Tuesday, December 20, 2005

ID in Dover : Utterly Eviscerated

The utter lack of science in ID's position was obvious to even one of Bush's hand-picked judges. Lets see how long it takes for them to eat one of their own by calling this an "activist" decision.

Here's the decision.

6 Thoughts:

Blogger Demotiki said...

I love this line,

"The breathtaking inanity of the Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial."

They'll eat their own, they love "home cookin'" They'll just argue that we should revert to the eclesiastical courts model of that happier time, the middle ages.

Tuesday, December 20, 2005 12:19:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Fuckin' A is all I have to say.

Hopefully, this decision will take some wind out of the theocrat sails -- but it'll definitely be spun as more Christian-bashing. Hilarious.

Tuesday, December 20, 2005 12:59:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

My favorite part so far is on page 32:

"As Plaintiffs meticulously and effectively presented to the Court, _Pandas_ [This is the "ID" book, Of Pandas and People that Dover kids had to read in Bio class. Note, too, the similarity between this book's title and that of one of SJ Gould's essay collections, The Panda's Thumb. I consider the similarity evidence of intelligent design -- at least of marketing strategy.] went through many drafts, several of which were completed prior to and some after the Supreme Court's decision in _Edwards_, which held that the Constitution forbids teaching creationism as science. By comparing the pre and post _Edwards_ drafts of _Pandas_, three astonishing points emerge: (1) the definition for creation science in early drafts is identical to the definition of ID; (2) cognates of the word creation (creationism and creationist), which appeared apporximately 150 times, were deliberately and systematically replaced with the phrase ID; and (3) the changes occurred shortly after the Sucpreme Court held that creation science is religious and cannot be taught in public school science classes in _Edwards_. [1987] This word substitution is telling, significant, and reveals that a purposeful change of words was effected without any corresponding change in content, which directly refutes FTE's [the publisher of Pandas, which is listed with the IRS as a religious organization] argument that by merely disregarding the words "creation" and "creationism," FTE expressly rejected creationism in _Pandas_."

There's more. Oh, so much more. It's hilarious, and the creationists will be hard put to find another wedge strategy after this case.

Allen, care to comment? Is this honest scholarship, this "ID" stuff?

Tuesday, December 20, 2005 3:31:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

From the bio of Judge John Jones:

"Judge John E. Jones III commenced his service as a United States District Judge on August 2, 2002. He is the 21st judge to sit in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Judge Jones was appointed to his current position by President George W. Bush in February, 2002, and was unanimously confirmed by the United States Senate on July 30, 2002."

I love it!

Tuesday, December 20, 2005 3:57:00 PM  
Blogger pawlr said...

ID actually came about as a rephrasing of creationism when creationism went down to an ugly death in the courts.

Start looking now to expose the new "framing" of creationism which is sure to emerge from the ashes of this latest failure.

The New Yorker had a great article about this case in which it mentioned a possible contender - but I don't have the article with me and can't remember the name. Looking for it now.

Tuesday, December 20, 2005 6:17:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

They will no doubt continue to evolve, but the basic arguments will always devolve on the supernatural, whatever the "frame."

More proof that words are not everything, Lakoff aside.

(That was a humorously intended faux-provocation, btw. ;) )

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 11:23:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home