By now you know about what we’ve been calling the Darwin’s Dilemma Exhibition Case. The actual case name is American Freedom Alliance v. California Science Center, California Science Center Foundation, Jeffrey Rudolph, et al. It’s sometimes abbreviated AFA v. CSC.
This is a lawsuit filed by the American Freedom Alliance (AFA), claiming that the California Science Center (CSC or “Science Center”) violated both the First Amendment and a contract to rent its theater when it canceled a screening of Darwin’s Dilemma. The AFA is an outfit promoting “the controversy” about evolution — in the interest of what they call “academic freedom.” The film they wanted to show includes appearances by Richard von Sternberg, Jonathan Wells, and Stephen Meyer, all “senior fellows” with the Discovery Institute (the “Discoveroids”), claiming that the Cambrian “explosion” is evidence of intelligent design.
The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) has many of the court pleadings available online. See: American Freedom Alliance v. California Science Center et al.
Last week we posted “Darwin’s Dilemma” Case: They’re Settling! We informed you that hearings on pending motions had been continued while the parties drafted a settlement agreement.
Now the NCSE archive has a new pleading: It’s a Court Order on a Status Conference, and it’s only one page. Here’s the essence of what it says:
Cause called for hearing.
The parties have informed the Court that the case has settled.
The Court orders the above-entitled action dismissed forthwith pursuant to 664.6 CCP. The Court will retain jurisdiction over enforcement of the settlement agreement.
If you’re curious about “664.6 CCP” we found it for you: California Code – Section 664.6. It just says that the court can do what it’s doing here. “CCP” seems to stand for Code of Civil Procedure.
There aren’t any news stories about this yet, and nothing on it has been posted at the Discoveroids’ website — although they were all a-flutter about the Science Center’s “viewpoint discrimination” when the case was getting started. We didn’t see anything relevant at the plaintiff’s website either.
We suspect that some serious disappointment for the creationists — including the Discoveroids — is contained within the court’s bland words, but we’re not certain.
It’s not unusual to see litigation settlement agreements get filed with the court. That’s not happening here — at least we don’t see it yet. Maybe the parties are keeping the settlement terms confidential, or maybe we’ll learn all about it in due course. We’ll keep you advised.
Copyright © 2011. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.