Yesterday we posted Discovery Institute Prepares for Kitzmas, where we discussed the first of what promises to be ten Discoveroid posts in which they attempt to discredit the legitimacy and significance of the decision on 20 December 2005 by Judge John E. Jones III in the case of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. On that day we celebrate Kitzmas, and the Discoveroids will contribute to the merriment by posting their #1 reason why the Kitzmiller decision is of no importance whatsoever.
Today they’ve posted Ten Myths About Dover: #9, ID Movement Had Its Day in Court. Like #10 yesterday, it was written by Sarah Chaffee, a new Discoveroid staffer who is neither a biologist nor a lawyer. As was her post yesterday, this one is not only long and boring, it’s also repetitive. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:
An unfortunately typical perception of the Kitzmiller v. Dover case is that it was a huge Scopes-like battle between opponents of intelligent design (ID) and the ID movement, and that the ID movement lost. But that’s not really what happened.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! But that’s exactly what it was. In fact, Kitzmiller probably had even more publicity than the Scopes Trial did. Further, the parties in Scopes had no authority to officially speak for creationism and science. Who appointed William Jennings Bryan, a politician, to speak on behalf of creationism, or Scopes, a high school teacher to speak for science? No one. They were both volunteers, and there were certainly others better able to represent their respective sides of the controversy. Yet the public perception of the case was profound. So it was with Kitzmiller. But the Discoveroids are attempting to show that unlike Scopes, the Kitzmiller case had only a limited effect. They say:
This was a fight between the plaintiffs — various Dover, Pennsylvania, parents who, with backing and support from pro-Darwin lobby groups, wanted to ban intelligent design — and the defendant, the Dover Area School Board.
So what? All litigation is between specific parties, not grandiose philosophies. Let’s read on:
Yes, the Dover School Board lost. But neither the publisher of the pro-ID textbook at issue in the case Of Pandas and People, nor the international hub of the ID movement, Discovery Institute, were party to the case.
So what? The same kind of nit-picking could be done regarding the Scopes trial. We continue:
Indeed, leading ID groups like Discovery Institute opposed Dover’s ID policy and didn’t even want the Dover school board to fight to defend their ill-conceived policy in court.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! In Kitzmiller v. Dover: The Role of The Discovery Institute we pointed out that: (1) the Discoveroids submitted an amicus brief in the case which the court accepted and considered; (2) the Discoveroids had consulted with the Dover school board in the events leading up to the case to advise them that teaching intelligent design was legal; and (3) they supplied videos about intelligent design to the school board. They also supplied witnesses for the trial. Their fingerprints were all over the place.
Then there’s an ark-load of babbling about how the Discoveroids weren’t a party to the case. Who cares? Their “theory” was the issue because that’s what the school board wanted to teach, and it certainly got a fair hearing. The trial lasted for 40 days.
After that, the Discoveroid post complains that Of Pandas and People, the text recommended by the Dover school board, didn’t get a fair hearing, because the publisher of that creationist book wasn’t a party to the case. That’s a weak, lame, and pathetic objection. The book speaks for itself. Hey — the Discoveroids used to promote that book at their website, but they purged all of that after the Kitzmiller decision.
Third, Judge Jones simply adopted the plaintiffs’ misrepresentations of and allegations against Pandas in his decision.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! No, he heard from both sides, and then he decided that Pandas was a creationist book. Moving along:
Jones claimed that the prepublication drafts of Pandas contained “creationist” language that showed the textbook was intended to promote creationism. I’ll explain why this is both logically and factually false in another article on a Dover “myth.”
We’re eagerly looking forward to that post. The Discoveroids’ final paragraph is really amazing:
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District should have been a case merely about the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of the Dover school board’s actions. Instead, the ruling focused on something clearly outside the proper bounds of the case — the scientific status of intelligent design and the overall motives and history of the ID movement. And it did so without adequately representing the parties who would be adversely affected by such a decision. I’ll have more to say on that in a subsequent post in this series.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! That is so bizarre! The case was about the constitutionality of the school board’s actions. They were found to be unconstitutional because what they wanted to teach was religion, not science. The parties to the case had agreed that was the issue. Don’t take our word for it. Here’s the Kitzmiller opinion, which says on page 9:
The parties are in agreement that an applicable test in the case sub judice [under adjudication] to ascertain whether the challenged ID [intelligent design] Policy is unconstitutional under the First Amendment is that of Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), (hereinafter “the Lemon test”).
Get that? The parties agreed! Wikipedia discusses the Lemon test here: Lemon v. Kurtzman. The fact that the court’s findings affected the Discoveroids’ “theory” is too bad for them. Maybe they should find another theory.
The Discoveroids have eight more of these posts in the works. We don’t know how much more we can handle.
Copyright © 2015. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.