN Larry, the voice in your head says: "go to ARN and feed your ego"

shhhhh...

bwhhahahahahhahahaha
Larry FarOutofMind

Your last post is an absolute killer
EP shot off one foot
and you shot the other off with your reply

What do you make of this next sentence

"This statement is false"

??? _true_ or _false_ Larry ?

Comment #66826 Posted by jim on January 1, 2006 11:37 PM *snicker*

Your not listening to the voice in your head, Larry. The one that's telling you to go to ARN.

Larry,

I'll make a deal with you. You read the Kitzmiller ruling and I'll read the Marco DeFunis ruling.

Is this OK with you?

I'm guessing that you won't bite.

I hear they have FREE BEER over at ARN, Larry. Why don't you go check it out for us?

Comment #66827 posted by PvM on January 1, 2006 11:42 PM Larry wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> I think that there is a lot of ambiguity in the Lemon test. The first prong of the test is often simply called the "purpose" prong, and the second prong is often called the "effects" prong. But what kind of "purpose" is the subject of the first prong? Is it the intended purpose (i.e., concerning the motives of the public officials) or the apparent purpose (i.e., what the purpose appears to be without regard to the motives of the public officials)? Or is it both kinds of purposes? >>>>>>>>>>> In order to answer these questions one has to understand the case law on Lemon. Typically purpose looks to see if the primary purpose is secular. This means that even though there may be religious purposes, the overall or primary purpose needs to be secular. Hence the attempt to 'teach the controversy'. But as the SC has stated, the stated purpose needs to be sincere and not a sham.

You're missin out on all that FREE BEER Larry! Hurry!

Americas most popular Joke as reported in the science journal Nature (so it is scientifically proven to be funny!): Two Hunters are out in the woods when one of them collapses. He doesn't seem to be breathing and his eyes are glazed over. The other guy whips out his phone and calls the emergency services. He gasps, "My friend is dead! What can I do?" The operator says: "Calm down. I can help. First, let's make sure he's dead." There is a silence, then a shot is heard. Back on the phone, the guy says: "Ok, now what?"

How do you explain that

Before the Dover decision was released, the finest legal minds in the country could not predict whether the judge was just going to rule narrowly on the basis of the religious motivations of the school board members, or whether he was also going to rule on the issues of ID as science and ID as religion.

the rules for the Lemon test

Larry said 2 above
"How do you explain that ?"
Hmmmmmm.......maybe he just reported the ALL the facts?

Before the Dover decision was released, the finest legal minds in the country could not predict whether the judge was just going to rule narrowly on the basis of the religious motivations of the school board members, or whether he was also going to rule on the issues of ID as science and ID as religion. How do you explain that if the rules for the Lemon test are so clear?

— Larry

responding to ****I think that there was a general consensus that the judge could not rule on whether ID is primarily religious without first ruling on whether ID is science.***** The two are indeed intricately intertwined. Not necessarily. Just because something is not scientific does not necessarily mean that it is religious -- and vice-versa.

— Larry

I am looking forward to more legal critiques from Larry.

Comment #66776 posted by PvM on January 1, 2006 06:23 PM Larry said -- ****So the bottom line is that everyone knew that the decision was not going to be appealed. And the judge took advantage of that fact by showing no restraint in the opinion.**** Can Larry provide some examples of this 'no restraint' or even any evidence to support his claim that the Judge took advantage?

Comment #66833 posted by bill on January 2, 2006 12:50 AM Larry, old bean, I gave you the link to the transcripts of the trial. Have you read them?

where did you get the impression you were doing a "good job" at anything, Larry?

certainly nobody HERE thinks you have the capacity to reason at all.

Now over at ARN...

*psst* Free Beer, larry!

Am I being to subtle for the voice in your head Larry?

Arn.org

go there and be, er, happier.

Someone forgot to read the DI's memo, again. Psst, haven't you have heard? Dover v. Kitzmiller doesn't matter to the ID movement. So why the passionate analysis of an inconsequential decision?

Dudes, why are you bothering with this uneducated bozo?

"Dudes, why are you bothering with this uneducated bozo?"

Is that why I am not getting that list of alma maters? Is it because there ARE no alma maters? From his certainty in his opinions I was expecting degrees in several areas.

Comment #66778 posted by PvM on January 1, 2006 06:29 PM Larry wrote: ****If the individual defendants try to appeal, the new board would just pull the rug out from under them by formally repealing the ID rule (rather than just hiding behind the judge's decision to ban it), thus rendering the appeal moot.**** Does Larry realize that Heather Geesey who voted for the ID policy is still on the board?

But does Larry understand the legal situation here correctly?

Larry said
Pat Buchanan had a good name for this judge --- a "Neanderthal."

aw come on Larry if you and Pat baby are going to project get it right...Baboon

http://dominionpaper.ca/weblog/img/bensen_carnival.gif

See --- http://www.ydr.com/search/ci_3218302 The media gave the false impression that none of the members who voted for the ID statement were still on the board.

I hear they have FREE BEER over at ARN

Why should I waste my time reading the transcripts when I am doing such a good job trashing the Dover opinion without having read them?

Where would opponents of ID be without the constitutional separation of church and state? In Britain, for example, there is religion in the public schools, so ruling that ID is religious would provide no basis for banning it from public-school science classes there.

I should also have pointed out that students face national examinations ('GCSE's) at the age of sixteen, divided by subject - these are critical to further academic progression. The BBC produce some helpful revision materials 'Bitesize' for such students. Amongst them are this test on the understanding of evolution. Perhaps trolls like Paley, Sal, Lenny and the rest should take this test first to see if they are up-to-speed with the subject; before they start crashing about here and bumping into the furniture.

BBC 'Bitesize' evolution test

oh well 8/10 but I never studied biology and Question 3 is not David Attenburg :) (I use scottish spelling for pedants)

Perhaps trolls like Paley, Sal, Lenny and the rest

Here are some examples --- (1) The opinion thoroughly trashed the Pandas book after the judge denied the publisher's request to be allowed into the case as an intervenor. The opinion admits that some important testimony against the book was unrebutted (see page 84 of the opinion). Since the publisher was denied intervenor status, the publisher had no opportunity to cross-examine the witness.

— Larry

(2) In an incredible show of conceit, the judge said that he hoped that his ruling on the scientific merits of ID would "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." (page 64 of opinion) "Obvious" to him, but not necessarily to others.

— Larry

(3) The opinion quoted a private attorney-client message --- normally considered confidential --- that the board's Solicitor sent to the board, and used that message against the defendants. The notion that the defendants voluntarily submitted this damaging message to the court is preposterous. This may have been legal, but it was certainly not ethical. (pages 111-112)

— Larry

(4) Instead of ruling just on narrow grounds --- i.e., just the religious motivations of the board members --- the judge also ruled on the issues of ID as science and ID as religion. Some people think that this issue of religious motivation is not a complete test of the first prong of the Lemon test, the "purpose" prong. But since the school board's motives for the ID rule were religious, the ID rule automatically failed the "purpose" prong test,

— Larry

and the judge did not need to consider whether ID was scientific or religious. My line of reasoning here is similar to the idea that the World Series can stop as soon as one of the teams has won four games ---- is everyone with me on this? I hope so --- posting on this website has given me a feeling of frustration such as I would feel in trying to teach the mentally challenged.

— Larry

Pat Buchanan had a good name for this judge --- a "Neanderthal."

— Larry

I am now bracing myself for the inevitable flood of responses that will just tell me that I have not read the opinion, that I cannot understand what I read, and that I do not know what I am talking about.

— Larry

I assume you mean "Larry", and not "Lenny".

Dean that's a good idea Larry is almost as bad as that preposterous guy who MC'ed the Euro vision Song Contest .... Borat from Kazahkstan

Larry wrote: ****If the individual defendants try to appeal, the new board would just pull the rug out from under them by formally repealing the ID rule (rather than just hiding behind the judge's decision to ban it), thus rendering the appeal moot.****

But does Larry understand the legal situation here correctly? And the practical effect of the above little piece of trivia is ---- ?

Okay Larry (and Lenny!)..

if you don't want to go to ARN

Welcome to Na-na-ia!

I've invited some of your friends around so you don't get lonely..

Comment #66955 posted by PvM on January 2, 2006 04:26 PM But does Larry understand the legal situation here correctly? Larry answered --- ****And the practical effect of the above little piece of trivia is ---- ?***** Unless Larry understand the legal precedence and rules, his arguments may be, what is commonly known as strawmen. In this case, Larry seems to be under the false impression that the board was sued as individuals.

You ARE the strawman, Larry. what did the strawman in OZ need, Larry? do you remember?

You sure are sorely lacking. You should go see the Wizard. I hear he lives over at ARN.

Hey I just went to Arn - it's great!, there's a Geologist using a Creo as a football (the British kind) - proper geology and all - diagrams, pictures - everything!

Creationism and finding oil

You going there Larry or are you coming to Na-na-ia?

Comment #66955 posted by PvM on January 2, 2006 04:26 PM Larry wrote: ****You're right ! Her seat was not up for election.**** Yes that darn Media again which fails to provide the relevant information which could so easily be found.

The tactics here are to tie me up in responding to pointless posts so that I have less time to address the real issues.

The tactics here are to tie me up in responding to pointless posts so that I have less time to address the real issues.

And I suppose that you have never been misinformed or been given a false impression by the media?

No.

But then, I spend more than 10 seconds reading the background.

Again, some facts would help your arguments. This is done via research. Research means actually reading the articles you look up. Reading does not mean skimming.

The tactics here are to tie me up in responding to pointless posts so that I have less time to address the real issues.

Which sorta points out that you have no clue what the real issues are.

Hint: if you don't get the details right, you don't have a chance of addressing the real issues correctly.

Creationism and finding oil

Comment #66916 posted by Dean Morrison on January 2, 2006 12:06 PM Laughing Stock Larry wrote: Where would opponents of ID be without the constitutional separation of church and state? In Britain, for example, there is religion in the public schools, so ruling that ID is religious would provide no basis for banning it from public-school science classes there. DeanTheDunce answered: Actually us Brits can tell the difference between Science and Religion, and it seems, are much better educated on the subject than the majority of your population.

Here is what our schools are required to teach, religious or not: http://tinyurl.com/9q8db Sc2 Life processes and living things Knowledge, skills and understanding Variation, inheritance and evolution 4) Students should be taught: Evolution 1. that the fossil record is evidence for evolution 2. how variation and selection may lead to evolution or to extinction.

- I know you consider yourself to be infallible, and incapable of making, or at least admitting to, a mistake - but would you like to surprise us all and admit to a factual error in this case mate? Do that and I'll withdraw the 'Laughing Stock' tag.

So many people have been giving me nicknames here --- mostly derogatory --- that I think I will adopt a nickname myself. From now on, I may sign my comments, "Scary Larry."

I stopped being afraid of scarecrows when i was about 4. find that brain of yours yet lalarry?

Comment #66827 posted by PvM on January 1, 2006 11:42 PM Larry wrote: >>>>>>>>>> I think that there is a lot of ambiguity in the Lemon test. The first prong of the test is often simply called the "purpose" prong, and the second prong is often called the "effects" prong. But what kind of "purpose" is the subject of the first prong? Is it the intended purpose (i.e., concerning the motives of the public officials) or the apparent purpose (i.e., what the purpose appears to be without regard to the motives of the public officials)? Or is it both kinds of purposes? >>>>>>>>>>> In order to answer these questions one has to understand the case law on Lemon. Typically purpose looks to see if the primary purpose is secular. This means that even though there may be religious purposes, the overall or primary purpose needs to be secular. Hence the attempt to 'teach the controversy'. But as the SC has stated, the stated purpose needs to be sincere and not a sham.

Anyway, I think the Lemon test "sucks."

You did not answer the question but changed the subject.

Well, that's the point. If YOU don't understand how the judge got where he did, but keep on screaming "It's wrong! It's wrong!", you're certainly not going to get anywhere.

There's a reason why it's discussed in terms of secular purpose vs. religious purpose. And if you don't accept it, then the argument's over.

You missed my point. If some British school board with some lunatic-fringe bible-thumping fundy crackpots decides to add ID to the science curriculum, how could the British courts stop them?

.Yes, but you have shown no rules prohibiting the teaching, discussion, or mentioning of ID in science classes.

Comment #67080 posted by gwangung on January 3, 2006 03:52 AM Larry wrote -- ****You did not answer the question but changed the subject.**** Well, that's the point. If YOU don't understand how the judge got where he did, but keep on screaming "It's wrong! It's wrong!", you're certainly not going to get anywhere. There's a reason why it's discussed in terms of secular purpose vs. religious purpose. And if you don't accept it, then the argument's over.

Well 'armless Black Knight Larry who is really really really scary
If you think a few pesky lawyers and scientists will be the only objectors in Establishment Clause cases wait until the Churches get wind of it. Jews Islamist's, Catholics, FSMists the whole lot will be "asking questions".

Now Larry time for a joke

A duck walks into a pub and says to the barman: "Got any bread?"
Barman says: "No."
Duck says: "Got any bread?"
Barman says: "No."
Duck says: "Got any bread?"
Barman says: "No, we have no bread."
Duck says: "Got any bread?"
Barman says: "No, we haven't got any &%$#@ bread."
Duck says: "Got any bread?"
Barman says: "No, are you deaf, we haven't got any &%$#@ bread, ask me again and I'll nail your &%$#@ Beak to the bar you irritating &%$#@ bird!"
Duck says: "Got any nails?"
Barman says: "No."
Duck says: "Got any bread?"

Larry there is an old saying
In law as in love, too much concentration on technique can often lead to impotence

Comment #67098 posted by Dean Morrison on January 3, 2006 05:31 AM Scary Larry wrote: ****You missed my point. If some British school board with some lunatic-fringe bible-thumping fundy crackpots decides to add ID to the science curriculum, how could the British courts stop them?***** Well it wouldn't need to get to the courts to stop them - we have a powerful school inspection body called OFSTED which has powers to put schools into 'Special Measures' or even close them down.

Larry
In dear old blighty a Myth is

A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society: the myth of Eros and Psyche; a creation myth.

In the land of the Brave and home of the Free a myth is
A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology

And you have yet to know the difference