The Win in Ohio

Good going for Ohio!

It's pretty obvious that the Dover decision is having its impact, as it rightly should, all over the country.

The DI can whine and pout all they what, but what was bound to happen happened: the courts opened up a king size can of whip ass on them for being the deceitful politicos they've been from the start.

They can call Jones an activist judge until they're blue in the face, but school boards and boards of education all over the country are heeding the warning: ID is creationism, plain and simple.

This is certainly not the end of the anti-evolution movement. As long as there are people who feel an existential threat from science, especially evolutionary biology, we'll have people like the DI to contend with.

But to quote Flounder from Animal House, watching them get pounded with defeat after defeat, "Oh boy, is this great!"

The Gory Details (for those that are interested):

Colleen Grady was recognized by the Board President Westendorf to offer her "pre-emptive" motion before Martha Wise (who has fought this ID nonsense from Day 1 and deserves the thanks of a grateful nation) was allowed to offer hers. Grady's was to request legal advice from Atty. General Petro (running for Gov. of course, and probably anxious to prove his religious right bona fides).

Wise offered her motion AS AN AMENDMENT, REPLACING Grady's motion. After consultation with the Board's official lawyer to see if that was kosher, it was allowed, over strenuous objections of ID advocate Deborah Owens-Fink.

Then Eric Okerson offered HIS motion as an amendment to Grady's motion, AS ALREADY AMENDED by replacement with Wise's motion. His amendment was to remove the lesson plan and the benchmark immediately, but to charge the "Achievement Committee" (previously known as the "Standards Committee, the one that produced the flawed benchmark and lesson plan in the first place) with coming up with replacements. Carl Wick wanted assurances that the committee was free to retain anything "good" about the current lesson plan in their eventual re-do, and was assured that yes, that was OK.
(So don't relax your guard, folks!)

Are you with me so far?

Cochran and Owens-Fink, of course, voiced their strenuous (and, might I add parenthetically, obnoxious) objections, partly because 3 members who had originally approved the unfortunate lesson last month were absent.

Then there was a nested series of votes: first on the Okerson's amendment, than on Martha Wise's amendment, and finally on the whole package.

All were in favor EXCEPT: Owens-Fink, Cochran, Grady and Westendorf.

I should point out that Grady's motion, to request a legal opinion from the Attorney General, would have left the problematic language in place until such time as he got around to replying - which, given the fact that he's trying to out-right-wing Kenneth Blackwell - would probably mean either (1) he'd stall as long as possible, or (2) say Intelligent Design (oh, excuse me) "teach the controversy" is hunky-dory, as did Dover's legal advisor.

Kansas, you're next.

Weren't we supposed to get some Waterlii? I can't recall, all these legal victories keep distracting me.

the courts opened up a king size can of whip ass on them for being the deceitful politicos they've been from the start...

Excellent, excellent news!!
Great job to all of you!
So, did anyone see the short woman with the baby walk in to the meeting at around 9:30 this morning? That would be me. LOL! I was planning for my son to be asleep by the time I got there so that I could have just held him sleeping for a while, but he had other ideas.

We can do a little victory jig, but we also need a victory song. Okay, I'll start it, but only a few verses:

(To the tune of Every Little Thing She Does Is Magic)

Everything you do, oh Casey Luskin,
Everything you do just goes so wrong,

okay, somebody take it--

OK, let's talk possible future scenarios ---- my understanding is that the standards will now get sent back to committee (the same committee that wrote them in the first place, yes?) to get re-written. Suppose that this committee replies with "Those are the standards we want, tough luck if you don't like them". Then what?

Methinks "The Wedge" got at least 10 years longer :)

OK, let's talk possible future scenarios ------ my understanding is that the standards will now get sent back to committee (the same committee that wrote them in the first place, yes?) to get re-written. Suppose that this committee replies with "Those are the standards we want, tough luck if you don't like them". Then what?

The motion that was passed required that any new benchmark, indicator, and/or standard must come back to the full board for approval. That question was raised in the debate, and it was answered by observing that to do so would be interpreted (parliamentarily) as a motion to reconsider, and would therefore be out of order for a committee to bring. Further, the instruction was not to "send the benchmark, etc., back to committee", but rather was to charge the committee to see if something new was needed to replace the deleted items. Again, I have to slog through several hours of digital recording to reconstruct the final form of the motion that was finally passed, as amended, but that specific point was discussed and dismissed. And if the committee did actually try to bring back the same crap, I'm certain that the moderate middle on the board would regard it as a flat insult to their vote today. Several of them stuck their political necks out to deep-six the crap, and if the committee tried to bring it back essentially unchanged they'd vote to nuke it. Even Owens-Fink isn't that politically stupid.

Got to love the evolutionnews.org (IDist) web site:

"Darwinists Bully Ohio School Board into Censoring Teaching of Evolution"

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/02/darwinists_bully_ohio_school_b.html

I believe the correct usage is "whup ass".

— Sir Toejam

Lenny says "So, what does DI have left to rally around?"

South Carolina, perhaps?

http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/13865980.htm

I mean, if this ever gets out of the quicksand of the state legislature, I'm sure it'd get the same smackdown in court that it has elsewhere. I'm still pissed off that my state is wasting time on this garbage.

Good for Ohio, though!

"Darwin-only activists are dumbing down the teaching of evolution and stopping science learning," said Casey Luskin

Please accept my heartfelt congratulations and thanks to each of you that worked so hard to make this possible.

Lenny says "So, what does DI have left to rally around?" South Carolina, perhaps? http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/13865980.ht... I mean, if this ever gets out of the quicksand of the state legislature, I'm sure it'd get the same smackdown in court that it has elsewhere. I'm still pissed off that my state is wasting time on this garbage.

On this topic, I think the phrase is "flagellum ass."

Well, the Kansas Kooks won't survive a court challenge either.

Congrats Ohio! Here's hoping that a similar resolution can be replicated here in Kansas.

If you're in the mood to kick back and celebrate, you might want to listen to the song I wrote about ID (before it becomes totally outdated).

But what I meant was, now that ID "theory" is dead, and "teach the controversy" is also dead, what's left for them? Now that they can't teach their, uh, "alternative scientific theory", and can't teach the, uh, "scientific evidence against evolution", what's left for them to present?

FL has a point here. Has anyone read the story in the news section of the latest issue of Science? In Kansas, something like 6 of the 8 creationists are up for re-election this year, and are being opposed by, well, opponents who are being very very careful NOT to make 'intelligent design' or indeed anything to do with evolution the issue here. These people are quick to admit that, while they will come out in favor of teaching science in science class if asked, if they made evolution the issue they'd almost surely lose.

Fact is, a solid majority of Kansas citizens WANT Jeezus in science class, and everywhere else. There is noplace Jeezus doesn't belong front and center, in the opinion of enough voters to elect any state-wide candidate. Yes, of course most Kansans want science taught in science class. But they agree with Dembski - anything that denies Jeezus can't be good, not good science, not good hygiene, not good auto mechanics.

It's clearly not a matter of rousing the non-fanatical sleeping majority and getting them to the polls to throw out the zealots. It's a tricky political tapdance, and the pro-science candidates are carefully targeting other issues like spending, scheduling, and whatever. On a straight up-or-down vote, evolution would get slaughtered in Kansas by anything close to a cross-section of voters.

I always thought it was "whoop ass." The OED lists both whup and whoop as slang derivatives of whip, therefore I think we have to concede that "whip ass" is at least a proper form.

Regardless, looks like the Wedge has turned into a Wedgie.

Everything you do, oh Casey Luskin,
Everything you do just goes so wrong,

A Casey whose hungry mouth is prest
Against the DI's flowing breast;

Who intimately lives without a brain;
Dude, you give me a big migrane.

But only God can make a tree...

Rather than screw around figuring out how to toss off-topic comments to the Bathroom Wall, I'm merely going to delete them, as I just have three in a derail generated by Andy H/Larry Fafa. Sorry, RGD and ST_J, but they're gone. I doubt that you'll miss them. [chuckle]

RBH

Hey Mr. RBH you can delete my posts any time you feel like it buddy. Because you rock, Cleveland rocks, and the whole freaking state of Ohio rocks too. By the way, some of the radio stations around here are reporting that Intelligent Design is "a form of creationism", as well they should.

Thanks Mr. RBH!

And if the committee did actually try that, I'm certain that the moderate majority on the board would nuke it as a flat insult to their vote today. Several of them stuck their political necks out to deep-six the crap, and if the committee tried to bring it back they'd nuke it. Even Owens-Fink isn't that politically stupid.

— RBH

natural world

I'm sure you guys have discussed this ad nauseum, and stick by your conclusion, but I'm not so clear on how eliminating ID from the curriculum is a good thing. Isn't this what public education is for? If people don't hear it from science teachers, can we expect they'll learn it from their parents?

I guess you can't really trust science teachers to get the nuance of ID's failure, or trust them all to follow the guidelines. Yet, ID is one of the biggest boondoggles peddled to God-fearing citizens in quite a while--is it not better to illuminate this, the proximate source of this deception, and arm kids with the material to at least be skeptical?

Maybe teaching evolution is enough, and you realy do leave the rest to parents. I sympathize with you guys, but when I hear that we fought to remove "critical analysis of evolution" (even though the title could be a misleading lie), it makes me a little worried--like we're giving up a great opportunity.

Definition of science as found in Scientific Ways of Knowing section, Benchmark A:

"Scientific knowledge must be based on evidence, be predictive, logical, subject to modification, and limited to the natural world."

Definition of science further elaborated under Benchmark A, Indicator 3"

"Science is a systematic method of continuing investigation, based on observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation and theory building, which leads to more adequate explanation of natural phenomena."

This part of the definition was adopted by Kansas without the associated Benchmark A language that limits science (as a way of knowing) to natural explanations.

I'm sure you guys have discussed this ad nauseum, and stick by your conclusion, but I'm not so clear on how eliminating ID from the curriculum is a good thing. Isn't this what public education is for? If people don't hear it from science teachers, can we expect they'll learn it from their parents?

Sometime or other, something or other designed some biological thing or other, and then somehow or other manufactured that biological thing (whatever it was) in matter and energy, while leaving no traces of the design process, the manufacturing process, or the existence of whatever it was that did the designing and/or manufacturing.

So without critical analysis this essentially means that evolution will be taught as dogma.

Perfect. Good victory. Censoring criticism IS the only way you can keep your NDEist balloon afloat.

Congratulations!

Right, because obviously, there's no critical analysis at all going on in the science world. None! They just all dream stuff up without testing it and accept it as God-given fact.

Wait.

I seem to have confused ID with science momentarily.

Whoever... have you ever worked in a laboratory? Do you even know what a laboratory is? Your ignorance of the critical analysis process doesn't mean it fails to exist, it just means you fail to know what is going on.

Better luck next time.

Life's tough isn't it davescot eh whoever.
The sham is over... Science once again won over the forces of darkness :-)

Censoring criticism will not succeed in the long run, of course. You people remind me of China trying to give its people internet access for obvious good of the Chinese people but censoring the parts of it that don't follow the communist party line for the good of the Chinese gov't.

Pathetic and doomed.

By the way, your trackback URLs don't work. Try cutting and pasting one into a browser and see what happens. Or just ask yourself why there are ZERO trackbacks on every individual article here.

Is the trackback URL there but broken just to further the sham that this is an open forum?

Why don't you censorship soldiers at least be honest about it? I could respect you if you were at least honest about it.

Hi Davescot, why not whine about it on Dembski's blog? Or have your 'powers' been severely limited after your last faux pas?

You're are wrong, there are trackbacks on articles here. Even recent ones, Checkout Ohio Win for instance.
Don't blame others for your inability to use the internet.

Sorry, RGD and ST_J, but they're gone. I doubt that you'll miss them.

Looks like all the usual suspects and trolls are upset that once again ID loses. You'd think after losing so often they'd be rather used to the whole affair by now.

"Whoever", you're absolutely right. Censorship doesn't prevent the truth from getting out.

Theocrats like you held the reins of "science" for centuries, even using torture to subdue contrary view points... But true science still managed to propagate forth and the world is a better place for it...

Thanks just the same. You've reminded me to pick up some cheese at the grocery store.

Posted by whoever on February 15, 2006 01:48 AM (e) So without critical analysis this essentially means that evolution will be taught as dogma. Perfect. Good victory. Censoring criticism IS the only way you can keep your NDEist balloon afloat. Congratulations!

...why there are ZERO trackbacks on every individual article here.

Jeremy Mohn,

your song is great, loved it!

You should send it to some record labels, seriously.

Comment #80041 Posted by Sir_Toejam on February 15, 2006 02:10 AM "Sorry, RGD and ST_J, but they're gone. I doubt that you'll miss them." not a bit.

Posted by Andy H. on February 15, 2006 05:37 AM (e) I won't miss them either. Go ahead, continue to screw up Panda's Thumb with unnecessary duplicate threads. See if I care.

Patricia, earlier you stated:
Definition of science as found in Scientific Ways of Knowing section, Benchmark A:

"Scientific knowledge must be based on evidence, be predictive, logical, subject to modification, and limited to the natural world."

Was this sentence changed yesterday?

It's interesting that the KS IDers point to Ohio when they try to justify changing the KS definition of science.

Funny how they don't mention this little bit that Kansas most definitely excluded . . .

Well, the Kansas Kooks won't survive a court challenge either.

Well, we shall see, oh yeah. We shall seeee.

Has Ohio's definition of science specifically been repealed or altered in any way, shape or form, by this board action?

Why don't you censorship soldiers at least be honest about it? I could respect you if you were at least honest about it.

Comment #79938 posted on Ohio News thread (another thread) by RBH on February 14, 2006 06:50 PM Ohio Citizens for Science also decided not to speak, since the period for comment was after the vote and would have no effect except to aggravate board members who would have to stay late. Some ID creationism supporters (many fewer than I expected) were there and some spoke during the public comment period after the vote, but it was too little too late.

Nobody cares what you think, Crank. (shrug)

>Well, we shall see, oh yeah. We shall seeee.

— FL

Hey, DaveScot, censorship is practiced by fascists like you. Kicking bullsh-t out of the classroom is not censorship - or maybe you'd want Holocaust denial to be taught too?

— ...Patricia, earlier you stated: ... Benchmark A: 'Scientific knowledge must be based on evidence, be predictive, logical, subject to modification, and limited to the natural world.' Was this sentence changed yesterday?

If DaveScot wants to say turned-off trackbacks are "censorship" maybe he can explain to us why trackbacks on the Discovery Institute website Evolution News and Views have been turned off for weeks at a time.

Oh, hey. That reminds me. The testimony in the Kansas Kangaroo Kourt proceedings also figured prominently in the Ohio Board discussions, quoted at some considerable length by the anti-ID board members (and studiously avoided by the pro-ID members). So a big shout-out is due to FL and the Kansans who helped Ohioans see the way! Thanks FL!

Sorry, RGD and ST_J, but they're gone. I doubt that you'll miss them.

— RBH

Published Sunday, November 6, 2005 By Barbara Hollingsworth The Capital-Journal Whether you see it as a war about science, religion or politics, Kansas isn't the only battleground over the theory of evolution. ... Then there is Ohio. In 2002, the Ohio State Board of Education approved science standards that encourage students to learn criticisms about biological evolution. Despite swirling controversy, a last-minute compromise saying the standards didn't mandate teaching intelligent design helped the document win unanimous approval. Similar language -- pushed for by some of the same people -- is used in the Kansas standards that are expected to be approved this week. "Shame on them for following us," said Sam Schloemer, an Ohio state board member from Cincinnati. "What happened out here is not very honorable in my opinion." ... John Calvert, a lawyer who has played a role in debates in both states, said evolution critics aren't trying to put religion into the classroom but says religion makes the debate important. "That's why you and I are talking, because of the impact on religion and ethics and a whole lot of other things," said Calvert, managing director of the Overland Park-based Intelligent Design Network. ... Calvert said he hopes for continuity on the Kansas state board, which would allow evolution critics another state to hold up as an example. Kansas' standards, he noted, would be more specific than Ohio's standards in outlining criticisms of evolution. "I think Kansas could wind up being a significant influence in other jurisdictions," he said.

Given that proponents of ID and other faith-based notions will always be with us, playing "defense" against intrusions into the science curriculum will be never-ending. A more assertive approach appeals to me. ID provides a great example of not-science that could be incorporated into introductory lessons about science and the scientific method. There is no need to look to medieval history to contrast faith and science, with such good contemporary material at hand.

What is interesting is the general impression held by the various 'ID-friendly' parties posting here is that not teaching ID somehow means that evolution is not questioned or examined critically. It's fascinating.

Why is it that ID advocates never accept that? Is it their ignorance of science? Their conviction that unless their 'pet theory' is taught that questioning isn't going on?

WHAT ??? The excuse given for hearing public comments after the vote on the lesson plan at the January meeting was that it was a so-called "emergency" vote because of the alleged threat of a lawsuit in the wake of the Dover decision ( of course there was no emergency ). What was the excuse this time ? I checked the February meeting agenda and found that the evolution lesson plan was unlisted again ! What in hell is going on here ? I cannot believe this.

The latest tatic of the supporters of "Intelligent" Design is to argue that it is wrong to "censor" their ideas in public schools. They think, with some justification, that this change in rhetoric will win support and sympathy. The fact that this rhetoric is at best hypocritical, and largely dishonest, doesn't seem to bother them. This should tell you something about the quality of their "science.".
Steve Reuland wrote a great article on this,the best part being this :
" What we have here is someone who is arguing that it's "censorship" not to teach criticisms that are laughably wrong while omitting crucial information. Why should we let someone completely ignorant of evolution dictate how we teach it? We wouldn't let someone who couldn't count tell us how to teach math. And if such a person screamed censorship, we'd immediately call them an idiot."

Larry The Crybaby Subjectivist Who Can't Even Stand By His Own Name Farfoofutshisface is now saying that education standards should be "abolished;" which is, at the very least, an honest indicator of what creationists really want.

I believe I speak for all of us when I say "HAWHAWHAWHAWHAW!!"

Steve Reuland's post. It seems particularly apropos in light of the Disco Institute's reaction to the Ohio win.

RBH

I just put in a trackback. I see it listed now. Not sure what may be up with others not getting trackbacks through, but it seems clear that at least PT and my weblog are correctly configured to accomplish this.

I think the Cobb Co. sticker thing is on-going, and there is a flare-up in progress in South Carolina. Even with the certainty of defeat, there is still a political advantage to be gained in some places from getting ink in an evolution fight -- so we will continue to see more incidents like this in the future.

What cracks me up is that always and without exception, there is a YECster fundie parent, politician or school board member behind the ID machinations....and yet assorted assclowns still come here and claim that it's about preserving the integrity of sceintific inquiry.

Here's a quick little science lesson for FL:

Evolutionary theory is critically evaluated every day around the globe. Every time a fossil is dug up out of the ground, every time a biochemical reaction pathway is elucidated, every time a protein structure is determined, every time organisms are observed in the field.

Every day new evidence is discovered and every day that evidence challenges the correctness of evolution. And guess what? No evidence in contradiction to evolution has yet been found.

Professionals are the ones doing the critical evaluation - not the PR hucksters at the DI or ignorant, creationist school board members.

So, to try to keep this on topic, the point is: since when is a public school subject taught by presenting arguments for and against? How about we present arguments for and against the occurrence of the Holocaust? How about we present arguments for and against "squaring the circle"?

If you are really interested in fostering critical thinking, why not require it as part of a logic class? What are you afraid of? Could it be that critical thinking would be the death of ID?

So without critical analysis this essentially means that evolution will be taught as dogma.

— whoever

It's a combination of ignorance and dogma. By avoiding learning about that which they oppose (so they can construct anything in their minds, rather than being hemmed in by actual fact), and then cognitive defense mechanisms causing all sorts of wild mental gymnastics, you end up with a highly twisted world view. I would say, ultimately, that faith-based thinking is the problem here.

— AD

Everything you do, oh Casey Luskin,
Everything you do just goes so wrong,

All those science guys who laugh at you
you know they must be hiting on a bong

-I don't know why but I love to use the word bong.

I see that AIG seem a bit peeved at this according to their website today.

I also notice that Ham has a bit on his blog today about their own so-called science curriculum.

Uh, Guys, I think that we're going to need a bigger boat.
Over at the Disco Inn:
"Darwin-only activists are dumbing down the teaching of evolution and stopping science learning," said Casey Luskin, program officer for public policy and legal affairs at Discovery Institute. "This is nothing more than a gag order on science, a dogmatic approach to education that restricts students from learning about evolution."
This is a made-for-TV quote which I expect to see used often as a fund-raising ploy.
This is going to get louder and louder, I agree that there is no penalty for right-wing politicos to martyr themselves for the cause if the issue plays well to the vast majority.
Perhaps that is why I enjoy being a martyr for science.

Hmmm... I've noticed that the overall level of trollage here goes way down whenever ID suffers a legal setback. Aside from some surly whining about 'censorship', even Davison is more muted today.

I guess the phrase is 'licking their wounds'.

Ohio is no longer on the Disco Institute's list of favorite states for pilgrimages.

Hi Davescot, why not whine about it on Dembski's blog? Or have your 'powers' been severely limited after your last faux pas?

— PvM

It would seem to me there are only two categories of reasons which can exist for wanting Balanced Treatment: genuine scientific reasons and non-scientific reasons (political, religious, social, etc.). Genuine scientific reasons would involve the goal of improving the quality and accuracy of science education in public schools over and above what science texts currently offer with their focus on evolution to the exclusion of other ideas. This leaves non-scientific reasons to push for Balanced Treatment programs and legislation: pursuit of social, political, and/or religious goals. Such goals are made evident by the fact that even creationists who call for Balanced Treatment programs often don't really believe in the value of Balanced Treatment. Their actual purpose is to end the teaching of evolution entirely and, if possible, replace it with teaching about creationism. They don't want Balanced Treatment, they want only the teaching of creationism - Balanced Treatment is merely one step in the path towards that end

Board member Deborah Owens Fink, who voted against eliminating the lesson plan, said it was unfair to deny students the chance to use logic to question a scientific theory. "We respect diversity of opinion in every other arena," said Owens Fink, from Akron.

Question for the day: Is it time for Dembski to take back control over his blog or is the replacement more entertaining?

— PvM

Ohio is no longer on the Disco Institute's list of favorite states for pilgrimages.

Rilke's Granddaughter:

"Why is it that ID advocates never accept that? Is it their ignorance of science? Their conviction that unless their 'pet theory' is taught that questioning isn't going on?
Or is it sheer rhetoric? I'd really like to know."

I think that many ID advocates are running on empty --- their pet ideas have been rather badly defeated in court and are rapidly losing ground in the PR battles. However, due to the peculiar mental makeup of some IDers, they simply cannot admit any of this to themselves. Therefore they revert to strident whining about how their brilliant and irrefutable ideas are being oppressed by the big meanies of The Darwinian Pressure Groups. Quite sad and pathetic.

I notice that all these complaints about non-functional or non-existent trackbacks only started appearaing AFTER this latest defeat in Ohio. This could be why the two words "freeper" and "meltdown" are ringing in my head today.

Yeah, yeah, I know, voices in my head don't constitute scientific evidence...

Comment #80119 Posted by PvM on February 15, 2006 12:21 PM (e) Question for the day: Is it time for Dembski to take back control over his blog or is the replacement more entertaining?

From the trackback it appears that Davescot finally got trackbacks to work.

Comment #80026 Posted by hugechavz on February 15, 2006 12:49 AM (e) I'm sure you guys have discussed this ad nauseum, and stick by your conclusion, but I'm not so clear on how eliminating ID from the curriculum is a good thing. Isn't this what public education is for? If people don't hear it from science teachers, can we expect they'll learn it from their parents?

WHAT ??? The excuse given for hearing public comments after the vote on the lesson plan at the January meeting was that it was a so-called "emergency" vote because of the alleged threat of a lawsuit in the wake of the Dover decision ( of course there was no emergency ). What was the excuse this time ? I checked the February meeting agenda and found that the evolution lesson plan was unlisted again ! What in hell is going on here ? I cannot believe this.

— LarAndy FHafarman

I think that the New York Times gives a pretty good overview of the entire Ohio fiasco and redemption:

http://tinyurl.com/apnt8

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

By the way, your trackback URLs don't work. Try cutting and pasting one into a browser and see what happens. Or just ask yourself why there are ZERO trackbacks on every individual article here. Is the trackback URL there but broken just to further the sham that this is an open forum? Why don't you censorship soldiers at least be honest about it? I could respect you if you were at least honest about it.

— DaveScot

ogl3 said: "Given that proponents of ID and other faith-based notions will always be with us, playing "defense" against intrusions into the science curriculum will be never-ending. A more assertive approach appeals to me. ID provides a great example of not-science that could be incorporated into introductory lessons about science and the scientific method. There is no need to look to medieval history to contrast faith and science, with such good contemporary material at hand."

I use ID rhetoric as a tool to demonstrate critical thinking and argument assessment in my introductory bio classes.

I use an on-line debate between Kenneth Miller and Phillip Johnson, prefaced by a class unit on recognizing sleazy debate tricks like arguments from ignorance, straw man arguments, etc. (and coupled with evidence comparisons between the offerings of the two men). Even the die-hard creationists among my student find themselves forced to admit that Johnson makes an extremely poor showing.

They can leave the class believing that this was a one-time failure, but the chink is there ;^)

My own private "wedge."

Someone using a psudonym left this comment at Panda's Thumb: Comment #80037 Posted by whoever on February 15, 2006 02:03 AM (e) By the way, your trackback URLs don't work. Try cutting and pasting one into a browser and see what happens. Or just ask yourself why there are ZERO trackbacks on every individual article here. Is the trackback URL there but broken just to further the sham that this is an open forum? Why don't you censorship soldiers at least be honest about it? I could respect you if you were at least honest about it.

I'm sure you guys have discussed this ad nauseum, and stick by your conclusion, but I'm not so clear on how eliminating ID from the curriculum is a good thing. Isn't this what public education is for? If people don't hear it from science teachers, can we expect they'll learn it from their parents? I guess you can't really trust science teachers to get the nuance of ID's failure, or trust them all to follow the guidelines. Yet, ID is one of the biggest boondoggles peddled to God-fearing citizens in quite a while---is it not better to illuminate this, the proximate source of this deception, and arm kids with the material to at least be skeptical?

— hugechavz

Yeah, yeah, I know, voices in my head don't constitute scientific evidence...

Note that the time stamp on a trackback is the time that it was received, not the time it appeared. Some valid trackbacks get sent to our junk bin because they come for an IP different than the website the TB refers to. (If someone uses a trackback service that is distinct from their blog.) These trackbacks can get delayed because someone has to rummage through the junk bin looking for them.

This one event encapsulates all that Uncommon Pissant has become.

1 Despite the fact that 4 trackbacks had been made in the previous 24 hours, DaveScot, who deletes trackbacks he doesn't like, accuses PTers, who don't, of censorship, apparently because he didn't know how the trackbacks worked.
2 He then makes the accusation here, under a pseudonym, in a rude manner.
3 Less than an hour later, PvM corrects him, to no avail.
4 for about ten hours, he deletes comments which aim to correct him on the Uncommon Descent thread.
5 knowing if he just deletes his whole thread, he'll get burned again like he did on Thread 744, he erases his accusation, and replaces it with an accusation that Wesley made unnamed surreptitious changes.

"The effort to try to suppress ideas that you dislike, to use the government to suppress ideas you dislike, has a failed history," Mr. West said. "Do they really want to be on the side of the people who didn't want to let John Scopes talk or who tried to censor Galileo?"

Comment #80086 posted by RBH on February 15, 2006 09:51 AM Andy H. wrote -- "WHAT ??? The excuse given for hearing public comments after the vote on the lesson plan at the January meeting was that it was a so-called "emergency" vote because of the alleged threat of a lawsuit in the wake of the Dover decision ( of course there was no emergency ). What was the excuse this time ? " Ask the creationist President of the Ohio Board of Education, Sue Westendorf, why she made that ruling.

Comment #80139 posted by Anton Mates on February 15, 2006 01:52 PM I can tell you that it was all very by-the-book; Board president Westendorf (who voted against scrapping the plan, so obviously she has no motivation to bend the rules to do so!) dispatched the parliamentarian to check Roberts' Rules of Order several times, and the Board members discussed the germaneness of an amendment.

(F) Every public body, by rule, shall establish a reasonable method whereby any person may determine the time and place of all regularly scheduled meetings and the time, place, and purpose of all special meetings ....... The rule shall provide that any person, upon request and payment of a reasonable fee, may obtain reasonable advance notification of all meetings at which any specific type of public business is to be discussed. Provisions for advance notification may include, but are not limited to, mailing the agenda of meetings to all subscribers on a mailing list or mailing notices in self-addressed, stamped envelopes provided by the person...... (I) (1) Any person may bring an action to enforce this section. An action under division (I)(1) of this section shall be brought within two years after the date of the alleged violation or threatened violation. Upon proof of a violation or threatened violation of this section in an action brought by any person, the court of common pleas shall issue an injunction to compel the members of the public body to comply with its provisions. (2) (a) If the court of common pleas issues an injunction pursuant to division (I)(1) of this section, the court shall order the public body that it enjoins to pay a civil forfeiture of five hundred dollars to the party that sought the injunction and shall award to that party all court costs and, subject to reduction as described in division (I)(2) of this section, reasonable attorney's fees.

I should have been an attorney --- just think, they get paid $300/hr. for giving this kind of advice.

I guess we should expect this. After Dover, Larry/Andy spent the next 3 weeks regaling us with completely clueless arguments about how illegitimate the whole trial was. Now we'll be hearing his uninformed armchair quarterbacking on Ohio well into March.

(I)(2)(b) If the court of common pleas does not issue an injunction pursuant to division (I)(1) of this section and the court determines at that time that the bringing of the action was frivolous conduct, as defined in division (A) of section 2323.51 of the Revised Code, the court shall award to the public body all court costs and reasonable attorney's fees, as determined by the court.

Comment #80149 Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on February 15, 2006 02:23 PM (e) Note that the time stamp on a trackback is the time that it was received, not the time it appeared. Some valid trackbacks get sent to our junk bin because they come for an IP different than the website the TB refers to. (If someone uses a trackback service that is distinct from their blog.) These trackbacks can get delayed because someone has to rummage through the junk bin looking for them.

Comment #80190 Posted by W. Kevin Vicklund on February 15, 2006 04:54 PM

(I)(2)(b) If the court of common pleas does not issue an injunction pursuant to division (I)(1) of this section and the court determines at that time that the bringing of the action was frivolous conduct, as defined in division (A) of section 2323.51 of the Revised Code, the court shall award to the public body all court costs and reasonable attorney's fees, as determined by the court.

Maybe we should let Andy H. go ahead with his plan...

''Conduct" means ... the filing of a civil action....."Frivolous conduct" means .... It is not warranted under existing law, cannot be supported by a good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, or cannot be supported by a good faith argument for the establishment of new law.

Larry Fafarman, when are you going to admit that you're posting under multiple user names (Andy H., Bill Keely) in violation of comment integrity policy item #6, and explain how you doing it doesn't rob you and your arguments of even the slightest tinge of integrity? Why do you participate in a forum that you exhibit no respect for the standards of? My guess is you're a lonely, bitter loser with nothing better to do, who doesn't care about evolution vs. ID one way or the other, but who finds amusement in imagining that he's yanking the chains of people who in reality don't really care what he has to say.

Posted by Bill Keely The lawsuit that Andy H. proposed

It occurs to me that Larry's continual violation of rule six is merely another of his desperate attempts to get attention. It's kind of sad, in a way, that since he's demolished his credibility in actual argument he has to resort to this to have anyone notice him.

Feel free to "Flush" this, RBH - now that I realize that Larry's simply lonely, there's no need to respond to him anymore.

Though it really is quite sad.

Well, the Waterloo in Ohio gear is now available. Have fun.

Oh! The teddy bear (sorry, true self coming to surface) is pretty much too darn adorable for words.

— Bill Keeley who is also Andy H. and Larry Fafarman and God knows who else

(2) "Frivolous conduct" means either of the following: (a) Conduct of an inmate or other party to a civil action, of an inmate who has filed an appeal of the type described in division (A)(1)(b) of this section, or of the inmate's or other party's counsel of record that satisfies any of the following: (i) It obviously serves merely to harass or maliciously injure another party to the civil action or appeal or is for another improper purpose, including, but not limited to, causing unnecessary delay or a needless increase in the cost of litigation. (ii) It is not warranted under existing law, cannot be supported by a good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, or cannot be supported by a good faith argument for the establishment of new law. (iii) The conduct consists of allegations or other factual contentions that have no evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are not likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery. (iv) The conduct consists of denials or factual contentions that are not warranted by the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are not reasonably based on a lack of information or belief. (b) An inmate's commencement of a civil action or appeal against a government entity or employee when any of the following applies: (i) The claim that is the basis of the civil action fails to state a claim or the issues of law that are the basis of the appeal fail to state any issues of law. (ii) It is clear that the inmate cannot prove material facts in support of the claim that is the basis of the civil action or in support of the issues of law that are the basis of the appeal. (iii) The claim that is the basis of the civil action is substantially similar to a claim in a previous civil action commenced by the inmate or the issues of law that are the basis of the appeal are substantially similar to issues of law raised in a previous appeal commenced by the inmate, in that the claim that is the basis of the current civil action or the issues of law that are the basis of the current appeal involve the same parties or arise from the same operative facts as the claim or issues of law in the previous civil action or appeal.

(F) Every public body, by rule, shall establish a reasonable method whereby any person may determine the time and place of all regularly scheduled meetings and the time, place, and purpose of all special meetings. A public body shall not hold a special meeting unless it gives at least twenty-four hours' advance notice to the news media that have requested notification, except in the event of an emergency requiring immediate official action. In the event of an emergency, the member or members calling the meeting shall notify the news media that have requested notification immediately of the time, place, and purpose of the meeting. The rule shall provide that any person, upon request and payment of a reasonable fee, may obtain reasonable advance notification of all meetings at which any specific type of public business is to be discussed. Provisions for advance notification may include, but are not limited to, mailing the agenda of meetings to all subscribers on a mailing list or mailing notices in self-addressed, stamped envelopes provided by the person.

(D) Agendas. (1) The agenda for commission meetings in which specific cases are to be considered shall include the case number and a brief description of the case name. If a meeting is scheduled to consider a specific or general topic or subject matter, the agenda will only give the topic or subject matter to be discussed. (2) If a case, topic, or subject matter needs to be added to an agenda after the agenda has been issued, the additions shall be noticed in the same manner as if an emergency meeting were scheduled, i.e., if time permits, the additions will be available in the information racks and on the commission's web site and distributed by e-mail and fax as early as possible prior to the start of the meeting.

So now Larry's crybaby subjectivism has progressed to the point where he has his various names talking to/about each other? And he never even addressed, in any way, the questions put to him about the use of multiple names? Does he have any clue how ridiculous he looks?

That's the saddest joke I've ever heard. Disgraceful, pathetic, and pitiable, all at the same time.

Comment #80276 Posted by W. Kevin Vicklund on February 16, 2006 12:06 AM Harassment: Larry has no "standing" for the lawsuit. He is not an Ohio citizen, and therefore is not harmed in anyway by the current code.

Furthermore, and more importantly, his stated purpose in requesting the notices is to entrap the Board of Education in a situation that he feels is unlawful, despite long-standing practice.

Malicious Injury: Similar to the harassment charge. Larry would intend financial injury to the Board in the form of attorney fees and a $500 award, despite the fact that he would not have been harmed had he not made the request, which we have already established is intended to initiate the lawsuit.

Cannot be Supported Under Existing Law: The Revised Code already allows an exception for emergency.

In addition, contained within the Ohio Administrative Code are rules, amplifying Section 121.22, that specifically address the requirements for emergency additions to the agenda and the notification requirements.

This is the point where I make a disclaimer. I feel that these antics by the ID proponents expose a loophole in the current system that needs patching.

I would very much like to see an amendment to the Revised Code that explicitly states that any emergency agenda item must be open to public comments before being voted on.

However, the method proposed by Larry is both illegal and will not accomplish this goal.

BTW, while we're talking about reasonable attorney fees, does anyone know the details of the Dover damages? Plaintiffs were supposed to file their itemized list by Feb 15th.

Jackass, you may begin braying.

Larry has no "standing" for the lawsuit. He is not an Ohio citizen, and therefore is not harmed in anyway by the current code.

How do you know who is and who is not an Ohio citizen ?

Everybody see the Trackback link DaveScot posted at the bottom of this page? It used to go to post 817 on Uncommon Descent, where DaveScot made erroneous comments about how trackbacks worked, and blamed us for his ignorance? Click on the link. That thread is no more.

Everybody see the Trackback link DaveScot posted at the bottom of this page? It used to go to post 817 on Uncommon Descent, where DaveScot made erroneous comments about how trackbacks worked, and blamed us for his ignorance? Click on the link. That thread is no more.

— Steve s

Comment #80315 Posted by S.P. on February 16, 2006 09:02 AM (e) Comment #80276 Posted by W. Kevin Vicklund on February 16, 2006 12:06 AM Harassment: Larry has no "standing" for the lawsuit. He is not an Ohio citizen, and therefore is not harmed in anyway by the current code.

Boohoo boohoo boohoo!!!!! poor IDiots got another swift kick in the rear end (aka ass). All they have to show for their years of effort are a string of misguided lost souls and a bunch of lunatics crying out loud about those darn-burn-in-hell-evilutionists. IDiots show up the science behind ID or shut up. Oh darn it, they have nothing so we will have to continue to cope with their whining.

Pathetich Whoever posted:
Censoring criticism will not succeed in the long run, of course. You people remind me of China trying to give its people internet access for obvious good of the Chinese people but censoring the parts of it that don't follow the communist party line for the good of the Chinese gov't.
Pathetic and doomed.

Ironic that this pathetic moron did have this China dribble right, well as the IDiot that he is he did inform himself before putting his foot in his mouth. Funny thing that China censor chinese publication but not the same information in other publications. Guess they believe that the majority of the populace are ignorant of other languages more in tune with the IDiots crowd believe's!!!!!

I followed the trackback to UD and read the thread about 8 hrs ago. DaveScott had a paragraph at the end at the time, that said the trackback didn't work and that it was expected from evolutionists to censorship criticism... or something. Anyway, I registered and wrote a reply that said:
"Um, DaveS, I just got here following the PT trackback, so it seems to work fine..."
...And that was it. No other comment, not one word more. Guess what: My comment never appeared. Instead, that last paragraph by Ds was gone when I checked again- without a word of explanation.

Sheesh. Is that guy always like that?

Yes, he is always like that. There's no telling how many comments he blocked on that post, but I'm sure it's a few. His ridiculous complaint was on Uncommon Pissant from about 1 am to about noon before he modified it, and several hours more before he deleted it, and it's not possible that there was really only one comment the whole time. (very briefly there was a second one, also not pointing out his error).

Yes, he is always like that. There's no telling how many comments he blocked on that post, but I'm sure it's a few. His ridiculous complaint was on Uncommon Pissant from about 1 am to about noon before he modified it, and several hours more before he deleted it, and it's not possible that there was really only one comment the whole time. (very briefly there was a second one, also not pointing out his error).

— steve s

Oh, I didn't know he deleted his trackback complaints from multiple threads. I didn't read that other thread. He would also delete what he said here, if he could, such as

"By the way, your trackback URLs don't work. Try cutting and pasting one into a browser and see what happens. Or just ask yourself why there are ZERO trackbacks on every individual article here.

Is the trackback URL there but broken just to further the sham that this is an open forum?

Why don't you censorship soldiers at least be honest about it? I could respect you if you were at least honest about it."

Faidon said:

"Sheesh. Is that guy always like that?"

Yes. DaveScot runs UD like minitrue after taking his cue from Dembski who deletes threads that are embarrassing to him. In this case DaveScot thought he had something on PT and boasted about his computing knowledge compared to Wesley's. It seems that when he was shown to be clueless about trackbacks that the blog was purged accordingly.

The title at the top of this article has an extra < b > tag following it, that's causing the text below that to be bold fonted clear to the end of the page. (It's also affecting the main index page.)

The title at the top of this article has an extra b > tag following it, that's causing the text below that to be bold fonted clear to the end of the page. (It's also affecting the main index page.)

Henry J wrote The title at the top of this article has an extra b > tag following it, that's causing the text below that to be bold fonted clear to the end of the page. (It's also affecting the main index page.) Oops. Fixed. Thanks.

Andy H is trying to give some free legal advice and as Dover found out, there is no free lunch :-)

A member of the board called for an emergency motion. The chair of the board has the power to rule on admitting such a motion or not. Since the press had been alerted to the possibility of an emergency motion, the board's actions meet the state of Ohio's requirement for public meetings.

Check out the rules and regulations Andy. Always a good place to start. Read what it says about emergency motions and emergency meetings and requirements of public meetings to be announced to the public.

Comment #80577 Posted by PvM on February 17, 2006 01:57 PM Andy H is trying to give some free legal advice and as Dover found out, there is no free lunch :-) A member of the board called for an emergency motion. The chair of the board has the power to rule on admitting such a motion or not. Since the press had been alerted to the possibility of an emergency motion, the board's actions meet the state of Ohio's requirement for public meetings. Check out the rules and regulations Andy. Always a good place to start. Read what it says about emergency motions and emergency meetings and requirements of public meetings to be announced to the public.

(F) Every public body, by rule, shall establish a reasonable method whereby any person may determine the time and place of all regularly scheduled meetings and the time, place, and purpose of all special meetings. A public body shall not hold a special meeting unless it gives at least twenty-four hours' advance notice to the news media that have requested notification, except in the event of an emergency requiring immediate official action. In the event of an emergency, the member or members calling the meeting shall notify the news media that have requested notification immediately of the time, place, and purpose of the meeting. The rule shall provide that any person, upon request and payment of a reasonable fee, may obtain reasonable advance notification of all meetings at which any specific type of public business is to be discussed. Provisions for advance notification may include, but are not limited to, mailing the agenda of meetings to all subscribers on a mailing list or mailing notices in self-addressed, stamped envelopes provided by the person.

There is no scenario under which the lesson plan could be an emergency issue. Suppose, for example, that the Board is sued over the lesson plan, loses in court, and then has only 30 days to decide whether to appeal. Instead of treating the situation as an emergency, the board could just tentatively file an appeal and then decide at a future meeting whether to continue it. This would also buy the board time to consider any complex issues. Are you beginning to get the idea ?

— Andy H

"All of that adds up to a sense of urgency and a sense of now is the time to clean up our act," said Robin C. Hovis, a stockbroker from Millersburg who is one of two board members pushing an emergency motion on Tuesday to delete the "critical analysis" language and the lesson plan. "There is an atmosphere among the board, at least a growing atmosphere, that this is a misguided policy and we better get rid of it."

"This lesson is bad news, the 'critically analyze' wording is bad news," said Martha W. Wise, the board member behind the emergency motion. "It is deeply unfair to the children of this state to mislead them about the nature of science." Wise, a 28-year veteran of the board who led the fight to delete the anti-evolution language from the science standards and accompanying lesson plan, is a creationist who has taken heat from other creationists for her stance, according to the Chicago Tribune.