Oral arguments in Cope vs. Kansas State Board of Education

Posted 5 October 2015 by Matt Young

I do not know whether Cope will turn out to be the mouse that roared or the Energizer bunny – or maybe Don Quixote – but the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments the other day in Cope's appeal of a ruling in favor of the Kansas State Board of Education. I am inclined toward the Energizer bunny, but the Appeals Court rejected Cope's attempt to file a surreply, which I gather is sort of a reply to a rejoinder to a response and is generally prohibited. At any rate, the lawsuit against the Kansas State Board of Education (hereinafter, as your lawyer might say, Kansas) was dismissed in December of last year. PT first reported on Cope here; you may learn more about them here. According to Charity Navigator, their annual income is less than $50,000 per year, so they do not have to file Form 990 with the IRS. Americans United for the Separation of Church and State quoted Steven Case, director of the science center at the University of Kansas, to the effect that their lawsuit was "about as frivolous as lawsuits get." Evidently, the Judge, Daniel D. Crabtree, agreed; he dismissed the case in large part because the plaintiffs (Cope and a number of others including parents of children in Kansas schools) lacked standing. You may find the documents in the case here. Standing seems like a concept that only a lawyer could love, but all it says is that you have to be harmed or imminently harmed in order to sue someone ("injury in fact"). Additionally, if you are harmed, you must sue the entity who harmed you, not a third party. And finally (a new one to me), the harm that was done to you must be redressable by a favorable decision by the Court. Taxpayers, not incidentally, do not have standing to sue a government agency merely because they are taxpayers. Cope, chugging along tirelessly, appealed Judge Crabtree's ruling in March of this year, and Kansas replied in June. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments last Wednesday morning, so I hopped on a bus and went down to Denver. To no one's surprise, John Calvert represented Cope. Kansas was represented by Dwight Carswell, an assistant solicitor general for Kansas. I frankly thought that Calvert was somewhat more effective in his presentation than Carswell. The discussion centered largely on the harm that may have been done to the plaintiffs. Much of the Judges' questioning concerned the fact that the standards (Next Generation Science Standards) adopted by Kansas are only advisory, and local school districts are not required to adopt them. Indeed, school districts are required to teach science, but not instructed how to do so. The Judges questioned Carswell closely on the content of Kansas law and the discretion of local school boards on implementing standards adopted by the State Board of Education. Additionally, no evidence has been presented to suggest that any school district has adopted the standards, nor that any plaintiff has been harmed by the standards. I think one of the Judges remarked that the school teaches children, and the children are not the plaintiffs. On another occasion, a Judge rhetorically asked Calvert whether he had jumped the gun, filing his lawsuit before any district had actually adopted the standards. Calvert was also asked why he sued Kansas and not a school district. What precisely does he want the Court to enjoin? Calvert argued that the NGSS adopted by Kansas establish a religious preference - a nontheistic religious worldview - because they support methodological naturalism, which he described as an orthodoxy. He further opined that "origins science" should not be taught at all to children in K-8, because they are too young to engage in such discussions, which Cope considers to be inherently religious. Asked whether he would be satisfied with a clause requiring creationism to be taught in addition, Calvert replied, "No," and argued that an objective view of science that included "critical thinking" and provided alternatives to methodological naturalism would suffice. Other questions posed to Calvert: What is the injury in fact? Is a nontheistic religious worldview really being taught? Where do we find methodological naturalism in the standards? Do not local school districts have discretion whether to adopt the standards? What areas of Kansas law are pertinent? Precisely what do you want us to enjoin? Would you be satisfied with a declaratory judgment? Carswell, who was somewhat hard to understand, was asked what normative standard the NGSS might establish. Asked whether the law precluded alternate theories, he responded that the law recognized that the curriculum may be extended and school districts may teach alternative scientific theories. Asked whether any districts had actually implemented the NGSS, Carswell responded that he did not know of any. There was also some discussion about whether (presuming that harm had in fact been done) a declaratory judgment would redress that harm. Other questions posed to Carswell: Why do we have standards if districts have discretion about them? Is not this whole case speculative because NGSS has not been implemented? Does not injury depend on actual implementation of the standards, as opposed to their adoption? After the hearing, I met Clare Leonard, an education activist and fellow Colorado Citizens for Science member, in the hall. Calvert was holding, um, court surrounded by a half-dozen or more of his minions. If the decision is based on acting ability, Calvert wins. But I had the impression that the Court was much more skeptical of his position than of Carswell's, particularly of his claim that there was an injury in fact. Cope takes the position that science is a religion. They may be tilting at windmills; but they can still do real damage. Acknowledgments. Thanks to Glenn Branch for inciting this whole expedition; to Deanna Young and Clare Leonard for pertinent discussion following the hearing; to Clare Leonard for the coffee; and to all three for numerous emendations, including many of the questions posed by the Court..

65 Comments

Mike Elzinga · 5 October 2015

Calvert argued that the NGSS adopted by Kansas establish a religious preference - a nontheistic religious worldview - because they support methodological naturalism, which he described as an orthodoxy. He further opined that âorigins scienceâ should not be taught at all to children in K-8, because they are too young to engage in such discussions, which Cope considers to be inherently religious. Asked whether he would be satisfied with a clause requiring creationism to be taught in addition, Calvert replied, âNo,â and argued that an objective view of science that included âcritical thinkingâ and provided alternatives to methodological naturalism would suffice.

One of the most obvious clues that Calvert and COPE are full of crap is that they don't know the difference between science and religion. This is nothing more than jealous sectarianism in a state of paranoia about the possibility of another "religion" being better than theirs. Such sectarians are constantly inciting unprovoked religious wars with everybody else; it's their history. Given their inability to distinguish between such fundamental concepts, what business do Calvert and COPE have in passing judgment on science standards that have been hammered out among scientists and educators? Calvert and COPE are misrepresenting secular education; and their objections to science are based on their own scientific illiteracy as well as their lack of understanding of the Constitution.

TomS · 5 October 2015

If he suggested that alternatives to methodological naturalism would suffice, did the obvious question of what are some alternatives rise? Some methodology which has the potential of accounting for why "this and not something else". Or one which does not get the state entangled with religious differences, such as Young Earth or Old Earth or other issues which depend upon sectarian interpretations of religious texts.

Henry J · 5 October 2015

Could residents of the state sue them on the basis of their attempt to sabotage the state's educational system?

Scott F · 5 October 2015

Isn't asking Kansas to defend the teaching of Evolution, or Science in general, akin to (and about as effective as) asking a Hindu to defend a Texas steakhouse against a charge of cruelty to animals?

stevaroni · 5 October 2015

Henry J said: Could residents of the state sue them on the basis of their attempt to sabotage the state's educational system?

Destruction of public property?

fusilier · 6 October 2015

And it's 1999 all over again.

fusilier

James 2:24

DS · 6 October 2015

So science is a religion? How original. Can't these guys ever come up with anything new? How exactly can a method be a belief system? By what definition is a methodology a religion? Is method acting a religion? I guess that would explain televangelists. What about the method you use to make rubber? Or whiskey? Are those religions? It's a method, it's not something you believe in, it's just something you use because it works, like a hammer. If it didn't work you wouldn't use it, belief is irrelevant. And how can even philosophical naturalism be a religion? There is no god, no prayer, no afterlife, no reward in heaven, no holy book, no moral code. Trying to discover how the natural world works is not a religion in any meaningful sense.

And if science is somehow a religion, I am a priest and should not have to pay taxes. Cool. Now all we need are some hymns and a few blood sacrifices. This is a really bad argument, one you really don't want to make. If science is a religion, the available evidence indicates that it must be the one true religion. No other religion has been so successful or accomplished as much. Obviously, if science is somehow a religion, the god of science is the most powerful. If you want prayer in public schools, you better pray to the god of science, she seems to be the only one who listens.

DS · 6 October 2015

FRom the link provided:

"As the AP reports, Citizens for Objective Public Education (COPE) claims that public schools âpromote a ânon-theistic religious worldviewâ by allowing only âmaterialisticâ or âatheisticâ explanations to scientific questions.â

First of all, "materialistic" does not equal "atheistic". These guys are just pissed because science can explain so much without the need for any supernatural mumbo jumbo. They are mad because their god is irrelevant and they know it. Second, there is nothing non-theistic about science, it simply ignores explanations for which there is no evidence. Once again, they are just peeved because there is no evidence for their god. Third, science allows any explanation for which there is evidence. It doesn't exclude supernatural explanations because they are "materialistic", it ignores them because there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support them.

eric · 6 October 2015

I'm a bit concerned that the judge asked him if teaching creationism would remedy the situation. Maybe that question made sense in context and I'm just missing some subtlety, but superficially that sounds to me like the judge has no idea which remedies would be legal and which would not be.

richard09 · 6 October 2015

I took that to mean that the judge wanted him to admit that he was really pushing creationism. Which they could quickly rule against.

Henry J · 6 October 2015

Re "If you want prayer in public schools, you better pray to the god of science, she seems to be the only one who listens."

And recite one of the science mantras:

"Ohm... Ohm... "

"Quant suff... Quant suff..."

paulc_mv · 6 October 2015

I notice most of the comments mention the same thing that jumped out at me--the ridiculous suggestion that every belief is a religious belief.

The meaning of "orthodoxy" in this context is never explained. So let's go with (as I found in a quick search) "authorized or generally accepted theory, doctrine, or practice". By that definition, it encompasses most of what is taught in school (certainly K-12, but plenty in college and beyond). Very little is open to discussion (say, a better way for a kindergartner to hold their crayon, or a different algorithm for multiplication in 2nd grade). Very little is justified from first principles (we believe that republics are superior to despotism; we believe that markets are good ways to allocate resources; some people disagree, but K-12 is not usually where this is debated).

So in short, not every orthodoxy is a religion. A religion is a highly specific kind of orthodoxy. It does not include naturalism, methodological or otherwise. And the outrageous part is that very few people are actually disposed to the radical notion of expunging all orthodoxy from schools and... then what? Let the kids decide the curriculum? I mean, I think it's a bad idea, though I see the appeal in the abstract. But the ones who want to eliminate the "orthodoxy" of evolution simply want to force their own orthodoxy. How can such a disingenuous argument be given even a second of consideration?

Michael Fugate · 6 October 2015

Doesn't COPE stand for Chemists Overtly Pissing on Evolution?

DS · 6 October 2015

paulc_mv said: I notice most of the comments mention the same thing that jumped out at me--the ridiculous suggestion that every belief is a religious belief. The meaning of "orthodoxy" in this context is never explained. So let's go with (as I found in a quick search) "authorized or generally accepted theory, doctrine, or practice". By that definition, it encompasses most of what is taught in school (certainly K-12, but plenty in college and beyond). Very little is open to discussion (say, a better way for a kindergartner to hold their crayon, or a different algorithm for multiplication in 2nd grade). Very little is justified from first principles (we believe that republics are superior to despotism; we believe that markets are good ways to allocate resources; some people disagree, but K-12 is not usually where this is debated). So in short, not every orthodoxy is a religion. A religion is a highly specific kind of orthodoxy. It does not include naturalism, methodological or otherwise. And the outrageous part is that very few people are actually disposed to the radical notion of expunging all orthodoxy from schools and... then what? Let the kids decide the curriculum? I mean, I think it's a bad idea, though I see the appeal in the abstract. But the ones who want to eliminate the "orthodoxy" of evolution simply want to force their own orthodoxy. How can such a disingenuous argument be given even a second of consideration?

Absolutely. Not everything that is "orthodoxy" is a religion. And even if it were, we certainly can't eliminate all "orthodoxy" from schools. So, by using a weasel word and leaving it undefined, the argument is once again revealed for what it really is, word gaming and special pleading for their "orthodoxy".

dvizard · 6 October 2015

Honestly, I am a bit worried about the discussion about standing. If COPE doesn't have standing to sue Kansas over new science standards, then who does? In other words: If the state of Kansas had decided on new science standards that favor ID or YEC or whatever, then how would we have standing to sue? It doesn't seem right to me that we should "win" this one on the technicality of standing, because 1) this could well have gone the other way and 2) it basically just delays the plaintiffs until the first implementation of the standards, when they will sue again and in total will have had more publicity and exposure.

eric · 6 October 2015

dvizard said: If COPE doesn't have standing to sue Kansas over new science standards, then who does?

A student being taught the material, or their legal guardian if they aren't of age. COPE is neither; it's a non-profit NGO. And yes, we apply the same standard to ourselves that we apply to our opponents; in Kitzmiller, for example, it was parents of the kids taking the biology class that that sued. Bystanders are not invited.

2) it basically just delays the plaintiffs until the first implementation of the standards, when they will sue again and in total will have had more publicity and exposure.

Standing definitely has its pros and cons. Correct, it means it is difficult to use prior restraint against unconstitutional policies. But OTOH it means bad actors have a difficult time using prior restraint against reasonable policies (like...in this case). The other thing it does relevant to this case is it prevents court cases getting spun up about policies when the court doesn't actually know what the government will do. Kansas has many options for how it implements these standards. Which option(s) will it take? What will it require of schools? Unless all possibilities are unconstitutional, it seems a bit premature to take them to court over the mere possibility that they might implement them in an unconstitutional manner. Think it through: without the standing requirement, probably literally every single major policy decision would be preceded by a court case.

Mike Elzinga · 6 October 2015

The notion of standing - if I understand it correctly - includes the notion of being harmed; in this case, being harmed by the Next Generation Science Standards.

What would constitute "harm" in this case; being unable to get into a university to study science? Or perhaps having to actually learn science up to some level of proficiency?

"Harm" can't just amount to sectarians taking gratuitous offense at a secular curriculum. It can't just amount to a "perception" of being attacked and prevented from exercising one's religion under the First Amendment; the science standards are not directed at persecuting sectarians or preventing them from attending their churches. Being paranoid about everything in the secular world is not the same as being harmed.

COPE is just making up crap and playing the whiny persecution card. The sectarians who engage in these types of law suits are not fooling anyone with their maudlin persecution complexes. They spend the bulk of their time in their churches kvetching about the world around them while implying - not so subtly - that they are being singled out for harassment because of their moral superiority.

They are in fact morally inferior to pretty much everyone else; they can't stand on their own unless they have the courts suppress everything they choose to "take offense" at. If they preach at someone and are ignored, they claim they are being persecuted. If they can't get their religion into the public schools using the powers of secular government, they claim they are being persecuted. If improved science standards are proposed by experts and educators, they claim they are being persecuted.

These are the types of sectarians who attempt to get respect by suing; they certainly don't earn it by their moral and ethical standards. Nor do they show any regard for the achievements and well-being of others. They are simply self-pitying narcissists who expect everyone else to snap to attention every time they whine.

Marilyn · 6 October 2015

If science is on a par with religion and sets the high standards of bible teaching then it would only be setting high standardizing as to how it forms and comes to it's conclusions. For science to work it has to be pure and honest with it's conclusions and experimentation. And that until the full examination of a product either medicine or product of engineering component it cannot be put into production for society's use unless it is proven to be completely safe and no harmful side effects, but when do we get that sort of perfection and in reality can it be attained, I think it often is but mistakes do get through.

eric · 6 October 2015

Marilyn said: If science is on a par with religion and sets the high standards of bible teaching

It doesn't.

For science to work it has to be pure and honest with it's conclusions and experimentation.

Well perfection is a bit of a high standard, don't you think? Yes we should strive to be those things, and correct faults where we find them. But beyond that, we're only human. As pure and honest as the next guy, but hopefully more pure and honest than most.

And that until the full examination of a product either medicine or product of engineering component it cannot be put into production for society's use unless it is proven to be completely safe and no harmful side effects,

That's your opinion, and you are welcome to have it, but the risk vs. reward calculation is something all of us in society participate in making. Others may decide that a higher risk to get valuable products to market in a more timely fashion is more to their liking. Personally, I would agree with you in that I think the FDA is severely underfunded and ought to be given more resources for drug testing. As a philosophical note, there is really no way to "prove completely" that something has no harmful side effects. There is always some level of risk accepted. And since human biology exists on a spectrum, even 'proving completely' that something is not harmful to 99% of the population does not prove completely that it is not harmful to the remaining 1%. Should such a drug never see the marketplace, even though it is safe and effective for 99% of the population? Last note; maybe think about your posts a bit more before letting loose with the stream of consciousness. Usually I have no problem understanding your questions and comments, but this one was almost Byers-like.

DS · 6 October 2015

Marilyn,

Have you ever seen a commercial for a pharmaceutical product?

Henry J · 6 October 2015

DS said: Marilyn, Have you ever seen a commercial for a pharmaceutical product?

Oh, you mean where the first third or fourth of it is reasons to buy it, and the other 2/3 or 3/4 is reasons to avoid it like the plague?

TomS · 6 October 2015

Marilyn said: If science is on a par with religion and sets the high standards of bible teaching then it would only be setting high standardizing as to how it forms and comes to it's conclusions. For science to work it has to be pure and honest with it's conclusions and experimentation. And that until the full examination of a product either medicine or product of engineering component it cannot be put into production for society's use unless it is proven to be completely safe and no harmful side effects, but when do we get that sort of perfection and in reality can it be attained, I think it often is but mistakes do get through.

I don't understand what you are saying. Who says that science should be on a par with religion? Of course science is always in danger of not being pure and honest, but I don't see that you have offered any suggestion for guarding against that danger. Are you suggesting that science and technology must be perfect before meriting our valuation? Is it that idealization of perfection, that without an impeccable standard there is nothing without any merit, that leads some to insist that there has to be an infallible Pope or an inerrant Bible as a source of all truth?

stevaroni · 6 October 2015

DS said: And if science is somehow a religion, I am a priest and should not have to pay taxes.

Hmm... I hadn't thought of that, but you have a point. If the fundies ever get this "science==religion" meme established in one of these creation-in-the-schools cases, I'm going to be the first in line to use the precedent to claim my ministerial exemption, based on 30 years of worshiping at the Altar Of Objectively Measuring Shit.

Mike Elzinga · 7 October 2015

I have read the complaint by COPE and all I can say about it is that it sets up a grotesque, long-winded caricature of science as its argument. It's the old Gish Gallop all over again; and, as usual, it is dead wrong at every level. Fifty years of blatant lying about science and scientific concepts all compacted into one complaint.

The complaint then ends with a demand for a trial by jury; the typical "debating" tactic that has been part of ID/creationism ever since it was officially founded back in 1970 by Henry Morris and Duane Gish.

Thus, this hackneyed old tactic of the Gish Gallop remains implicit in any such spectacle that would take place in a courtroom while being "judged" by non-experts; many of whom will be selected because of their same misconceptions of and hostilities toward science.

So a "trial" by jury becomes the vehicle by which COPE hopes to win the "debate" by mischaracterizing scientific concepts and misrepresenting what is actually in the science standards. Nothing has changed in something like 50 years. ID/creationists still haven't learned any science; yet science marches on.

IDiots!

Kevin B · 7 October 2015

Michael Fugate said: Doesn't COPE stand for Chemists Overtly Pissing on Evolution?

A cope is a cloak worn by the religious. Was the judge's question about creationism an attempt to get them to uncloak?

eric · 7 October 2015

Mike Elzinga said: The complaint then ends with a demand for a trial by jury;

I don't see how that could possibly work as a viable argument. This is an appeals court; they don't use juries. The question they have to resolve is whether it was legally correct to not grant standing - also not a question ever decided by a jury. They're asking for something that has no relevance to the legal question the appeal has to answer. I suppose its possible that if the appeals court decides COPE did have standing, they could send the case back with an order for a jury trial. COPE doesn't represent anyone who is actually going to school and the standards have yet to be adopted, so that seems like a tough job to me. So, in terms of comparing it to a story, I'm going with Aesop's The Gnat and the Bull.

CJColucci · 7 October 2015

The request for a jury trial has no bearing on the appeal. It's just part of what lawyers put into complaints if there is a basis for a jury trial. But there is no basis for a jury trial in this case because the complaint seeks only injunctive and declaratory relief (the $1 nominal damages being ignored, as it should be), and in those circumstances there is no right to a jury trial.

Doc Bill · 7 October 2015

It's heartwarming in a perverse sort of way to see that Calvert is still pushing this crap a decade after the Kansas Kangaroo Kourt. Imagine, though, the effect on education he might have had if he put that much zeal and effort into actually improving education. Waste of a life if you ask me.

paulc_mv · 7 October 2015

Mike Elzinga said: The complaint then ends with a demand for a trial by jury;

Given their consistently pre-Enlightenment stance on everything else, couldn't they at least demand trial by combat?

Henry J · 7 October 2015

paulc_mv said:
Mike Elzinga said: The complaint then ends with a demand for a trial by jury;
Given their consistently pre-Enlightenment stance on everything else, couldn't they at least demand trial by combat?

Thunderdome...

Michael Fugate · 7 October 2015

Doc Bill said: It's heartwarming in a perverse sort of way to see that Calvert is still pushing this crap a decade after the Kansas Kangaroo Kourt. Imagine, though, the effect on education he might have had if he put that much zeal and effort into actually improving education. Waste of a life if you ask me.

Given all the things wrong with Kansas education now, this will only make it worse - not that it could get much worse. The good citizens reelected Brownback governor - and only because he has an R after his name. They got what they deserve for not paying attention.

Mike Elzinga · 7 October 2015

Michael Fugate said:
Doc Bill said: It's heartwarming in a perverse sort of way to see that Calvert is still pushing this crap a decade after the Kansas Kangaroo Kourt. Imagine, though, the effect on education he might have had if he put that much zeal and effort into actually improving education. Waste of a life if you ask me.
Given all the things wrong with Kansas education now, this will only make it worse - not that it could get much worse. The good citizens reelected Brownback governor - and only because he has an R after his name. They got what they deserve for not paying attention.

I don't know how the courts generally handle lawsuits that are built on carefully constructed misinformation and mischaracterizations of the accused. The entire complaint by COPE contains so many misconceptions and misrepresentations of science that it could, all by itself, be the prime exhibit of the profound scientific illiteracy among these types of sectarians and throughout Kansas in general. It is one of the prime examples of why science standards are needed in Kansas. If a judge or a lawyer for the defense were to be so inclined, couldn't they use this complaint by COPE as a reason to reprimand them for filing a frivolous lawsuit based on mischaracterizations of science that verge on slander? Personally, I would go farther and order members of COPE to pay for all the expenses incurred by others as a result of their clogging up of the courts and wasting taxpayer money with frivolous lawsuits that air their petty, sectarian grudges against science and society. Of course, among these sectarians, slander is exactly what this is all about. Science and its practitioners represent some of the many "evils" they rail against from their pulpits. But their continual use of the institutions of government to vent their paranoia against everyone else has been getting pretty expensive and boring over the years. One would think that they should eventually incur some considerable cost for their abuse of the legal system. The usual technique used by these sectarians is to be stealth candidates for public office, get elected, and then impose their sectarian religion on everyone else. This means that others have to bear the costs of a lawsuit, or that tax payers have to pick up the tab. How will COPE get slapped with picking up the tab for the expenses they foisted onto others? From everything I have seen over the last 50 years, these sectarians have cost tax payers millions of dollars while they themselves have suffered little in the way of financial loss for their meddling. They seem to have thought a lot about how to abuse both the legal system and the institutions of government in order to make life difficult for others.

eric · 7 October 2015

Mike Elzinga said: I don't know how the courts generally handle lawsuits that are built on carefully constructed misinformation and mischaracterizations of the accused.

They leave it to the defense to uncover/poke holes in the plaintiff's lies. And vice versa. The court system is adversarial by nature; very different from the methodology of science (all jokes about competitive publishing aside, we assume other researchers - even authors who may be competing with us for some discovery - aren't outright liars and frauds. The court system does not make that assumption).

If a judge or a lawyer for the defense were to be so inclined, couldn't they use this complaint by COPE as a reason to reprimand them for filing a frivolous lawsuit based on mischaracterizations of science that verge on slander?

Sure, but you have to prove malicious intent rather than (or in addition to) mere misunderstanding of the law/idiocy/difference of opinion. That's hard to do. With these guys, I'm not even sure if malicious intent is true; they seem to truly believe this is an imposition on their rights.

Personally, I would go farther and order members of COPE to pay for all the expenses incurred by others as a result of their clogging up of the courts and wasting taxpayer money with frivolous lawsuits that air their petty, sectarian grudges against science and society.

That's actually easier than your first request. I believe that in a civil suit, its often the case that the loser must pay the winner's lawyers fees etc. IIRC from Kitzmiller, the plaintiffs could've charged the SBOE something like $1million in legal fees, but chose not to.

Mike Elzinga · 7 October 2015

eric said: They leave it to the defense to uncover/poke holes in the plaintiff's lies. And vice versa. The court system is adversarial by nature; very different from the methodology of science (all jokes about competitive publishing aside, we assume other researchers - even authors who may be competing with us for some discovery - aren't outright liars and frauds. The court system does not make that assumption).

The National Center for Science Education is keeping up with the case and has the documents posted for downloading. The defendants have articulated and addressed the misconceptions and misrepresentations of COPE quite well. As one can tell from the case law that the defendants cite, the courts have been here before; so COPE doesn't appear to have much chance of succeeding. Much of the drooling idiocy of COPE's sectarian accusations can be addressed with essentially boilerplate from previous cases. However, I don't see any end to this. If previous election cycles have been any indication of the activities of sectarian groups, we will probably see a significant upsurge in letters to the editors of local newspapers and backroom political moves to get religion into the schools and evolution out. Sectarianism has become excruciatingly boring in its lunkheaded repetitiveness over the years. I am glad to see that the standards for the teaching of science, especially evolution, are gradually improving over the years; but I suspect that sectarians will be up to their old political tricks with increasing intensity and anger. The current mess within the Republican Party will probably go on for at least a couple of more decades; and that doesn't bode well for finding and implementing solutions to some pretty serious problems faced by humanity on this planet. We will be tied up constantly in unnecessary paralysis because Right Wing Nuts and sectarians don't want to solve problems but instead will be seeking ways to grab the entire pie for themselves; and that puts them at war with nearly everyone else. I find it appalling that Presidential candidates like Bush in the Republican Party can say things like, "Stuff happens." in the face of mass shootings for example. Every damned one of them, in their attempts to court the Far Right and extremist sectarians, simply refuses to even think about solutions to problems. As long as we have a major Right Wing extremist party catering to the most ignorant elements of our voting public, we will continue to have major problems that will never be addressed. Instead we will be addressing repeatedly only petty, gratuitous offenses taken by a spoiled few who get special treatment by complaining loudly and irrationally over everybody else. This is the domain of organizations like COPE.

eric · 7 October 2015

However, I don't see any end to this.

Yep. So what? With freedom of speech and the right to petition the government comes the distinct possibility that every generation will contain people who will bitch about the same old injustices they perceive are being done to them. The courts are not the the proper tool to stop this; social pressure is. If someone wanted to sue a local school district over desegregration they could still do it. They'd fail, but the courts haven't stopped such suits from occurring, social pressure and changing mores has.

We will be tied up constantly in unnecessary paralysis because Right Wing Nuts and sectarians don't want to solve problems but instead will be seeking ways to grab the entire pie for themselves;

Maybe. But in reality COPE is one NGO amongst 360 million citizens. We have to be careful not to fall for the 'shark attack' fallacy; just because the national media reports one of these instances every day or week doesn't actually mean it's very frequent in per capita terms.

W. H. Heydt · 7 October 2015

eric said:IIRC from Kitzmiller, the plaintiffs could've charged the SBOE something like $1million in legal fees, but chose not to.

As I recall it, the plaintiff's lawyers could have collected $2 million, but settled for $1 million, since the new board promptly reversed to offending policy and declined to appeal.

stevaroni · 7 October 2015

paulc_mv said:
Mike Elzinga said: The complaint then ends with a demand for a trial by jury;
Given their consistently pre-Enlightenment stance on everything else, couldn't they at least demand trial by combat?

It should be pointed out that while faith may have allowed David to slay Goliath with a slingshot, science builds really good weapons these days. There's probably some kid in Iowa right now building a 20' tall battlebot controlled from an Arduino.

Dave Luckett · 7 October 2015

It should also be pointed out that anybody wearing early iron age armor was vulnerable to a slung rock, and that every power of the day used the sling en masse. Simple as they are, in the hands of a proficient user, those things are deadly, having exactly the effects described if the stone hits exactly where no armor effectively covers, ie right between the eyes. Faith, I would say, was optional.

W. H. Heydt · 7 October 2015

stevaroni said: It should be pointed out that while faith may have allowed David to slay Goliath with a slingshot, science builds really good weapons these days. There's probably some kid in Iowa right now building a 20' tall battlebot controlled from an Arduino.

And if he adds a Raspberry Pi, it will be a lot more flexible in what actions it can take.

Dave Luckett · 7 October 2015

Funny. There were ancient powers that outlawed the sling, because it put a simple, cheap and reliable weapon into the hands of anyone with a reasonable eye and arm. Team it up with a staff, producing a staff-sling, and you had a weapon that would hurt the best-armoured horseman, let alone his horse.

You know, the yew-staves used in the most fearsome weapon of the Middle Ages were mostly grown in France and Italy, English yew growing too slowly in that climate, and mostly producing a twisted grain. The French and the Italians didn't use them for bows, and were happy to have an export. English kings had not only to allow, but to encourage, their commoners to practice archery from the age of eight, thus to produce efficient longbowmen, which meant putting the deadliest weapon of the age into the hands of their own subjects.

It is perhaps possible that the result was, well, England. Somewhat like the theory of Roman legion versus Greek phalanx in classical times. I don't think it's in any way exhaustive - nowhere near - but it's an intriguing reflection.

W. H. Heydt · 7 October 2015

Dave Luckett said: Funny. There were ancient powers that outlawed the sling, because it put a simple, cheap and reliable weapon into the hands of anyone with a reasonable eye and arm. Team it up with a staff, producing a staff-sling, and you had a weapon that would hurt the best-armoured horseman, let alone his horse.

Last use of a staff-sling that I know of was during the Spanish Civil War...got used for throwing grenades...

Malcolm · 7 October 2015

stevaroni said:
paulc_mv said:
Mike Elzinga said: The complaint then ends with a demand for a trial by jury;
Given their consistently pre-Enlightenment stance on everything else, couldn't they at least demand trial by combat?
It should be pointed out that while faith may have allowed David to slay Goliath with a slingshot, science builds really good weapons these days. There's probably some kid in Iowa right now building a 20' tall battlebot controlled from an Arduino.

It wasn't a slingshot. That is what Dennis the Menace used. Those require rubber, and would be extremely hard to kill someone with. In the story, David was armed with a sling. Slings were deadly weapons, commonly used to protect herds from wild animals. They were also used soldiers as they were very accurate and could be reloaded rapidly. Goliath, on the other hand, only had a spear. Unless they started at very close range, he never stood a chance.

stevaroni · 7 October 2015

W. H. Heydt said: And if he adds a Raspberry Pi, it will be a lot more flexible in what actions it can take.

I go back a good number of years and spent lots of time back in the day doing embedded systems in 8 bit processors in assembler. Every time I handle a Raspberry Pi or Beaglebone something in my head explodes a little bit. I deal with this stuff every day and I still can't quite believe how much horsepower I can get out of a $30 machine the size of a credit card. Kids today....

Yardbird · 7 October 2015

stevaroni said:
W. H. Heydt said: And if he adds a Raspberry Pi, it will be a lot more flexible in what actions it can take.
I go back a good number of years and spent lots of time back in the day doing embedded systems in 8 bit processors in assembler. ..... Kids today....

My favorites were the PIC processors from Microchip. They had Harvard architecture with a 12 bit instruction bus and integrated sensors. If I remember right, some op codes executed more than one instruction. /off topic

Mike Elzinga · 7 October 2015

Malcolm said: In the story, David was armed with a sling. Slings were deadly weapons, commonly used to protect herds from wild animals. They were also used soldiers as they were very accurate and could be reloaded rapidly.

You bet they are good weapons. When I was a kid, I was pretty good with the sling. I learned to make my own with leather thongs and pockets. I think I still have one I made back then. The best "ammo" I had was something that the ancients never had; 1 inch steel ball bearings from old tractors and other heavy machinery. Those things went where you aimed them. I could easily split a half inch thick board with them. Put a few serious cracks and dents in the side of the barn, I did. My father wasn't to keen on my using a target on the side of the barn after that. Contrary to some movies and legends about the sling, you don't "wind" them up to higher and higher rates of rotation before releasing the stone or ball bearing; once around in a huge roundhouse swing while stepping from a position with the target to your left (if you are right-handed) to facing the target at the release, and then go right back into a reload, all in one motion. That pivot with the body gives a lot of extra energy to the missile.

Marilyn · 8 October 2015

What I know about the FDA is in 1962 Frances Kelsey saved America from Thalidomide and was praised by John F Kennedy. That was good, and a wake up call for all countries to screen of drugs.

Zetopan · 8 October 2015

The David vs Goliath story is likely just another religious fable, since according to the [sic] bible goliath was killed at least two times by two different people. i.e. "the brother of Goliath" was a translator's cover for the embarrassment, which is why it is usually italicized.

Henry J · 8 October 2015

Oh, then there was a resurrection between those two killings?

Henry J · 8 October 2015

Oh, then there was a resurrection between those two killings?

W. H. Heydt · 8 October 2015

Marilyn said: What I know about the FDA is in 1962 Frances Kelsey saved America from Thalidomide and was praised by John F Kennedy. That was good, and a wake up call for all countries to screen of drugs.

And blocking thalidomide--while reasonably correct in retrospect--was done by questionable means at the time. It turns out that the adverse side effects only occur in pregnant women who are deficient in B vitamins. The stuff is quite safe for anyone else, but now it is banned even for those that could benefit from it.

W. H. Heydt · 8 October 2015

Henry J said: Oh, then there was a resurrection between those two killings?

Not really...it's just that Goliath posted twice.

Kevin B · 8 October 2015

W. H. Heydt said:
Marilyn said: What I know about the FDA is in 1962 Frances Kelsey saved America from Thalidomide and was praised by John F Kennedy. That was good, and a wake up call for all countries to screen of drugs.
And blocking thalidomide--while reasonably correct in retrospect--was done by questionable means at the time. It turns out that the adverse side effects only occur in pregnant women who are deficient in B vitamins. The stuff is quite safe for anyone else, but now it is banned even for those that could benefit from it.

That is a little revisionist - FDA approval of thalidomide stalled because the American licencee company didn't follow through on Kelsey's queries about reports of a potentially serious neurological side-effect that had nothing to do with the foetal damage issue. A quick Google does not immediately throw up support for your vitamin statement, and the nearest that the Wikipedia article gets to a nutritional link is a 1950s German pathologist with a pet theory.

CJColucci · 8 October 2015

Are there any sources on how to use a sling? Manuals, You-Tube videos?

Mike Elzinga · 8 October 2015

CJColucci said: Are there any sources on how to use a sling? Manuals, You-Tube videos?

There are lots of amateur YouTube videos out there. Here is an example. The multiple rotations in the beginning don't add anything to the projectile; they are simply a holding pattern that allows the thrower to position his body relative to the target. Those rotations are usually a waste of energy and time. It is better to position one's body while holding the loaded sling extended between both hands. Multiple rotations are useful only when checking a throw in order to correct for a change in the target. Although the people in this video are using a single roundhouse swing for the actual throw, most are not using their bodies properly. They should start with the target to their left and then step and pivot on the left foot and take a big step with their right foot toward the target, thereby adding a significant part of the rotation of the body to the motion of the sling. They should be on their right foot (if they are right-handed) with their right arm pointing at the target when the projectile is on its way. This adds considerable energy and accuracy to the projectile without tiring the body. It takes practice, but it should feel natural in the end. Details of body motion depend also on the elevation of the target relative to the thrower. What I have described is for a target at the same level as the thrower. It ends up looking somewhat like sidearm baseball pitch but with some considerable underhand; sidearm because of the length of the sling. There is much more rotation in the body than there is in a baseball pitch. I have been unable to locate my boyhood sling, so I have to go by memory here. There are also some tricks to the design of the leather pouch that keep the projectile in place during the roundhouse swing but will release the projectile accurately without sticking. I used a thick leather rectangle (almost square; roughly a 1.5 by 2 ratio of width to length) with holes punched into each corner. Fold the leather along its longer length and thread one thong through matching holes in one direction and tie a knot in the thong. Thread the other thong through the other two matching holes in the opposite direction and tie a knot in the thong. This gives the pouch a slight twist when loaded and hanging from both thongs. Stretching the loaded sling should wrap the twisted pouch tightly onto the projectile. This should not completely bury the projectile, however; the idea is to hold it securely until the time of release. The amount of twist will depend on the thickness and stiffness of the leather pouch. My pouch leather was quite stiff and thick as I recall. Softer, thinner leather tore too easily. You may have to reverse the directions in which the two thongs are threaded through their pair of holes depending on the depth of the pouch and which thong is the one that is released during the throw. Getting this part right improves accuracy. Depending on the size of projectiles one is using, you also need to play around with the depth of the pouch. Too much depth gives a poor, uncontrolled release; too little depth allows the projectile to fall out during the roundhouse swing. I found that the twisted pouch allowed better control of projectile release while also keeping the projectile in place during an energetic swing. I remember as a kid that it took a lot of experimenting in the beginning; but after a while, the motions became natural and easy. As a nerdy kid, I did a lot of experimenting with physics type stuff.

stevaroni · 9 October 2015

Mike Elzinga said: As a nerdy kid, I did a lot of experimenting with physics type stuff.

Good think you didn't have the temerity to build a clock.

Mike Elzinga · 10 October 2015

stevaroni said:
Mike Elzinga said: As a nerdy kid, I did a lot of experimenting with physics type stuff.
Good think you didn't have the temerity to build a clock.

I did electrify my bike when I was about 12. A school bully would steal it and hide it someplace, leaving me to go find it. After he received a pretty good jolt, he left me alone. However, I got some pretty good jolts of my own when the generator flipped on after I hit a bump at high speed.

TomS · 10 October 2015

stevaroni said:
Mike Elzinga said: As a nerdy kid, I did a lot of experimenting with physics type stuff.
Good think you didn't have the temerity to build a clock.

Lots of kids did chemistry type stuff which would get one in deep trouble today. And see Homer Hickam's Rocket Boy.

Paul Burnett · 10 October 2015

TomS said: Lots of kids did chemistry type stuff which would get one in deep trouble today.

Nitrogen triiodide dried on filter paper makes great flypaper.

Mike Elzinga · 10 October 2015

Paul Burnett said:
TomS said: Lots of kids did chemistry type stuff which would get one in deep trouble today.
Nitrogen triiodide dried on filter paper makes great flypaper.

Hee hee; a landmine for flies.

No Evolution · 14 October 2015

Marilyn said: If science is on a par with religion and sets the high standards of bible teaching then it would only be setting high standardizing as to how it forms and comes to it's conclusions. For science to work it has to be pure and honest with it's conclusions and experimentation. And that until the full examination of a product either medicine or product of engineering component it cannot be put into production for society's use unless it is proven to be completely safe and no harmful side effects, but when do we get that sort of perfection and in reality can it be attained, I think it often is but mistakes do get through.

Fundamental strength of science: http://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2012/nov/13/science-enforced-humility âThe fundamental strength of science is that it compels its practitioners to confront their own fallibilityâ¦ Science is not always right â very far from it. What marks it out from other fields of human endeavor is that, because of its formalized humility, itâs always ready to correct itself when it makes a mistake.â

Matt Young · 14 October 2015

Please do not feed the No Evolution troll.

Mike Elzinga · 14 October 2015

Matt Young said: Please do not feed the No Evolution troll.

Interestingly, the article to which he links describes an important aspect of being immersed in the scientific community. Even though an individual scientist may be somewhat egotistical and lack the humility for owning up to mistakes, the formal processes of science work in the direction of correcting mistakes that individuals may be too myopic or too egotistical to see. In other words, the processes of science leverage the egotism and self-confidence/lack-of-humility of other scientists in the direction of correcting mistakes. Contrast that with the pseudoscience of ID/creationism in which its practitioners consciously avoid presenting their "theories" for peer review in real scientific forums but, instead, submit them to sectarian apologetics "journals" where they will be accepted and praised regardless of content. The court systems also attempt to accomplish these same self-correcting goals using the methods of cross examination and the results of established precedent in which such methods were presumably applied successfully. P.S. Based on his previous posts, I have no intention of feeding No Evolution's comments. Any response would still be off-topic and a waste of time.

No Evolution · 14 October 2015

Mike Elzinga said:
Matt Young said: Please do not feed the No Evolution troll.
Interestingly, the article to which he links describes an important aspect of being immersed in the scientific community. Even though an individual scientist may be somewhat egotistical and lack the humility for owning up to mistakes, the formal processes of science work in the direction of correcting mistakes that individuals may be too myopic or too egotistical to see. In other words, the processes of science leverage the egotism and self-confidence/lack-of-humility of other scientists in the direction of correcting mistakes. Contrast that with the pseudoscience of ID/creationism in which its practitioners consciously avoid presenting their "theories" for peer review in real scientific forums but, instead, submit them to sectarian apologetics "journals" where they will be accepted and praised regardless of content. The court systems also attempt to accomplish these same self-correcting goals using the methods of cross examination and the results of established precedent in which such methods were presumably applied successfully. P.S. Based on his previous posts, I have no intention of feeding No Evolution's comments. Any response would still be off-topic and a waste of time.

You are all doing such a strange scientific discussion that if someone does not agree to your views then you simply try to insult that individual. I do not understand what kind of scientific mentality is this. Any way good luck!

RJ · 16 October 2015

I am attempting to discuss the mindset of a guy (gotta be a guy!) like N.E. without putting out trollbait.

Look how distorted the understanding of science is. Many here are or were practicing scientists. Can you imagine if people simply tried to insult everyone that disagreed? There'd be lots of insulting, very little science, going on.

It seems like N.E. and his ilk believe, really believe, that it's all a big ol' high school clique, where zingers carry the day and no one ever actually is right about anything. Really, I feel sorry for a person that unimaginative and bigoted.

DS · 16 October 2015

RJ said: I am attempting to discuss the mindset of a guy (gotta be a guy!) like N.E. without putting out trollbait. Look how distorted the understanding of science is. Many here are or were practicing scientists. Can you imagine if people simply tried to insult everyone that disagreed? There'd be lots of insulting, very little science, going on. It seems like N.E. and his ilk believe, really believe, that it's all a big ol' high school clique, where zingers carry the day and no one ever actually is right about anything. Really, I feel sorry for a person that unimaginative and bigoted.

Actually, it's worse than that. Mike did not insult anybody, not once. Apparently, the simple act of not responding, (as requested by the moderator), is considered an insult by the concern troll. So be it. And ironically, he choose to completely ignore that actual content of the response, which is presumably the thing he was complaining about in the first place. The point was the real science, by its very nature, is self correcting. Quite so. That's just one more reason why you should respect the theory of evolution, which has withstood the last one hundred and fifty years of intense scientific scrutiny. That's something that Joe, (I mean NO), can apparently not bring himself to do. Now if Joe really wants to be insulted, he can go the the bathroom wall. He's not really welcome there either, but at least he won't have to make up imaginary insults, there will be plenty of real ones.