For the last ten years, Casey Luskin, our favorite creationist, has been waging a weird, other-worldly war on the decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, which was handed down on 20 December 2005 by Judge John E. Jones III.
Casey has written numerous blog articles for the Discovery Institute giving his reasons why the decision was all wrong, and we usually post about them because stuff like that is always good for a laugh. The most recent occasion was Casey and Kitzmiller — One More Time. Our favorite description of Casey’s behavior was here: Discovery Institute: The Die-Hards, where we said:
Most of us can recover from setbacks, even major ones, and somehow carry on; but there are always a few resolutely single-minded souls who are are incapable of putting their losses behind them and adjusting to the new state of affairs. They live out their days in bitterness, convinced that the wrong side won. They endlessly recite their failed arguments, defend their losing tactics, and curse the victors. They remain utterly inflexible, unable to see any merit in the other side or any fault in their own.
The most extreme example of a die-hard is Edmund Ruffin, pictured above this post. According to Wikipedia:
Ruffin was credited as “firing the first shot of the war” at the Battle of Fort Sumter; he served as a Confederate soldier despite his advanced age. When the war ended in Southern defeat in 1865, he committed suicide rather than submit to “Yankee rule.”
[A]fter the surrender of Robert E. Lee at Appomattox Court House in 1865, Ruffin … went up to his study with a rifle and a forked stick. … [His] final diary entry said: “And now with my latest writing and utterance, and with what will [be] near to my latest breath, I here repeat, & would willingly proclaim, my unmitigated hatred to Yankee rule — to all political, social and business connections with Yankees, & to the perfidious, malignant, & vile Yankee race.” Ruffin put the rifle muzzle in his mouth and used the forked stick to manipulate the trigger.
Although not as fanatical as Ruffin, Casey is at it again. His latest at the Discoveroids’ creationist blog is Ten Years After the Dover Case, Judge Jones Misunderstands His Critics. It’s very long and tortuous to read, and we don’t know why he wrote the thing. It’s essentially about Jones’ reliance on the Lemon test which both sides agreed controlled the case. The opinion says:
The parties are in agreement that an applicable test in the case sub judice to ascertain whether the challenged ID Policy is unconstitutional under the First Amendment is that of Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), (hereinafter “the Lemon test”).
Casey reluctantly agrees that Lemon should have been used, and it invalidated the policy of Dover’s creationist school board. This is the first time we’ve seen a Discoveroid admission that the case was a dead loser. Then Casey argues — at length — that Judge Jones didn’t use Lemon properly. Does anyone care? Anyway, he says, with bold font added by us:
Judge Jones properly found clear evidence that the Dover Area School Board acted with a religious purpose, and that religious purpose was enough to invalidate Dover’s ID policy under the “purpose” prong. … Judge Jones should have stopped his Lemon analysis right there. But he didn’t. Instead, he went into an extensive inquiry on the general question of whether teaching ID violates the “effect” prong under other circumstances (even where there might have been a legitimate secular purpose for a policy).
Casey’s argument is very long and very complicated. We’ve read it, but we’re not going to bother picking it apart because: (a) the case is over, so Casey’s analysis doesn’t matter; and (b) Casey’s view of things is unlikely to persuade any other judge in some future case.
If you want to spend time reading Casey’s article, go ahead. If you do, and can figure out what he’s really trying to say, please let us know.
Copyright © 2015. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.