The Discovery Institute has never recovered from the utter defeat their “theory” suffered in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. From time to time they still blog about it, with endless complaints about how Judge John E. Jones managed to get everything wrong.
Such tirades are usually written by Casey Luskin, our favorite creationist. He just posted another one today, and the title alone is a howler: Does the Kitzmiller v. Dover Ruling Show that Intelligent Design is Academically Substandard? Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:
The other day I discussed how, in claiming that intelligent design does not deserve academic freedom, critics commonly appeal to scientific authorities who have issued politically motivated condemnations of ID. But there is another authority these folks often cite, uncritically too. They just love the Kitzmiller v. Dover ruling, presenting it as if that were the ultimate, unassailable refutation of ID. We affectionately call this the “Judge Jones Said It, I Believe It, That Settles It” approach to ID.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! This is priceless! Here’s more:
However, Judge Jones’s ruling includes numerous false claims about law and science, on top of other deficiencies, that make it a highly inaccurate and unreliable analysis of intelligent design.
Casey then gives us no less than 15 “mistakes” he claims the judge made. We won’t list them all, but here are a few:
• Employed a false definition of ID, wrongly holding that it requires “supernatural creation” — a position refuted during the trial by ID proponents who testified and in other evidence given to the judge.
• Overstepped the bounds of his role as a judge and engaged in judicial activism. Jones found that ID had been refuted when in fact he had been presented with credible scientific witnesses and publications on both sides showing evidence of a scientific debate.
• Blatantly ignored and denied the existence of pro-ID scientific research and data that was likewise the subject of testimony in his own courtroom.
Casey has done this before. He fails to grasp that there were witnesses on both sides of the 40-day trial, and the judge decided that the testimony of the creationist witnesses had all been discredited. You can read his superb decision for yourself — the full text is here.
Oh, wait — here’s one more from Casey’s list of “mistakes” that we can’t ignore:
• Copied 90 percent of his celebrated section on whether ID is science either verbatim or nearly verbatim from an ACLU brief.
Casey has argued that before, and we debunked in it Casey and Kitzmiller — the Case He “Forgot”, where we said
Judges often copy large portions from the briefs of the prevailing party — not because they’re taking orders from such party, but because they find that those arguments are legally correct and should be adopted by the court. It’s a very common practice, and only Casey finds it bothersome. Indeed, like many judges, Jones required the parties to submit their versions of the “findings of fact” and “conclusions of law.” Much of the winning side’s submission will find its way into the court’s final opinion. That’s utterly routine.
Casey rants on and on. As we’ve remarked before, he’s engaged in a lonely, one man crusade to reverse the decision by blogging about it. It’s a tactic that is unlikely to produce any results. We’ll skip to near the end:
The bottom line is this: Long after the ruling was handed down, living cells will still always contain digital code and microbiological machines that provide evidence for design. This debate won’t be settled by courts, but by scientists and other scholars who give design a fair hearing.
Ooooooooooh — digital code! Machines! Why won’t scientists give the Discoveroids a fair hearing? Anyway, this is the end of it:
Judge Jones’s ruling is so full of errors of science, of law, and of philosophy that it’s a great model for why we don’t want federal judges trying to settle scientific controversies.
That’s odd. If the Discoveroids don’t want federal judges deciding these things, then why were they so active in the case? See Kitzmiller v. Dover: The Role of The Discovery Institute.
Ah well, Casey’s little essay isn’t going to persuade anyone. Whenever a school board considers teaching intelligent design (outside of Louisiana, where everyone seems to be a creationist), they are usually discouraged from doing so when their lawyers advise them about the Kitzmiller opinion. If they ignore their lawyers’ advice, they risk exposing themselves to liability, because the school board’s insurance won’t cover them if they decide to act on their own. So Kitzmiller continues to have a powerful influence — unlike Casey’s attempts to criticize it.
We’ll close with a question. Hey, Casey — if you Discoveroids are so certain that Kitzmiller was wrong, then why haven’t you encouraged another school board to try the same thing that was done in Dover? If you think the case should be a winner, why do you turn your backs and run away from what’s going on in Louisiana? Why do you claim that you don’t want public schools to teach intelligent design, just the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution? You talk big, Casey, but we’re watching how you guys run from every opportunity to have another court test.
Copyright © 2015. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.