Discoveroids’ Anti-Kitzmiller Series: #9

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.

Here’s more:

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.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

16 responses to “Discoveroids’ Anti-Kitzmiller Series: #9

  1. Sarah Chaffee has a nice writeup on Linkedin. Graduated from Patrick Henry in 2014 with a degree in “Government.” No surprise. I think most graduates of PH end up with general degrees in nothing in particular.

    So, I’m guessing she was in the 6th grade when Kitzmiller went down and all she knows about it is what the Tooters have told her, which is a pack of lies. Therefore, I think it’s safe to dismiss her articles as typical Tute “Lies for Jesus” and nothing more than that.

    Hey, give the kid a break. She’s just trying to make a buck and if anything being able to tolerate proximity to the Attack Gerbil and the Slasher should give her some points.

    For example, here is some of Chaffee’s revised history:

    Jones claimed that the prepublication drafts of Pandas contained “creationist” language that showed the textbook was intended to promote creationism.

    No, Judge Jones made no such claim. Judge Jones didn’t claim anything. Barbara Forrest using Nick Matzke’s painstaking analysis of Pandas demonstrated that the publishers took a creationist textbook and turned it into an “intelligent design” creationist text book leading to the famous creationist transitional fossil: cdesign proponentsists.

    True, it will be fun to see how Chaffee explains that away. Maybe she’ll clap her hands or click her heels.

  2. michaelfugate

    Why did Behe testify, if it had nothing to do with ID as “science”? Is the DI throwing him under the bus?

  3. Denialism is alive and well, and thriving to boot, at the Dishonesty Institute.

  4. OK. I accept the challenge: for each Discoveroid countdown to Kitzmas blogpost, we should offer a suitable Kitzmas Carol:

    So dumb, all ye shameful
    Cdesign proponentsists!
    So dumb ye, so dumb ye,
    From your own mayhem!
    Dumb and blindfolded,
    Sworn all things to mangle!
    .So dumb, let us abhor them,
    .So dumb, let us abhor them,
    .So dumb, let us abhor them!
    Jeez, what a horde!

  5. Ceteris Paribus

    Megalonyx brilliantly concludes his carol:

    “Jeez, what a horde!”

    Apparently horde is an Anglicism not familiar those of in the US. I would suggest that the proper translation to US speak would be: whorde

  6. Apologies, but I’m just so darned thrilled by the Discoveroids Kitzmas Advent Calendar that I am unable to restrain myself from bursting into festive seasonal song:

    Stuff by Kling
    (are you reading?)
    On their blog
    (sets eyes bleeding!),
    A hideous blight
    When Klinghumper writes:
    Squawking in a Wedgy Blunderland!

    Gerbil comes
    (he’s a true nerd)
    Here to squeeze
    Out a new t*rd
    He loves to say “nay”
    To junk DNA:
    Squawking in a Wedgy Blunderland!

    On their website Denyse builds a strawman,
    Then pretends she’s worthy of renown;
    She says: are you carried?
    We say: flawed, m’am!
    But for obfuscation
    You sure take the crown!

    Later on
    They’re conspirin’
    As they scheme
    Yet more lyin’
    And renew their pledge
    To plots in the Wedge,
    Squawking in a Wedgy Blunderland!

    ….Please: stop me before I filk again!

  7. On an unrelated note, has anyone read AiG’s new article on ERVs? It’s a blast.

  8. Megalonyx implores: “Please: stop me before I filk again!”

    Operation Cactus will take care of that, but the timing is out of our hands.

  9. In fact, Kitzmiller probably had even more publicity than the Scopes Trial did.

    I don’t think that’s what the Discoveroids are worried about. It seems to me that this whole series of articles is an attempt to pretend to the diehard supporters that the rational community is about to use the anniversary as an excuse to pile in on ID. In fact, while, yes, there’s inevitably going to be some celebration over the fact that the case was a milestone victory of rationalism over superstition, the general public assumption by all accounts is that ID is very much yesterday’s pseudoscience: there’s no more point in attacking it than there is in attacking, say, the phlogiston theory.

    Don’t get me wrong. Creationism in general is still rife and is well worth attacking; the Discoveroids likewise. But the territory the Discoveroids thought to make there own is now occupied by the people who think that evolution is okay but God’s somewhere in the mix. Some of those inevitably will be Discoveroids, but there are plenty of others who, though their own views are equally unsupported, realize that ID is in the discard bin.

  10. DI acts like they weren’t invited to be there. They chickened out because they knew they would lose.

  11. @Ceteris Paribus

    Apparently horde is an Anglicism not familiar those of in the US.

    Eh? I’ve just checked in my handy Webster’s New Collegiate and the word seems perfectly standard in the colonial patois.

  12. @Megalonyx

    Brilliant. *thunderous applause*

  13. 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.

    *Snicker* If teaching ID as science is constitutional, how about astrology or geocentrism or flat-earthism? But creationists run like rabbits from these ideas, the first because it isn’t Biblical (despite Genesis 1:14 and the other two because they are, but are embarrassing even to (most) creationists.

  14. Please refresh my memory.
    Didn’t their side want the judge to rule on the scientific status of ID? Didn’t the ID backers gloat about how they would win on that?

  15. Just for grins I checked out Patrick Henry “College” and it turned out to be more awful than my imagination (which is pretty awful!).

    Boasting a vast number of 320 students it is a creationist paradise complete with Statement of Faith. They teach no science other than a superficial survey course in Biology (you can only imagine), Physics and Earth Science (flood geology, no doubt). The math department offers Euclidian Geometry (are you kidding me?) and an intro to the Calculus.

    No chemistry, no history of science and no philosophy of science. The course catalog was painful to read. I checked out their faculty looking for the “science department” and found one guy who was in charge of math and physics. Who knows who teaches what they call biology and earth science. Maybe the janitor.

    It’s quite possible that you could attend PH”C” and come out knowing less than when you went in. I can’t imagine why anyone would want to waste their time going to such a stunted institution as this.

  16. Docbill, I can imagine why some people “would want to waste their time going to such a stunted institution as this.” I attended one even more stunted for my freshman year.

    It formed a snug cocoon for believers; they didn’t run the risk of having their beliefs challenged, because any student or teacher (most of whom were ministers) who asked hard questions got expelled. We were warned not to read books and articles written by intellectuals out there “in the world” because they were led by Satan, the god of this world.

    In high school I had been a member of the intellectual clique and found the anti-intellectualism on campus appalling. I left. Those who thrived on it became leaders in the church that sponsored the college. Fortunately, that sect avoided political action and polluted only those minds enrolled in their own schools. Also fortunately, the sect has now broken up into numerous splinters, which are declining in numbers as members wise up and/or die off.