Santorum drops Thomas More Law Center

Posted 22 December 2005 by Nick Matzke

Back in January I seem to remember the Thomas More Law Center declaring "A Revolution in Evolution Is Underway." But today, according to the Associated Press, "Santorum says will break ties to law firm that represented school district on intelligent design." Now, Santorum was on the TMLC board, and encouraged the Dover Area School Board early on -- see for example his January 23, 2005, op-ed in the Allentown [PA] Morning Call, entitled "A Balanced Approach to Teaching Evolution," (helpfully now hosted on the Discovery Institute website) wherein Santorum wrote, "The Dover Area School District has taken a step in the right direction by attempting to teach the controversy of evolution." But, I guess that's what poor Thomas More gets for repeatedly citing Santorum and his attempted amendment to the No Child Left Behind Act -- Santorum's name came up 36 times in the trial transcripts, in fact. While we're discussing law firms, it is worth checking out the press releases and related information of the ACLU (and letters they've received), Americans United, and the 600-pound gorilla in this case, Pepper-Hamilton. Sign up for the first two, and send all three your compliments -- they each made a heavy investment in this case, and even if the judge awards some fees after the win, it is highly unlikely they will recoup all of their costs.

38 Comments

steve s (ACLU member since 2001) · 22 December 2005

Join the ACLU--they defend your freedoms from the Right and the Left.

Russell · 22 December 2005

Poor soon-to-be-Ex-Senator Santorum! I'm afraid that if he manages to scrub off all traces of the religious right before the next election, there's not going to be any Santorum left.

Fross · 22 December 2005

The evolution of a flip flop ladies and gentlemen.

Mr Christopher · 22 December 2005

Seeing any high profile type (regardless of what a schmuck they may be) publicly distance themselves from TMLC or intelligent design creationism is especially amusing if not rewarding.

I'd like nothing better than to see this dishonest charade implode.

I'm looking forward to a response from the TMLC.

Bayesian Bouffant, FCD · 22 December 2005

There are other prominent politicians who came out in favor of IDC (or at least the 'teach both sides' canard), and I'm eager to see what they have to say on the topic. McCain and Frist come to mind.

Mr Christopher · 22 December 2005

What I like the best are the legislator/school board types who are being quoted today saying things like:

a) they have not read the ruling yet
b) they diagree with the verdict
c) they still plan to introduce intelligent design (creationism) in their schools (as a criticism of evolution of course) because a court case in PA carries no weight in their own state.

Man oh man this is some of the best entertainment you can get. On one hand those who are not dumb as a post are bailing out of the sinking ship, on the other hand you see those who are in fact dumb as a post and are jumping in the sinking ship.

Laff or cry? I choose laff.

Russell · 22 December 2005

McCain and Frist come to mind.

And, of course, the Evangelist-in-Chief. I thought I saw some mention of a reaction to Judge Jones's decision from the White House, but I suspect someone must have been confusing Bush's regrettable statement from last August with events this week. Does anyone have any better information?

Nick (Matzke) · 22 December 2005

From today's Philadelphia Inquirer:

Rick Santorum on Intelligent Design "Therefore, intelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory that should be taught in science classes." -- 2002 Washington Times op-ed article "I'm not comfortable with intelligent design being taught in the science classroom." -- Interview in August on National Public Radio "I do not believe it should be required teaching." -- Interview yesterday with The Inquirer "I thought the Thomas More Law Center made a huge mistake in taking this case and in pushing this case to the extent they did." -- from Inquirer interview

RBH · 22 December 2005

Damn that liberal elitist press! Just because a fella says something doesn't mean he really means it!

RBH

Bill G · 22 December 2005

I just joined the ACLU. Big Brother is watching

Spore · 22 December 2005

Dover school board members face possible purjury charges...

A federal prosecutor said testimony in the Dover Area School District's intelligent design case is under review to determine if perjury charges should be pursued. U.S. Middle District Attorney Thomas A. Marino said yesterday that decision will take time because there is "a lot of reading to do" to determine if the statements rise to the level of a crime.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 22 December 2005

A federal prosecutor said testimony in the Dover Area School District's intelligent design case is under review to determine if perjury charges should be pursued.

Anyone think TMLC will offer to defend them for free? (snicker) (giggle) BWA HA HA HA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If there really is a god up in heaven, please please pretty please with sugar on it, let both of the Dover Dolts testify that TMLC and/or DI advised them to be evasive and deceptive on the stand in order to bolster their case, and coached them on *how* to be evasive and deceptive under questioning. (howls of laughter) I'm just enjoying this too damn much. :)

Russell · 22 December 2005

The citizens of Dover must be on tenterhooks, waiting to find out if the public stewards to whom they entrusted the running of their schools are criminal perjurers or merely breathtakingly inane.

Steve S · 22 December 2005

But one day after a federal judge ruled that the district's policy on intelligent design was unconstitutional, Santorum said he was troubled by court testimony that showed some board members were motivated by religion in adopting the policy.

Renault: "I am shocked! Shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!" Croupier: "Your winnings, sir." Renault: "Oh. Thank you very much."

gregonomic · 22 December 2005

The rat may be deserting the sinking ship, but it doesn't sound like he's changed his ... erm ... stripes. Note the last paragraph in the article you cited:

Santorum said he disagreed with the Dover board's policy of mandating the teaching of intelligent design, rather than teaching the controversy surrounding evolution. Because of that, he said the case provided "a bad set of facts" to test whether theories other than evolution should be taught in science class.

Rupert Morrish · 22 December 2005

I'm afraid that if he manages to scrub off all traces of the religious right before the next election, there's not going to be any Santorum left.
— russell

Scrubbing off the Santorum, eww! If you're not repulsed by this idea, you've never typed "Santorum" into Google and hit "I'm feeling lucky".

TDG · 22 December 2005

I wish I had kept the response letter I received from slippy Ricky when I wrote to oppose his amendment to the N.C.L.B. Act. It was sanctimonious and as full of direct contradictions to what he is now saying as you could possibly wish. He is so... so... well, he's a politician. Need anyone say any more?

Tom

Moses · 22 December 2005

It doesn't matter what Santorum drops. Barring a major case of stupidity from the electorate, greather than that which elected Bush, he's a goner.

the pro from dover · 22 December 2005

In response to the results from Dover, Pa. a Colorado legislator Sen. Greg Brophy R.-Wray said that he is "strongly considering introducing a bill allowing schools to teach the theory that life forms show evidence of an intelligent creator." As Henry Drummond said "It's never over." What is interesting is that Sen. Brophy represents our farming-ranching population that has the most to gain economically from advances in biotechnology, yet here he is trying to be James Dobson's (the true conservative power base here) new golden haired boy. Move over Kansas here we come!

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 22 December 2005

In response to the results from Dover, Pa. a Colorado legislator Sen. Greg Brophy R.-Wray said that he is "strongly considering introducing a bill allowing schools to teach the theory that life forms show evidence of an intelligent creator."

Please do. I'd LOVE to see IDers wasting all their time, effort and money on a big long unbroken string of losing court cases.

Ian Menzies · 23 December 2005

The only problem with that is, the IDers are actually wasting our time, effort and money on losing court cases.

Andrew McClure · 23 December 2005

The only problem with that is, the IDers are actually wasting our time, effort and money on losing court cases.

I guess all we can do is hope that once enough communities get burned by the Intelligent Design scam, the scam won't work anymore. I mean-- the new plan on the part of the creationists seems to be to try to convince people in general the Dover decision was something it's not. And this is going to be relatively easy; after all, most people haven't actually read the decision or the details of the case. So you tell them something blatantly false about what the case was or what the decision says, and they'll have no choice but to believe you. However, there's one situation where that won't work-- and that's with the people actually in Dover. The people in Dover actually understand what happened and what the decision was, because they were close enough to see it for themselves-- and because it was their money that the TMLC was spending. So the question is, how many more communities will have to get burned before the ID crowd runs out of communities willing to trust them?

RBH · 23 December 2005

Andrew asked

So the question is, how many more communities will have to get burned before the ID crowd runs out of communities willing to trust them?

I think we can be assured that a whole lot of otherwise clueless school boards will listen a dab more carefully to their attorney than Dover's board did. And a whole lot of board attorneys will be substantially more emphatic in their advice than Dover's was, though he did his best given the legal situation before the Kitzmiller decision and in the face of the deceptive legal blather coming from DeWolf, Beckwith, Cooper, and the like. Regarding Cooper, what's the legal situation when a lay person claims attorney-client privlege for a conversation with a lawyer (as Buckingham did under oath) and the lawyer not only denies that such a privilege applies to their conversation, but goes on to publicly spill (some of) the conversation's contents in the absence of an explicit release from the putative client? RBH

sir_toejam · 23 December 2005

I mean--- the new plan on the part of the creationists seems to be to try to convince people in general the Dover decision was something it's not.

uh... new plan you say? If you've been following along the very definition of ID is a concept that tries to convince people in general that it's something it's not. That IS the strategy. and yes, unfortunately, it works all too well. Hence that's why we have smiling monkey boy running the country into the ground.

Andrew McClure · 23 December 2005

uh... new plan you say?

Well, the Dover decision's, like, two or three days old now. That's pretty new. And before that there was no dover decision to represent... I'll of course definitely agree that misrepresentation is the cornerstone of every plan (scientific, public relations, political, or otherwise) the intelligent design movement has come up with so far. But hey. Old tactics, new target...

Norman Doering · 23 December 2005

... misrepresentation is the cornerstone of every plan (scientific, public relations, political, or otherwise) the intelligent design movement has come up with so far. But hey. Old tactics, new target...

If that's true, then we should expect the Discovery Institute to find a message from God in our junk DNA by using the "Bible Codes" trick. Consider, our junk DNA can be assigned letter values in a wide variety of ways. To make it Biblical, and too complicated for the average church goer to check up on you, use the Hebrew alphabet, or Alefbet. Use a supercomputer and search in the same manner they searched for Bible codes, but this time you have a wider field of chance to draw on, a huge amount of junk DNA and a variety of schemes to assign letter values to the 64 DNA triplets or 20 amino acids they code for. The bible codes claimed that the Hebrew text of the Bible (especially of the Torah, the first five books) contain intentional coincidences of words or phrases that appear as letters with equal spacing. A claim of scientific evidence for the bible codes was made by some Israelis. They claimed that biographical information about medieval rabbis was "encoded" in the Hebrew text of Genesis. Specifically, the rabbis' names and other appellations are claimed to be encoded closer to their dates of birth and death than should be expected by chance. Their "experiment" appeared in the respectable journal Statistical Science in 1994. It was later found that a small change in the choice of appellations for the famous rabbis can lead to War and Peace performing just as well as Genesis. Such experiments can thus be constructed by trickery. It should be possible to make our junk DNA say whatever we want it to say. The book "The Bible Code" by Michael Drosnin sold pretty well. A DNA God-code book might sell better. Drosnin did not find anything that can't be found in any book, even in English. The center-piece of the book is a "prediction" of the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. Later people found famous assassinations foretold in Moby Dick, like Princess Diana, using the same method.

Finback · 23 December 2005

I can only imagine their pronouncement of success though.

"We have found the following proof of our divine origins! 'Tag cat act!' Thus it is clear - God wants us to start reairing Hanna Barbera's 'Top Cat' cartoon!"

Bayesian Bouffant, FCD · 23 December 2005

If there really is a god up in heaven, please please pretty please with sugar on it, let both of the Dover Dolts testify that TMLC and/or DI advised them to be evasive and deceptive on the stand in order to bolster their case, and coached them on *how* to be evasive and deceptive under questioning. (howls of laughter)

Well, since Buckingham and Bonsell are both known liars, it would take more than their testimony to convince anyone.

Mr Christopher · 23 December 2005

I hope they do push IDC in another community that spawns another court trial. One that the Discovery Institute will lend its full support. I don;t think I will feel fully satisfied until theologian William Dembski is on the stand as an expert witness.

ColoRambler · 23 December 2005

"We have found the following proof of our divine origins! 'Tag cat act!' Thus it is clear - God wants us to start reairing Hanna Barbera's 'Top Cat' cartoon!"

Lessee...get tissue sample (ow!)...extract protein...run it through the sequencer: I got tyr-his-trp-his here, and ala-leu-leu-ala-his there, and phe-arg-glu-tyr-ala over there, and .... Ugh. Clearly I was designed by committee.

sir_toejam · 23 December 2005

I don;t think I will feel fully satisfied until theologian William Dembski is on the stand as an expert witness.

he's been pulled as a witness twice so far, i doubt anybody will even bother to put him on the list before trial anymore.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 23 December 2005

If that's true, then we should expect the Discovery Institute to find a message from God in our junk DNA by using the "Bible Codes" trick.

Blast has already made this, uh, argument.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 23 December 2005

I hope they do push IDC in another community that spawns another court trial. One that the Discovery Institute will lend its full support.

I think you are soon to get your wish, once the Kansas Kooks get their holy little butts dragged into court. And, since the Kansas Kooks were nice enough to put all their religious motives into print in several newspapers around the country, I think we can safely expect that DI will get nuked. Again.

I don;t think I will feel fully satisfied until theologian William Dembski is on the stand as an expert witness.

On the one hand, putting Dembski on the stand would be suicidal for the IDers, since he has a paper trail that even a blind goldfish could follow. On the other hand, given Dembski's collossal ego, I seriously doubt that he'd pass up the opportunity to publicly play Warrior For God(tm)in any public trial. I think that already he secretly believes in his heart of hearts that the IDers would have WON in Dover if only HE had been able to tesify.

the pro from dover · 23 December 2005

there was a letter to the Rocky Mt. News from an angry man who stated "Darwinism is philisophical materialism" among many things I'd like to hear some comments on this statement.

Steve S · 23 December 2005

Responses to materialism/naturalism type complaints:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA301.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI401.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA601.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA601_1.html

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 25 December 2005

From today's York Daily Record:

Group accuses Santorum of switch Conservative association says senator made '180-degree turn' on intelligent design By Lauri Lebo Daily Record/Sunday News Dec 25, 2005 --- A conservative organization that touts itself as a supporter of traditional values blasted Sen. Rick Santorum for his withdrawal of support for the Dover Area School District's unconstitutional intelligent design policy. "Senator Rick Santorum's agreement with Judge John Jones' decision ... is yet another example of why conservatives can no longer trust the senator," the American Family Association of Pennsylvania said in a news release Friday. http://www.ydr.com/doverbiology/ci_3342145

Wait till they figure out that Discovery Institute made the very same flip-flop three years ago. (snicker) (giggle) It always amazes me how utterly pig-ignorant ID supporters are about what their own side says.

Steve S · 25 December 2005

Three years ago William Saletan said about Intelligent Design, "This is the way creationism ends. Not with a bang, but with a whimper."

While Jones's Yucatan Peninsula Asteroid size ruling sure looks like a bang, Santorum's Judas act looks like a whimper.

R. Greene · 5 January 2006

Say what, Mr. Santorum?

More than one week ago, the PA senator announced his resignation from the advisory board of the Thomas More Law Center. After many years on this board, he now informs us of his disagreement with their "intelligent design" strategy in Dover, PA. However, his sanctimonious visage and biography still remain on the Law Center's web page. What gives?

Has he had a change of heart, and what might he evolve into next week?

http://www.thomasmore.org/advisoryboard.html