FTE and Jon Buell's Day in Court

Wow. Reading those excerpts at The Austringer, I have to say Judge Jones was being downright charitable for not just throwing Buell in the hoosegow for thoseblatant lies.

From the testimony:

Buell of FTE says:
This statement was — we had a new CPA do our 990 and audit we had never used before. He wasn’t even from the state of Texas. He was not familiar with us. You know, I neither saw that statement, nobody gave him that information, and I didn’t — I certainly didn’t approve it.

Eric Rothschild, atty for the plaintifs:
Okay. So — and so this statement that’s filed with the IRS so that the Foundation can be exempt from paying income tax [on the grounds of being a religious organization] is false; is that what you’re saying?

Buell:
Well, I’m saying that I didn’t see that statement.

Rothschild:
And just if you could turn to the preceding page of the document, those are your initials on the page, aren’t they, towards the bottom of the page?

Buell:
Yes.

======================================================

And Casey Luskin WANTED us to read this because...?

Reading DI-generated propaganda is, I guess, OK by their standards. Buying DI-approved books is also OK, though reading those is strictly optional for IDC cheerleaders. It's the rare IDC cheerleader that I encounter who has a fraction of the familiarity with IDC writings that I do.

Other sources are apparently DI-deprecated.

As a lawyer, Luskin is an “officer of the court” and is not supposed to lie.

As a purportedly religious person, Luskin is bound by the Ninth Commandment and is not supposed to lie.

Why do you suppose he lies? They all lie - Buckingham, Bonsell, Buell and Luskin.

The fraudulently-named “Foundation for Thought and Ethics” DID have their day in court - and Jon Buell lied - repeatedly.

Judge Jones said in his decision “It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.”

ID stands for “Intellectual Dishonesty.”

This needs to receive as much publicity as possible. Thanks for this article.

My mother taught me not to lie, which is why I am so amazed when I see statements like this here:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/

"The misreporting of the evolution issue is one key reason for this site. Unfortunately, much of the news coverage has been sloppy, inaccurate, and in some cases, overtly biased. Evolution News & Views presents analysis of that coverage, as well as original reporting that accurately delivers information about the current state of the debate over Darwinian evolution."

That's almost as bogus as claiming that the Holocaust didn't happen or man never landed on the moon.

Dale, Paul,

But, they are lying to advance the God's Work! So they will get a "get out of the jail free" card. It probably does not dawn on them such behavior is the ultimate blasphemy. They have given up the hope that God could win by fair and ethical practices and they believe God needs them, the liars and cheaters.

Paul Burnett concludes: ID stands for “Intellectual Dishonesty.”

As a Lutheran, I certainly cringe to remember that Luther once said, "A small lie in the service of the Lord is no sin." But he did say it.... Of course, he also refuted Copernicus by quoting scripture. Times were different.

The Dishonesty Institute likes to point to indications that Judge Jones was biased against them. There is a reason that these indications exist. Judges, especially Federal judges, become extremely annoyed when they sense that witnesses are evading questions, giving misleading answers, or outright lying to them. Their antennas are very sensitive, because one of their major functions is to assess the credibility of witnesses.

For example, Judge Jones several times questioned defense witnesses directly from the bench. This is unusual, and some might considered it prejudicial. But, when he did this, it was to nail down an answer where the witness seemed to be evasive or changing the subject.

Olorin mentioned: "The Dishonesty Institute..."

More good framing here. Let's all be sure to use the following as often as possible:

* Dishonesty Institute

* ID stands for “Intellectual Dishonesty”

* cdesign proponentsists

Any others?

Well, Judge Jones did the right thing. But all it takes is just one judge to rule against evolution and suddenly DI will be singing the praise of that judge and steam roll an agenda all across the nation. So let us thank the Lord for Judge Jones, but let us also keep the gunpowder dry.

Paul Burnett: Olorin mentioned: "The Dishonesty Institute..." More good framing here. Let's all be sure to use the following as often as possible: * Dishonesty Institute * ID stands for “Intellectual Dishonesty” * cdesign proponentsists Any others?

It had been a long while since I read the deposition transcripts, and I realize that I failed originally to appreciate the reasonableness of the proceedings. I was obviously looking for bias, or errors to exploit.

I also recalled the first (and only) time that I met Casey in the flesh. It was at UC San Diego when J. Wells was going to present his "Icons of Evoluion" bullshit. Nick Matzke, and others (Nick was the principle author) had drafted a point by point refutation of Icons, and several people (Matt, I, Wesley and one other fellow whose name I cannot recall) were passing the flyer out at the door.

Casey was freaking out, and first tried to insist we couldn't pass out the flyer. Made me feel like a kid when I would pass out antiwar protest literature to rightwingers in Orange County. Casey was also desperate to "out" who Nick was. I think I might have mentioned that Nick was a UC Santa Barbara student, but that he might be at UCLA.

I clicked on Dale's link and read the first short article that popped (or pooped if you prefer) up. Some of the things they write just strike me as funny, like
"Second, Judge Jones makes a striking admission that he intended his opinion to make policy by influencing legislators far outside of the parties in the case:
I wrote the opinion in a comprehensive way because I knew that the dispute was possibly going to be replicated someplace else. And what I wanted to do was make the opinion sort of a primer that people could read. You're absolutely correct. It's not precedential outside of the middle district of Pennsylvania, but I thought that if other school boards and other boards of education could read it, they would possibly be more enlightened about what the dispute was all about. And, in fact, in Ohio, in Kansas, in California, and some other places, it was reacted to in a positive way."

Hmmm... not precedential outside of the middle district of Pennsylvania. So, it "makes policy", how? He says he wants it as a 'primer'... 'primers' "make policy", how? And "“I thought that if other school boards and other boards of education could read it, they would possibly be more enlightened.”" indicates an attempt to "make policy" how? What... professors "make policy" by teaching something? Seriously... how do they expect anyone to buy that?

A thought just occurred to me that Barry Bonds was indicted this last week on a perjury charge. What is the statute of limitations for perjury in a federal case?

Are the Dover bastards still vulnerable?

Gary, I think it was Ross Myers who accompanied me to the Wells talk that evening.

I asked Wells what progress ID had made since our meeting back in 1997. Wells launched into praise of Michael Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" and its concept of "irreducible complexity". Since that was a 1996 book, I took his answer to mean, "None".

But the best part had to be the back-and-forth between Wells and the UCSD molecular biology grad student who was taking no prisoners.

Back to KvD... what one has to appreciate is that even with all the shenanigans on the IDC side, the basic process did actually work. Documents subpoenaed were delivered. Even Buell, who had threatened to go to jail under contempt of court rather than divulge the manuscript of "The Design of Life", turned it over as requested. And, needless to say, the things that were appropriately asked for by the defense were delivered to them.

There was an almost-parallel situation to the manuscript request for "The Design of Life". John Haught was working on a manuscript for a new book at the time, and the defense made a request for it. However, since Haught had been appropriately briefed on the consequences of listing materials in expert reports, the defense could not demonstrate that Haught had ever mentioned or relied upon that mansucript in generating his expert report, and thus their request failed. It's just one of the ways in which I think the plaintiffs' experts were well-served by the legal team, and that the defense experts were either not informed or were not paying attention on that score.

Caught in a Google alert on ID: David Klinghoffer makes a promise that we should hold the Dishonesty Institute to.

"No one on the ID side of the controversy wants to displace Darwin in public school education. Rather, the purpose has always been twofold. First, to encourage states to include more education about evolution in their science curricula, exposing students to the evidence for and against Darwin’s theory. Second, the Discovery Institute would protect, from legal or other harassment, teachers who include in their class discussions a review of the scientific evidence for an intelligent designer." (See "Teaching Jewish Kids About Intelligent Design," http://www.jewcy.com/daily_shvitz/my_stake_evolution.)

BTW, whatever happened to the DI lawsuit against PBS for teaching religion in their Nova packet?

I didn't know that Design of Life would have been on the block too. My guess is that there has been a book burning at FTE and that all prior drafts are history. Hard drives are wiped and all evidence of the stupidity of trying to run a dishonest creationist scam have been attempted to be irradicated. Did they get them all? I wonder what was in those drafts that was so damning? Do you think that they had side notes on how they wanted to manipulate and obfuscate the issue? Notes on how to take quotes out of context? After Dover not much would surprise me.

Two years for Pennsylvania. Not sure about the federal level. From what I've seen of court procedure, though, statute of limitations is viewed very flexibly when a prosecutor wishes to press a case.

Somehow, though, I get the impression that there isn't much enthusiasm in the offices where the Bonsell and Buckingham cases are being investigated.

Ron O. said "irradicated." Did you mean "eradicated" or "iradiated"? Either one works for me....

Q. What is it? A. That is the table of contents for a 1983 document, a draft entitled Creation Biology Textbook Supplements. Q. And you said it's a 1983 draft. What did you do to determine that? A. That year is written by hand at the top of one of the pages, and it's also in the header line in later pages of the book, apparently the header line put there by the word processor.

As Plaintiffs meticulously and effectively presented to the Court, Pandas went through many drafts, several of which were completed prior to and some after the Supreme Court's decision in Edwards , which held that the Constitution forbids teaching creationism as science.

BTW, whatever happened to the DI lawsuit against PBS for teaching religion in their Nova packet?

Holy Bat Guano! How did I miss this before?

Pg 71 July 14, 2005
Q Is your interest solely educational and scientific?
17 A My interest is scientific and educational, that's
18 correct.
19 Q How does that differ from Dover's interest in this
20 case?
21 A Well, I think that the comments that I heard about,
22 you know, from the Dover press reports of comments indicate
23 religious purposes to me.
24 MR. BOYLE: If I could have just one second, Your
25 Honor?

Yeah Baby! Take several...

There would have been much scope for merriment had Buell returned for a complete shredding in the trial.

Second, Judge Jones makes a striking admission that he intended his opinion to make policy by influencing legislators far outside of the parties in the case: I wrote the opinion in a comprehensive way because I knew that the dispute was possibly going to be replicated someplace else. And what I wanted to do was make the opinion sort of a primer that people could read. You’re absolutely correct. It’s not precedential outside of the middle district of Pennsylvania, but I thought that if other school boards and other boards of education could read it, they would possibly be more enlightened about what the dispute was all about. And, in fact, in Ohio, in Kansas, in California, and some other places, it was reacted to in a positive way.

Don't know if they could be prosecuted for perjury. Because the school board members lied in their depositions, Judge Jones decided to let the case go to trial. If the board members told the truth in the depositions, Judge Jones was just going to issue an injunction and a trial never would have happened.

Gary Hurd writes... It had been a long while since I read the deposition transcripts, and I realize that I failed originally to appreciate the reasonableness of the proceedings....

I am not a lawyer, but I don't think the perjury statute takes outcomes into consideration.

“Foundation for Thought and Ethics”

“Discovery Institute”

“Institute for Creation Research”

None of these names reflect what actually goes on in these places. It would be interesting to see inside the minds of these characters when they are making up these names. They are clearly in marketing and propaganda mode when they set out on these ventures.

On the other hand, it seems to take them a very long time to become aware of when they have stepped into a pile of crap. All that money and no research, no thought, and no ethics.

However, "institute" is pretty close to "institution".

I am not a lawyer, but I don’t think the perjury statute takes outcomes into consideration.

Mike Elzinga said: "None of these names reflect what actually goes on in these places."

How about the Dishonesty Institute's "Evolution News & Views" website at http://www.evolutionnews.org ? Obviously bogus.

Here is another gem I missed:

THE COURT: Well, you want to unring a bell, and

19 I'm not sure that that can be done in the case of

20 Mr. Dembski, and I think you get into a, be careful what you

21 wish for, it may come true, if in fact intervention is

22 granted in this case.

OH! I so wished they would have had Dembski in the box. The Q&A session at the University of Oklahoma last September gives a good idea of how Dembski folds under pressure.

I rather suspect ID is one of those collapsed palindromes and it really stands for “I didn’t do it”. Under the cloak of ID, or in the big tent, one is absolved of all responsibility for misrepresentations and distortions.

I'm suddenly imagining the IDC movement being plagued by the constant presence of "NOT ME" from the old Family Circus comics, tripping things up by doing things like covertly inserting claims to be a religious charity into the IRS forms, and putting pictures of Michelangelo's God Creates Adam in the website header.

Perhaps this is even a good candidate, at last, for the mysterious "designer".

"Who created the bacterial flagellum?"

"NOT ME!"

Actually, I think "IDA KNOW" fits more their style of minimalist design-detection-and-stop-right-there non-science.

OH! I so wished they would have had Dembski in the box. The Q&A session at the University of Oklahoma last September gives a good idea of how Dembski folds under pressure.

Depositions are taken under oath, and penalties of perjury apply. Try again.

I thought it sounded odd because it took me a moment to remember that "Panda's" refers to the textbook. Not to good fellows like professor Steve Steve.

I have no idea how that might play out in a trial since the lies by the various creationists hurt their case.

On the other hand, it seems to take them a very long time to become aware of when they have stepped into a pile of crap.

And the next thing he heard from TMLC was that Dembski had been withdrawn as a witness.

The paranoia of the Dishonesty Institute is becoming infectious. (1) The new "Design of Life" book seems dismissive of common ancestry. (2) Michael Behe is all in favor of common ancestry. (3) Prof. Behe is not a co-author of "Design of Life." (4) DoL is touted as the successor to "Of Pandas and People," co-authored by Behe.

Might Prof. Behe be falling out of favor with the DI? Or vice versa? Perhaps Wesley knows whether Behe ever participated in writing "Design of Life" or was ever listed as a co-author? (Although, because of the protective order, perhaps Wesley can't tell us.)

Mike Elzinga: “Foundation for Thought and Ethics” “Discovery Institute” “Institute for Creation Research” None of these names reflect what actually goes on in these places.

[Judge Jones simply wrote his decision to fulfill their requests, and the DI whinges now merely because their side lost.]

Doesn't the Lemon test also basically imply that Judge Jones had to declare the scientific status of "the ID policy" in some way? I mean, if a judge uses the Lemon test, and the Lemon test implies some notion as endorsing or rejecting a religious notion, then that notion simply can't work as scientific in the setting of public schools. I think that's all his ruling of "ID is not science" means in the document. After all, he says that "Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed." I don't think he implied a decision on the status of "ID" for scientists or philosophers of science. Of course science comes as methodlogically naturalistic, so there you go.

"“Foundation for Thought and Ethics”

“Discovery Institute”

“Institute for Creation Research”"

Hey now... the RE-Discovery Institute does REAL research.

As a Lutheran, I certainly cringe to remember that Luther once said, “A small lie in the service of the Lord is no sin.” But he did say it…. Of course, he also refuted Copernicus by quoting scripture. Times were different.

Yeah times were different. Luther would probably be a lot more open minded nowadays. Thanks.

MR. ROTHSCHILD: Matt, could you pull up exhibit 621. And that's the expert report of William Dembski that was submitted in this case before he withdrew as an expert. Could you go to page ten, and highlight the first paragraph Of Pandas and People. BY MR. ROTHSCHILD: Q And you see there he's discussing the new version Of Pandas and People, The Design of Life? A I'm sorry? Q Do you understand him to be describing his work on a new book called, The Design of Life? A Give me a chance to read this please. Q Absolutely. (Pause.) A Yes. Q And Mr. Dembski, who is the author of Design of Life, described you as a co-author of the book, correct? A That's what he does, yes. Q That's false, isn't it? A Again, I am not an author of the book, but William Dembski, several years ago, asked if I would contribute. And I explained to him that I did not have the time to do so. And he says well, perhaps, you know, in the future he could solicit material from me and then I would be one of the authors of the book. So, that's correct. Q So that makes you a co-author right now, Professor Behe? A I certainly would not have listed myself now as a co-author, however, I think that he was anticipating my future participation in the project. Q So that's a true statement, Professor Behe, that you're a co-author? A It is not now a true statement but it might be in the future. Q Okay. [...] BY MR. ROTHSCHILD: Q If you could turn to pages 129 -- to page 129 of the deposition. A Yes. Q And look at line 11. And Mr. Buell is asked, "Who are the authors of Design of Life as you understand it?" And can you read his answer? A He says, "Kenyon, Davis, Dembski, Behe and Wells, Jonathan Wells." Q So Mr. Buell thinks you're an author too? A That's correct. I think he's working under the same impression as Bill, that he wanted to get together people who were most involved with the intelligent design movement to have a book which would be authored by them. And again, I told them that right now I was too busy. I told them that a couple years ago. But I said that perhaps in the future I could be involved. Q Mr. Behe, this statement is false, isn't it? A I'm sorry? Q The statement is false, isn't it? A What statement is that? Q The statement that you're an author, and Mr. Dembski's statement is false too, isn't it? A That's not what it says on the screen, sir. It says, "Who are the authors of Design of Life as you understand it?" And the way I read that is that he's seeing into the future and seeing when this actually will be published and anticipating that I will participate in the publication of the book at that point. Q Seeing into the future is one of the powers of the intelligent design movement? A I think -- MR. MUISE: Objection, argumentative. MR. ROTHSCHILD: I'll withdraw it, Your Honor.

Professor Wesley R. Elsberry, the Samuel Johnson Chair of Jargon relates: “I got to see the “intelligently designed” barbecue stand in Riesel; I have a pic of Prof. Steve Steve at the facility.”

Thanks, Wesley. The impression I get from this transcript is that the DI (or FTE at least) was eager to have Behe contribute to tDoL, but that Behe was reluctant. Even as of 2005, what was Behe "too busy" about? Certainly not doing research or writing papers.

Behe has always seemed to be the bigwig who is most loosely attached to the DI. The other bio-scientists, Minnich and Brian Seelke, maintain profiles low enough that the level of their commitment is uncertain.