The Panda's Thumb Legacy Archive — pandasthumb.net

The disappearing Disco 'Tute

Posted 18 March 2012 by Richard B. Hoppe

An interesting pattern of Discovery Institute behavior has become evident in several events over the last 8 years. It's a hit and run tactic, with emphasis on the "run." In at least four significant instances of attempts to jam intelligent design creationism or one of its semantic equivalents into an educational context, the Disco 'Tute was involved early in the process, providing aid and comfort to the local ID Creationism pushers. But later when push came to shove, the Disco 'Tute backed out, abandoning their local proxies to the courts and the voters. I'll briefly describe the four instances (Ohio State BOE; Mt. Vernon, OH, Dover, PA; and Darby, MO) I have in mind below the fold, highlighting the Disco 'Tute's style of participation. The Ohio Science Standards affair In 2002-3. when the Ohio State Board of Education was considering the addition of "critical analysis of evolution" language to the state science standards for 10th grade biology, the Discovery Institute was much in evidence. Jonathan Wells and Stephen Meyer of the Disco 'Tute participated in a 2002 panel discussion before the Board that was originally set up to examine whether Ohio should include intelligent design creationism (IDC) in the state science standards (Kenneth Miller and Lawrence Krauss argued the contra side). In the discussion Meyer pulled a bait and switch, retreating from arguing that IDC should be included and suggesting that the so-called "scientific controversy" about Darwinism be taught instead. Later, in 2003, when the Board finally adopted "critical analysis of evolution" language for the 10th grade biology standards, Disco 'Tute operatives were much in evidence. In fact, several were camped in a room just up the stairs from the Board's meeting room, and within a single minute after the Board's vote they trooped down the stairs, press releases in hand. Their triumphalism was palpable. Three years later, immediately following the Kitzmiller decision, the Ohio Board reconsidered the "critical analysis" language it had inserted in 2003, and in the end removed it from the standards along with an ID-tainted model lesson plan. This time around the only Disco 'Tute presence was Casey Luskin, then a very junior member of the 'Tute's staff, lurking in the background, and no one from the 'Tute testified in favor of retaining the IDC material. Somewhere I have a picture of Casey and me together outside the Board meeting room. After the ID-adverse vote, Casey declined an invitation to go out with us for dinner. So, for the Ohio State Board of Education there was a substantial presence with the Disco 'Tute's big guns deployed in the beginning, but just Casey, forlornly dinner-less, remained at the end. The Freshwater affair Soon after the Ohio State Board of Education adopted the "critical analysis of evolution" language in 2003, John Freshwater, a middle school science teacher in Mt. Vernon, Ohio, urged that the district adopt the Intelligent Design Network's Objective Origins Science Policy. When his proposal was rejected by the district's science curriculum committee, Freshwater took the proposal directly to the Board of Education, shifting his role from teacher to parent of students in the district. The main support Freshwater offered for his proposal was two documents, Jonathan Wells' Survival of the Fakest, an article published in the distinguished science journal The American Spectator, and Wells' Ten questions to ask your biology teacher about evolution. In addition, a number of people spoke in favor of Freshwater's proposal, often citing one or another of the spurious arguments from Wells' Icons of Evolution. To cap off one Board meeting, Benjamin Wiker, a senior fellow of the Disco 'Tute, spoke in favor of Freshwater's proposal, waving a stack of Xeroxed copies of the 'Tute's Bibliography of Supplementary Resources for Ohio Science Education (see also here). Wiker specifically introduced himself as a fellow of the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture of the Disco 'Tute. So even way out here in rural Ohio we got the attention of a senior Disco 'Tute functionary, though why he showed up isn't clear--no one 'fessed up to contacting the Disco 'Tute. But that was the last we heard from them. All the way through the three years of the Freshwater affair (Freshwater tag cloud on the Thumb), the Disco 'Tute didn't make a single peep that I'm aware of, and a search of the Disco 'Tute's site confirms that there were no mentions of "John Freshwater". So like a miniature of the Ohio battle at the state level, the Disco 'Tute bailed out. After having supported Freshwater with materials and a personal appearance by a senior fellow when he started his project to cram intelligent design creationism, the only subsequent faint signs of the Disco 'Tute were two cryptic mentions in one of his lesson plans from 2006, "Specified complexity" (Dembski's term) and "Irreducible complexity" (Behe's term). The Dover, PA, affair We're all familiar with the outlines of the affair in Dover, PA. A couple of points are relevant to this post. First, stimulated by a newspaper article describing Dover Board of Education member Bill Buckingham's reservations about a biology text, characterizing it as "laced with Darwinism," a Disco 'Tute attorney named Seth Cooper contacted Buckingham. Accounts of just what they discussed differ, with Buckingham claiming that Cooper offered him legal advice subject to attorney-client privilege (see here), while Cooper denies that, though both agree that Cooper sent Buckingham an "Icons of Evolution" DVD with an accompanying study guide. Cooper claims that he did so "In the hopes of persuading Buckingham away from leading the Dover Board on any unconstitutional and unwise course of action concerning the teaching of evolution, ...". Subsequently, according to testimony in Kitzmiller, two Disco 'Tute attorneys (apparently including Disco 'Tute's Washington office director Mark Ryland) made a private presentation to the Dover Board. Later, after the Kitzmiller plaintiffs had filed suit and the Thomas More Law Center agreed to defend the Dover Board, Richard Thompson and the Disco 'Tute fell out. Around the same time, several expert witnesses due to testify for the defendant Board of Education withdrew, their withdrawals coming when it was too late to line up new experts. Those withdrawing were William A. Dembski, Stephen C. Meyer, and John Angus Campbell, all at that time in the Disco 'Tute's lineup of "fellows." (Michael Behe and Scott Minnich, also "fellows," testified, providing the Disco 'Tute's only instance of hanging in when the going gets tough. Why they did so isn't clear. Given Behe's delusional perception of his own performance in the trial, I'm tempted to speculate but won't.) The big three withdrew after submitting their expert reports (and, in Dembski's case at least, later charging for them, WAD requesting $20K) but before being deposed, ostensibly because the Thomas More Center wouldn't agree to them having their private attorneys present during depositions. According to Barbara Forrest, at least one of their 'private' attorneys was arranged through the Disco 'Tute. Again there's the pattern of early Disco 'Tute participation, attenuating as time goes on. The Darby, MT, affair In 2004 in Darby, Montana, Reverend Curtis Brickley proposed that an "objective origins policy" be added to the public school science curriculum. (It's not clear if that was same Intelligent Design Network policy that John Freshwater proposed in Mt. Vernon.) Brickley acknowledged getting help from the Disco 'Tute in preparing his presentation, and like Benjamin Wiker's appearance in Mt. Vernon, David DeWolf, a Disco 'Tute senior fellow, showed up at a Darby Board of Education meeting to assure the locals that it's all perfectly OK and if the district were to be sued he'd personally see that they got appropriate legal representation. Subsequently, like the Thomas More Law Center in the Dover case, the Alliance Defense Fund offered to defend the Darby Board pro bono if it were sued. Fortunately, the voters in Darby were on the ball and elected two supporters of honest science education to the Board of Education, defeating ID creationism pushers and tipping the balance of power on the Board. The new Board rescinded the policy adopted by its creationist-dominated predecessor. As was the case in Mt. Vernon, the Disco 'Tute was nowhere to be seen in the late stages of the affair. For newspaper articles on the Darby case see here and see also this RNCSE article. The common pattern So there's a common pattern across the Ohio State BOE, Freshwater, Dover, and Darby instances. The Disco 'Tute shows up early, fans the flames by encouraging locals to pervert the teaching of science, and then flees into the underbrush claiming that 'No, no, they misunderstood us! We didn't intend for anything illegal or unconstitutional to happen, we just wanted to encourage good science teaching.' Yeah, right. With Jonathan Wells' crap. During the Ohio State Board of Education battle Father Michael Cochran, an ID creationism-pushing member of the Board, said "Let them sue us" when the prospect of litigation over the "critical analysis of education evolution" was raised. But as I told that Board, it's not the State Board that would be sued, it would be some poor little rural district, sucked in by the Board's wink and nod, that would fall into a Dover Trap. The Disco 'Tute helps create the conditions that lead unwary local school districts into morasses that tear up local communities like Dover and Mr. Vernon and Darby, and then it flees the scene, claiming innocence. Nuts. In fact they repeatedly set someone else up for a fall, playing a game of "Let's you and them fight," while cravenly hiding out in the bushes when push comes to shove.

72 Comments

unklehank · 18 March 2012

Great recap. I didn't know about the MT or OH affairs so those parts were quite illuminating.

It's plain to see the DI is only interested in discovering new and interesting ways to avoid being labelled creationists whilst acting exactly like creationists. You'd think by now they'd've discovered that they suck at it.

Richard B. Hoppe · 18 March 2012

unklehank said: Great recap. I didn't know about the MT or OH affairs so those parts were quite illuminating.
Yeah, for some reason the Darby affair has sort of faded into the background, but it was a bitter fight, in some ways worse than the Freshwater affair though not as expensive to the district. I was (very peripherally) involved in it, and there were some real hard feelings out there. That's one of my real bitches about the Disco 'Tute. They really help tear up communities and they flat don't give a damn.

ogremk5 · 18 March 2012

Does the Kansas Kangaroo trial count? Meyer did show up for that one.

I seem to recall them being involved in Texas too... oh yeah, Bill Zedler pushed it, but it died before it even went to committee.

Richard B. Hoppe · 18 March 2012

ogremk5 said: Does the Kansas Kangaroo trial count? Meyer did show up for that one. I seem to recall them being involved in Texas too... oh yeah, Bill Zedler pushed it, but it died before it even went to committee.
That, and the Kansas Board of Education battles, were mostly due to the Intelligent Design Network, with John Calvert working with Kansas BOE members, though you're right, Calvert brought in Disco 'Tute fellows as support. But they were supporting players, not initiators or early providers of materials and advice. I think, though don't know, that it was the same in Texas: supporting roles in someone else's movie.

robert van bakel · 18 March 2012

Is their money still comming from a rich individual whose name escapes me? With their record of tried and true failure why the hell hasn't their infamy preceeded them?

DavidK · 18 March 2012

The wedge tactics are pretty clear. Find sympathetic fundamentalists on school boards, milk the press on the teach the controversy and freedom of speech nonsense, garner public opinion against evolution, and use every legal tactic possible against anyone who seeks to impede their efforts to indoctrinate kids in creationism. It, the Dishonesty Institute, is in fact a religion based organization. But when faced with the facts, including the fact that there is no scientific merit or subatance to creationism/intelligent design, they head for the hills, leaving others to foot the bill for their dirty work and to clean up after their doggy doo.

raven · 19 March 2012

LOL. Yeah everyone has seen it.

The Dishonesty Institute and fundie xians in general love their martyrs.

But they don't want to actually be martyrs. The best martyrs are,...someone else.

AFAIK, John Freshwater ended up broke, unemployed, unemployable, and lost his long time house/small farm. You would think the creationists who spend many millions of dollars every year would rescue one of their own. They didn't bother.

The MD assassins of the forced birther/female slaver movement do the same thing. They want to kill MD's. But they don't want to go to prison themselves. They find socially marginal people of dubious sanity, wind them up, point them in the right direction, and hope they kill someone.

Paul Burnett · 19 March 2012

(After reading just the first few sentences...) Richard wrote "An interesting pattern of Discovery Institute behavior has become evident in several events over the last 8 years. It’s a hit and run tactic, with emphasis on the “run.”"

I realized this years ago - it's called "asymmetric warfare." The Dishonesty Institute knows they're outnumbered, so they're playing the Americans versus the Redcoats, or the Viet Cong versus the Americans, or al-Qaeda versus civilization. They set up suicide attacks for their surrogates to carry out and then slink away. Perfectly understandable.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_warfare

raven · 19 March 2012

Yeah, for some reason the Darby affair has sort of faded into the background, but it was a bitter fight,...
These fundie xian crusades can split communities apart permanently. I've heard that Dover, Pennsylvania is still split on religious lines and that was a long time ago. It may just split the USA apart, permanently. Just look at what Rick Santorum or Rick Perry are doing and how well it is working. Hitchens: "Religion poisons everything." No kidding.

raven · 19 March 2012

Is their money still comming from a rich individual whose name escapes me?
Howard Ahmanson. Whose main achievement in life was sliding out of the vagina of a billionaire's wife. Oops, I've been informed he was adopted. OK, whose main achievement in life was being adopted by a billionaire family. The DI's money all comes from xian Dominionist sources, Ahmanson and one or two others. They openly hate the USA, want to overthrow the US government, and set up a hell on earth theocracy. They are not nice people. It's not small money either. Last I remember, it was something like $4 million a year. All spent on anti-science propaganda.

Doc Bill · 19 March 2012

Ah, springtime and a stroll down Memory Lane!

There are some great transcripts on the Internet. Fun reading is Stevie Meyer's long equivocation about the age of the earth and his frustration at not being allowed to sermonize.

One of my favorites, though, is a video panel discussion after Kitzmiller with Ken Miller, Richard Thompson (More Legal) and Mark Ryland (DI Washington office). Thompson is lamenting how the DI left them in the lurch when Ryland pipes up and says "We never advocated teaching ID" whereupon Thompson reaches into his briefcase and pulls out a copy of the "DI's guide to teaching ID constitutionally" and he says, "Yes, you did. You wrote a book about it!" Ryland either left on his own steam or was kicked out of the Washington office soon after.

And, finally, who can forget Dembski on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart when Jon asks Dembski, "Which comes first, the data or the religious conversion?" and Dembski, shocked by the question answers honestly, "The religious conversion."

Beautiful!

John · 19 March 2012

Doc Bill said: Ah, springtime and a stroll down Memory Lane! There are some great transcripts on the Internet. Fun reading is Stevie Meyer's long equivocation about the age of the earth and his frustration at not being allowed to sermonize. One of my favorites, though, is a video panel discussion after Kitzmiller with Ken Miller, Richard Thompson (More Legal) and Mark Ryland (DI Washington office). Thompson is lamenting how the DI left them in the lurch when Ryland pipes up and says "We never advocated teaching ID" whereupon Thompson reaches into his briefcase and pulls out a copy of the "DI's guide to teaching ID constitutionally" and he says, "Yes, you did. You wrote a book about it!" Ryland either left on his own steam or was kicked out of the Washington office soon after. And, finally, who can forget Dembski on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart when Jon asks Dembski, "Which comes first, the data or the religious conversion?" and Dembski, shocked by the question answers honestly, "The religious conversion." Beautiful!
Stewart interviewed Dembski on "The Daily Show"? WTF! I guess Stewart was lowering his standards, opted to have Bill appear for mere "amusement", or most likely, both.

apokryltaros · 19 March 2012

robert van bakel said: Is their money still comming from a rich individual whose name escapes me? With their record of tried and true failure why the hell hasn't their infamy preceeded them?
People wearing Blinkers For Jesus work miracles for Frauds For Jesus. Yet, they never seem to win at court battles.

Atheistoclast · 19 March 2012

unklehank said: Great recap. I didn't know about the MT or OH affairs so those parts were quite illuminating. It's plain to see the DI is only interested in discovering new and interesting ways to avoid being labelled creationists whilst acting exactly like creationists. You'd think by now they'd've discovered that they suck at it.
If I accept universal common ancestry, but dispute the alleged mechanism of all evolutionary change, does that make me a creationist or an evolutionist? Is Mike Behe a creationist even if he believes in LUCA?

Paul Burnett · 19 March 2012

Atheistoclast said: If I accept universal common ancestry, but dispute the alleged mechanism of all evolutionary change, does that make me a creationist or an evolutionist?
Your observed behavior certainly places you much closer to the creationist end of the continuum rather than the evolution end. You're certainly aiding and abetting and giving comfort to the enemies of civilization - a "fellow traveler," to use a term from an earlier era.

Karen S. · 19 March 2012

Stewart interviewed Dembski on “The Daily Show”? WTF! I guess Stewart was lowering his standards, opted to have Bill appear for mere “amusement”, or most likely, both.
Did you see where Colbert interviewed Behe on the Colbert Report? Colbert is sharp as a tack and led him right where he wanted him.

John · 19 March 2012

RBH, belated thanks for a most thoughtful post. I wasn't aware of the MT case before. In light of their past history, it amazes me that the Dishonesty Institute would be intrigued with the Coppedge suit.

pierre.stromberg · 19 March 2012

It is interesting to note that during the late 1990s in Burlington, Washington, the Discovery Institute strongly supported Roger DeHart's teaching of Intelligent Design in his public school science classroom. Later, as things started looking bleak, they cut their losses and left him adrift. So the pattern you've noticed stretches well over a decade.

John · 19 March 2012

Karen S. said:
Stewart interviewed Dembski on “The Daily Show”? WTF! I guess Stewart was lowering his standards, opted to have Bill appear for mere “amusement”, or most likely, both.
Did you see where Colbert interviewed Behe on the Colbert Report? Colbert is sharp as a tack and led him right where he wanted him.
No, I didn't. Do you have a link to it on YouTube? BTW, I've seen both of Ken Miller's Colbert appearances; the first one at a Brown alumni fundraising event where Colbert presided as the guest host! That one was held at AMNH and the Rose Center for Earth and Space about five years ago. It was a kickoff event for a major endowment fundraising effort. And yes, Ken was there as one of the featured speakers.

apokryltaros · 19 March 2012

pierre.stromberg said: It is interesting to note that during the late 1990s in Burlington, Washington, the Discovery Institute strongly supported Roger DeHart's teaching of Intelligent Design in his public school science classroom. Later, as things started looking bleak, they cut their losses and left him adrift. So the pattern you've noticed stretches well over a decade.
So, is there a logic or a plan behind the Discovery Institute's series of nurturing, then abandoning its clients/allies/proteges? Or are they simply just flitting from failure to failure to failure in search of the perfect (re)start?

raven · 19 March 2012

So, is there a logic or a plan behind the Discovery Institute’s series of nurturing, then abandoning its clients/allies/proteges?
They like martyrs. But they don't want to be martyrs. That is someone else's job.

Paul Burnett · 19 March 2012

apokryltaros said: So, is there a logic or a plan behind the Discovery Institute's series of nurturing, then abandoning its clients/allies/proteges? Or are they simply just flitting from failure to failure to failure in search of the perfect (re)start?
It's a variant of the anarchist assassins versus the Secret Service - the good guys have to be perfect every time, time after time - the bad guys only have to get lucky once.

John Pieret · 19 March 2012

... several expert witnesses due to testify for the defendant Board of Education withdrew, their withdrawals coming when it was too late to line up new experts. Those withdrawing were William A. Dembski, Stephen C. Meyer, and John Angus Campbell, all at that time in the Disco ‘Tute’s lineup of “fellows.” (Michael Behe and Scott Minnich, also “fellows,” testified, providing the Disco ‘Tute’s only instance of hanging in when the going gets tough. Why they did so isn’t clear. ...

... ostensibly because the Thomas More Center wouldn’t agree to them having their private attorneys present during depositions.

In my 30+ years as a lawyer, I have never seen an "expert" witness ask to have his/her own attorney. The only explanation I can think of is that Dembski, Meyer and Campbell were fully aware that they were not there as witnesses for the school board but for the Discoveryless Institute, which did not want to be seen as going down in flames. Behe and Minnich, who (at least in my impression) are less at the center of the DI conspiracy and more "useful idiot" true believers, were either deemed suitable sacrificial lambs by the DI or so puffed up with themselves (at least in Behe's case) that they could not be dissuaded.

In any case, I doubt very much that the DI thought of itself "hanging in when the going gets tough" because of Behe's and Minnich's testimony ... more like "what else can we do" or "poor us."

DS · 19 March 2012

John Pieret said: In my 30+ years as a lawyer, I have never seen an "expert" witness ask to have his/her own attorney.
Well maybe you never encountered so many people who use lying as a strategy so often and so transparently. That would certainly be one reason not to testify without your own personal lawyer present. It would certainly save time at the perjury trial.

grumpyoldbroad · 19 March 2012

raven said: These fundie xian crusades can split communities apart permanently. I've heard that Dover, Pennsylvania is still split on religious lines and that was a long time ago.
7 years isn't that long ago. Heck, the Hatfield-McCoy mess went on 6 years and only stopped with the imprisonment of 7 of the Hatfields for life and the hanging of an 8th party member. The families didn't sign off on an "official" truce until 2003, triggered by the events of September 11th. Grudges, especially those in small towns or in small populations (see: pretty much any club or organization that you can think of), can take forever to heal. Sadly.

eric · 19 March 2012

John Pieret said: In my 30+ years as a lawyer, I have never seen an "expert" witness ask to have his/her own attorney. The only explanation I can think of is that Dembski, Meyer and Campbell were fully aware that they were not there as witnesses for the school board but for the Discoveryless Institute, which did not want to be seen as going down in flames.
Almost, but not quite, right. Go here for a recap of that part of the pretrial hearing on July 14th. Dembski, Meyer, etc. requested separate representation by the Foundation for Thought and Ethics (FTE), publishers of Of Pandas and People. FTE =/ DI. They're closely associated, but FTE is a Texas publishing house, not the Seattle think tank. FTE was concerned that their publishing interests were not the same as the Dover board's interests, so they wanted separate representation for the experts associated with them. Well, actually what FTE really wanted was to prevent the plaintiffs from gaining access to earlier and later versions of OPAP. But the judge nixed that, so they seemed to have decided they were going to 'take their toys and go home' once they didn't get their way. If you read the transcript, it is really amusing to see how the head of FTE prevaricates about Stephen Meyer. He's asked if Meyer is associated with FTE. 'Oh no, your honor, not at all! Why, we were only barely aware he was a witness!' Then when its pointed out that Meyer was fired by TMLC because he (Meyer) said he wanted FTE legal representation, the company head says something like 'oh, well he might have done that. I don't really recall.' You don't recall that your company agreed to represent this person in court? I would've like to have seen Judge Jones' face on that one.

Karen S. · 19 March 2012

John,

Here you go:

Behe interview

Enjoy!

Do you have a link for the Rose Center Event?

Doc Bill · 19 March 2012

Here's the great clip of Colbert interviewing Behe. Colbert cracks jokes, Behe doesn't get any of them. But the best part is at the very end when Behe tells Colbert, "Well, you were wrong." Colbert cuts him off and says "What? Thanks for stopping by Dr. Behe." and the interview is over! Brilliant.

Thanks for stopping by Behe. Bye-bye!

unklehank · 19 March 2012

Atheistoclast said:
unklehank said: Great recap. I didn't know about the MT or OH affairs so those parts were quite illuminating. It's plain to see the DI is only interested in discovering new and interesting ways to avoid being labelled creationists whilst acting exactly like creationists. You'd think by now they'd've discovered that they suck at it.
If I accept universal common ancestry, but dispute the alleged mechanism of all evolutionary change, does that make me a creationist or an evolutionist? Is Mike Behe a creationist even if he believes in LUCA?
Atheocyst, you're the one who accepts the existence of a match but disputes that it can start a wildfire. Define yourself. -- Why are you asking me anyway? I'm no expert on cognitive dissonance, narcissism, dogma and delusions of competency. I've no interest in defining Behe - or any other "design proponent" for that matter - as anything other than a spineless religious crank.

Paul Burnett · 19 March 2012

eric said: ...FTE is a Texas publishing house, not the Seattle think tank.
Calling FTE a "publishing house" makes as little sense as calling the Dishonesty Institute a "think tank" - oh, wait...
If you read the transcript, it is really amusing to see how the head of FTE prevaricates about Stephen Meyer. He's asked if Meyer is associated with FTE. 'Oh no, your honor, not at all! Why, we were only barely aware he was a witness!' Then when its pointed out that Meyer was fired by TMLC because he (Meyer) said he wanted FTE legal representation, the company head says something like 'oh, well he might have done that. I don't really recall.' You don't recall that your company agreed to represent this person in court? I would've like to have seen Judge Jones' face on that one.
This is Jon Buell, who swore (under oath!) FTE wasn't religious, and was then shown documents he had signed for their IRS religious exemption. In addition to Dover school board members Buckingham and Bonsell, Judge Jones had Buell in mind when he wrote "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."

Joseph McFaul · 19 March 2012

I also offer the ACSI v Stearns case as anotyher exampelof Discoveyr Isntitute cut adn run.

Behe's expert witness declaraiton is at eh NCSE website:

http://ncse.com/creationism/legal/acsi-v-stearns

and is glorious to behold.

The DI has had no more involvement in the case after the case was shot down by the trial jduge. The DI passed on an amicus brief and has generally remained silent after the case was decided.

Richard B. Hoppe · 19 March 2012

eric wrote
Dembski, Meyer, etc. requested separate representation by the Foundation for Thought and Ethics (FTE), publishers of Of Pandas and People. FTE =/ DI. They’re closely associated, but FTE is a Texas publishing house, not the Seattle think tank.
According to Barbara Forrest, in her presence a Thomas More attorney, Patrick Gillen, said that John Angus Campbell had "retained counsel through the Discovery Institute":
In the case of Campbell, Pepper Hamilton attorney Thomas Schmidt had flown to Memphis with a legal assistant and had hired a court reporter to take Campbell’s long-scheduled deposition. Everything was proceeding on schedule until only minutes before the deposition was to begin, when defense attorney Patrick Gillen announced that TMLC would “no longer retain” Campbell as a witness because Campbell had “retained counsel through Discovery Institute” and had “discussed matters [with DI] to which I am not privy.” Gillen learned of “these developments” only the night before.
As you say, all three--Dembski, Campbell, and Meyer--apparently wanted their own representation independent of Thomas More, though I didn't know the representation was to be by FTE's lawyer(s). Forrest says just that they wanted representation independent of TMLC.

John · 19 March 2012

Karen S. said: John, Here you go: Behe interview Enjoy! Do you have a link for the Rose Center Event?
It was actually at the American Museum of Natural History's IMAX Theater (Rose Center was where hors d'oeuvres and cocktails were served.). As for a link, no since this was a private Brown alumni fundraising event, I doubt that one exists.

John · 19 March 2012

Richard B. Hoppe said: eric wrote
Dembski, Meyer, etc. requested separate representation by the Foundation for Thought and Ethics (FTE), publishers of Of Pandas and People. FTE =/ DI. They’re closely associated, but FTE is a Texas publishing house, not the Seattle think tank.
According to Barbara Forrest, in her presence a Thomas More attorney, Patrick Gillen, said that John Angus Campbell had "retained counsel through the Discovery Institute":
In the case of Campbell, Pepper Hamilton attorney Thomas Schmidt had flown to Memphis with a legal assistant and had hired a court reporter to take Campbell’s long-scheduled deposition. Everything was proceeding on schedule until only minutes before the deposition was to begin, when defense attorney Patrick Gillen announced that TMLC would “no longer retain” Campbell as a witness because Campbell had “retained counsel through Discovery Institute” and had “discussed matters [with DI] to which I am not privy.” Gillen learned of “these developments” only the night before.
As you say, all three--Dembski, Campbell, and Meyer--apparently wanted their own representation independent of Thomas More, though I didn't know the representation was to be by FTE's lawyer(s). Forrest says just that they wanted representation independent of TMLC.
In Dembski's case he requested the presence of his personal attorney, John Gilmore.

Ron Okimoto · 19 March 2012

I just posted about the 10th anniversary of the Ohio bait and switch scam. The Discovery Institute never gave any of the ID proponents the science of intelligent design to teach and Ohio was the first major public instance where instead of giving the rubes the science of intelligent design. The bait and switch went down and all the Ohio IDiots got was a stupid obfuscation switch scam that didn't even mention that ID had ever existed. 10 years and every single legislator or school board has had the bait and switch run on them by the Discovery Institute.

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/1235415ec51f00ee?hl=en#

Tenncrain · 19 March 2012

Doc Bill said: One of my favorites, though, is a video panel discussion after Kitzmiller with Ken Miller, Richard Thompson (More Legal) and Mark Ryland (DI Washington office). Thompson is lamenting how the DI left them in the lurch when Ryland pipes up and says "We never advocated teaching ID" whereupon Thompson reaches into his briefcase and pulls out a copy of the "DI's guide to teaching ID constitutionally" and he says, "Yes, you did. You wrote a book about it!" Ryland either left on his own steam or was kicked out of the Washington office soon after.
Matthew Chapman's book '40 Days and 40 Nights' describes Ryland and Thompson having a nasty spat at a forum by the American Enterprise Institute in Washington DC. Ken Miller happened to be there as well, having concluded his testimony as lead expert witness for the plaintiffs. Miller couldn't help but be thrilled by the infighting on the other side of the case. Perhaps this is the same event Doc Bill is talking about; if so, this happened during the Kitzmiller trial but during a trial recess. Anyway, here is video from 2005 of the forum. BTW, Chapman happens to be great-great-grandson of Charles Darwin. I liked his book. Plan to read Edward Humes's 'Monkey Girl' when I find some time.

anonatheist · 19 March 2012

How can we be sure John Freshwater is finished? He seems the stubborn type.

John · 19 March 2012

Tenncrain said: BTW, Chapman happens to be great-great-grandson of Charles Darwin. I liked his book. Plan to read Edward Humes's 'Monkey Girl' when I find some time.
He's also a co-founder of Science Debate, along with Shawn Otto, Chris Mooney, Sheril Kirshenbaum, Darlene Cavalier and Lawrence Krauss. Matthew's book is hilarious, more in the mode of Hunter S. Thompson's humor. Ed Humes' "Monkey Girl" is the most comprehensive account on the events leading up to the trial and of the trial itself. I also highly recommend Lauri Lebo's "Devil in Dover" not only because Lauri was a fine journalist in her own right, but she knew many of the local people who became plaintiffs and defendants.

John · 19 March 2012

Karen S. said: John, Here you go: Behe interview Enjoy! Do you have a link for the Rose Center Event?
Belated thanks for the link to Colbert's interview of Behe. Am looking forward to viewing it. As for the Brown alumni event that was held at AMNH and the Rose Center, it was the kickoff event for a fundraising campaign that has raised over $1 Billion for Brown's endowment.

eric · 19 March 2012

RBH and John - thanks for the corrections. I guess legal staff at the time probably didn't have the full story, but that it came out later (to be reported by Forrest, etc.)

Richard B. Hoppe · 19 March 2012

anonatheist said: How can we be sure John Freshwater is finished? He seems the stubborn type.
We're not sure, but I've heard nothing since the appeals court turned him down. He's down to one last step, an appeal of the appellate court's dismissal to the Ohio Supreme Court. I can't see the Rutherford Institute supporting that given the alacrity with which the appellate court dismissed his appeal.

John · 19 March 2012

John Pieret said: Behe and Minnich, who (at least in my impression) are less at the center of the DI conspiracy and more "useful idiot" true believers, were either deemed suitable sacrificial lambs by the DI or so puffed up with themselves (at least in Behe's case) that they could not be dissuaded.
You're correct about Minnich's relationship with the ID "movement". However, in Behe's case, he's the one responsible for introducing the concept of irreducible complexity as a key "principle" of Intelligent Design cretinism. As an ID "theorist", I would rank Behe alongside Dembski with regards to his importance. However, as many have noted already, Behe seems to acknowledge some form of common descent, putting him at odds with the likes of Dembski, Klinghoffer, Nelson, West and other OECs and YECS lurking at the DI.

Doc Bill · 19 March 2012

Tenncrain said:
Doc Bill said: One of my favorites, though, is a video panel discussion after Kitzmiller with Ken Miller, Richard Thompson (More Legal) and Mark Ryland (DI Washington office). Thompson is lamenting how the DI left them in the lurch when Ryland pipes up and says "We never advocated teaching ID" whereupon Thompson reaches into his briefcase and pulls out a copy of the "DI's guide to teaching ID constitutionally" and he says, "Yes, you did. You wrote a book about it!" Ryland either left on his own steam or was kicked out of the Washington office soon after.
Matthew Chapman's book '40 Days and 40 Nights' describes Ryland and Thompson having a nasty spat at a forum by the American Enterprise Institute in Washington DC. Ken Miller happened to be there as well, having concluded his testimony as lead expert witness for the plaintiffs. Miller couldn't help but be thrilled by the infighting on the other side of the case. Perhaps this is the same event Doc Bill is talking about; if so, this happened during the Kitzmiller trial but during a trial recess. Anyway, here is video from 2005 of the forum. BTW, Chapman happens to be great-great-grandson of Charles Darwin. I liked his book. Plan to read Edward Humes's 'Monkey Girl' when I find some time.
Yes, this is exactly the video. It's an interesting discussion but the Smack-a-Roo comes an hour in at the 1:11:00 mark through 1:14 where Thomas More lawyer Thompson basically calls the Disco Tute and Mark Ryland liars. It's beautiful! Ryland is left hanging out to dry with no credibility. The beauty is that he is destroyed by his own side. Creationists, just let them talk.

Ron Okimoto · 20 March 2012

DavidK said: The wedge tactics are pretty clear. Find sympathetic fundamentalists on school boards, milk the press on the teach the controversy and freedom of speech nonsense, garner public opinion against evolution, and use every legal tactic possible against anyone who seeks to impede their efforts to indoctrinate kids in creationism. It, the Dishonesty Institute, is in fact a religion based organization. But when faced with the facts, including the fact that there is no scientific merit or subatance to creationism/intelligent design, they head for the hills, leaving others to foot the bill for their dirty work and to clean up after their doggy doo.
I mention the Wedge document in my Ohio post on TO, and people seldom refer to the old mission statement by the Discovery Institute that they had up until 1999. Anyone interested in a good laugh should click on the Wayback link and see the old logo of God and Adam and the Wedge mission statement. Wedge document: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf Link to the DI's mission statement: http://web.archive.org/web/19980114111554/http://discovery.org/crsc/aboutcrsc.html

Paul Burnett · 20 March 2012

Ron Okimoto said: I mention the Wedge document in my Ohio post on TO, and people seldom refer to the old mission statement by the Discovery Institute that they had up until 1999.
In various blog comments, I refer folks to the Wedge Document copy at http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html and quote the first sentence, "The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built." and ask "Does this sound like it's about science or religion?"

apokryltaros · 20 March 2012

Paul Burnett said:
Ron Okimoto said: I mention the Wedge document in my Ohio post on TO, and people seldom refer to the old mission statement by the Discovery Institute that they had up until 1999.
In various blog comments, I refer folks to the Wedge Document copy at http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html and quote the first sentence, "The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built." and ask "Does this sound like it's about science or religion?"
From what the Discovery Institute Illuminaries have said and done, and what the Discovery Institute has churned out all these years, I can tell you that it has nothing to do with science.

TomS · 20 March 2012

Paul Burnett quoted: "The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built."
It brings to mind the fallacies of composition and division, the failure to distinguish between things and classes of things, in this case the failure to distinguish between human beings and populations (or species or "kinds") of human beings. If one is concerned about a conflict between a scientific description of the origins of human beings and the belief that human beings are created in the image of God, then one ought to be battling reproductive (or developmental) biology, not evolutionary biology. (Or maybe the complaints should be about atomic theory, which says that the human body is composed of atoms, while God is not. Or organic chemistry. Or, come to think of it, maybe the real complaint of the creationists is with logic.)

Henry J · 20 March 2012

Or, come to think of it, maybe the real complaint of the creationists is with logic.

Then they wouldn't get along with Vulcans, would they?

Kevin B · 20 March 2012

Henry J said:

Or, come to think of it, maybe the real complaint of the creationists is with logic.

Then they wouldn't get along with Vulcans, would they?
It'll cause an outbreak of exploding heads among the exo-biology denialists. The raised eyebrows won't help either.

Henry J · 20 March 2012

Kevin B said: It'll cause an outbreak of exploding heads among the exo-biology denialists. The raised eyebrows won't help either.
Sort of like what happened at the end of Mars Attacks!?

Ron Okimoto · 20 March 2012

Paul Burnett said:
Ron Okimoto said: I mention the Wedge document in my Ohio post on TO, and people seldom refer to the old mission statement by the Discovery Institute that they had up until 1999.
In various blog comments, I refer folks to the Wedge Document copy at http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html and quote the first sentence, "The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built." and ask "Does this sound like it's about science or religion?"
Click on the Mission statement link. You will see the same statement and there is no doubt that it is a mission statement because it says so in the Discovery Institute authored title. A lot of people refer to the Wedge document, but there should be acknowledgement of the early mission statments. The Discovery Institute may try to fob off the Wedge document as a "fund raising" document, but they can't do that with their official mission statement for the CRSC. The Logo of God and Adam of the Discovery Institute says a lot too.

Karen S. · 21 March 2012

The Disco Tute might seem to be disappearing, but they are probably just changing their outfits.

"No, we have nothing to do with intelligent design. This is a new theory!"

apokryltaros · 21 March 2012

Karen S. said: The Disco Tute might seem to be disappearing, but they are probably just changing their outfits. "No, we have nothing to do with intelligent design. This is a new theory!"
Though, would this require bribing or sacrificing their Pro-Intelligent Design members, like Behe?

John · 21 March 2012

apokryltaros said:
Karen S. said: The Disco Tute might seem to be disappearing, but they are probably just changing their outfits. "No, we have nothing to do with intelligent design. This is a new theory!"
Though, would this require bribing or sacrificing their Pro-Intelligent Design members, like Behe?
They haven't walked away from Intelligent Design. As Nick Matzke has noted, they are making the Coppedge suit into one in which Coppedge believes he's been stigmatized for embracing Intelligent Design. LOL!

apokryltaros · 21 March 2012

John said:
apokryltaros said:
Karen S. said: The Disco Tute might seem to be disappearing, but they are probably just changing their outfits. "No, we have nothing to do with intelligent design. This is a new theory!"
Though, would this require bribing or sacrificing their Pro-Intelligent Design members, like Behe?
They haven't walked away from Intelligent Design. As Nick Matzke has noted, they are making the Coppedge suit into one in which Coppedge believes he's been stigmatized for embracing Intelligent Design. LOL!
I know that: I was just wondering what would happen if the Discovery Institute were to totally give up on the idea of Intelligent Design.

Matt G · 21 March 2012

I can't wait to see what they come with for Creationism 4.0.

raven · 21 March 2012

They haven’t walked away from Intelligent Design.
It's been teach the (nonexistent) controversy for a while.
As Nick Matzke has noted, they are making the Coppedge suit into one in which Coppedge believes he’s been stigmatized for embracing Intelligent Design.
Which is odd. Coppedge is a YEC. They are admitting that ID is compatible with YECism.

Karen S. · 21 March 2012

Coppedge is a YEC. They are admitting that ID is compatible with YECism.
Hey, it's a big tent...

apokryltaros · 21 March 2012

Karen S. said:
Coppedge is a YEC. They are admitting that ID is compatible with YECism.
Hey, it's a big tent...
Yet not big enough to house Ken Ham and his ego.

SteveP. · 21 March 2012

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

DS · 21 March 2012

Time to take out the trash.

Dave Luckett · 21 March 2012

He's even more incoherent than usual. I wonder if he's off his meds.

SteveP. · 21 March 2012

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

SteveP. · 21 March 2012

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

dalehusband · 21 March 2012

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

ksplawn · 21 March 2012

You don't think commentary on the pattern of Discovery Institute scamming of school boards and individual teachers falls under that purview? Hint: education.

DS · 22 March 2012

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

Rolf · 22 March 2012

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

Tenncrain · 22 March 2012

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

John · 22 March 2012

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

Ron Okimoto · 24 March 2012

Ron Okimoto said:
Paul Burnett said:
Ron Okimoto said: I mention the Wedge document in my Ohio post on TO, and people seldom refer to the old mission statement by the Discovery Institute that they had up until 1999.
In various blog comments, I refer folks to the Wedge Document copy at http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html and quote the first sentence, "The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built." and ask "Does this sound like it's about science or religion?"
Click on the Mission statement link. You will see the same statement and there is no doubt that it is a mission statement because it says so in the Discovery Institute authored title. A lot of people refer to the Wedge document, but there should be acknowledgement of the early mission statments. The Discovery Institute may try to fob off the Wedge document as a "fund raising" document, but they can't do that with their official mission statement for the CRSC. The Logo of God and Adam of the Discovery Institute says a lot too.
I guess I should have provided a link to the old DI CRSC mission statement. Sorry. http://web.archive.org/web/19980114111554/http://discovery.org/crsc/aboutcrsc.html

Midnight Rambler · 25 March 2012

Doc Bill said:
Tenncrain said: Perhaps this is the same event Doc Bill is talking about; if so, this happened during the Kitzmiller trial but during a trial recess. Anyway, here is video from 2005 of the forum. BTW, Chapman happens to be great-great-grandson of Charles Darwin. I liked his book. Plan to read Edward Humes's 'Monkey Girl' when I find some time.
Yes, this is exactly the video. It's an interesting discussion but the Smack-a-Roo comes an hour in at the 1:11:00 mark through 1:14 where Thomas More lawyer Thompson basically calls the Disco Tute and Mark Ryland liars. It's beautiful! Ryland is left hanging out to dry with no credibility. The beauty is that he is destroyed by his own side.
Thanks for posting that video. Ken Miller's statement immediately afterward is beautiful.