The Discoveroids’ Ultimate Kitzmas Post

So you can fully enjoy the spirit of this Kitzmas day, here is a list of our posts about the Discovery Institute’s series of strange essays, starting with number 10 and ending with today’s Number One reason why the decision on 20 December 2005 by Judge John E. Jones III in the case of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District was all wrong and is of no importance whatsoever. Their top reason appears today — the day we celebrate Kitzmas.

It all began with Discovery Institute Prepares for Kitzmas, when first “myth” about the Kitzmiller decision the Discoveroids “debunked” was “The Intelligent Design Movement Died After the Dover Decision.” They said their movement didn’t die — it’s thriving! Here’s a brief summary of our posts describing what followed:

Discoveroids’ Anti-Kitzmiller Series: #9. The “myth” the Discoveroids were “debunking” that time was “ID Movement Had Its Day in Court.” They said the trial couldn’t have been about intelligent design because the Discoveroids’ “think tank” wasn’t a party to the litigation. Nor was it about the scientific wonders revealed in Of Pandas and People, because the publisher of that “science text” wasn’t a party to the case either.

• Then came Discoveroids’ Anti-Kitzmiller Series: #8 — Behe. The “debunked myth” we dealt with there was “Michael Behe Admitted that ID Is No More Scientific than Astrology.” Actually, he did admit it, because his personal definition of science, which is necessarily vague in order to include intelligent design, merely requires “proposed explanations,” with no necessity that they be testable.

• After that came Discoveroids’ Kitzmas Series: #7 — The Designer. The “myth” the Discoveroids “debunked” was “The Dover Case Showed ID Is ‘Religious’ and a Form of ‘Creationism.’” That one was really tragic — they were claiming that their “theory” of intelligent design uses the scientific method, but all they did was babble about “specified complexity.”

• The next day we wrote Discoveroids’ Kitzmas Series: #6 — Activist Judge. The “myth” there was “Judge Jones, No Activist, Stayed Strictly Within His Authority.”

• We skipped their “myth” number 5 because it was too dumb (even compared to the others) and we needed to take a day away from the Discoveroids, but what they tried to deny there was that the “Discovery Institute Supported Dover School Board Policy.” It was refuted years ago in Kitzmiller v. Dover: The Role of The Discovery Institute.

• Then we wrote Discoveroids’ Kitzmas Series: #4 — Behe & Galileo. The “myth” there was “The Dover Ruling Refuted Intelligent Design.” In that one, most of what they did was recite portions of Michael Behe’s testimony — as if he had been the only witness who testified at the trial.

• After that we skipped another day, and then, we wrote Discoveroids’ Kitzmas Series: #3 & #2. The number 3 “debunked myth” was “Intelligent Design Has No Peer-Reviewed Research or Publications.” We didn’t bother with that one. Instead we wrote about their number 2 “myth” — “Judge Jones Is a Brilliant, Neutral Legal Scholar Who Figured Out ID.” We should have skipped that one too.

And now, dear reader, we awake on Kitzmas morning and eagerly rush to see what the Discoveroids have posted as their long-awaited Number One reason why Kitzmiller was a totally worthless opinion.

Here it is: Ten Myths About Dover: #1, “Judge Jones Addressed the Actual Theory of Intelligent Design, Not a Straw Man”. It’s by Sarah Chaffee, the new Discoveroid staffer who is neither a biologist nor a lawyer. We’ve been calling her “Savvy Sarah.” Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us. She begins with a quote from a magazine article shortly after the decision was released:

“Everybody understood that intelligent design was a religious proposition, and we are absolutely thrilled that Judge Jones has seen through the smoke and mirrors used by intelligent design proponents.” So said Witold Walczak, legal director of the Pennsylvania chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, in an interview with Time Magazine in December 2005.

That sort of thing was showing up all over the press. The sentiment it expressed is why we all celebrate Kitzmas today. This is what savvy Sarah thinks of it:

This raises a good question: What do we mean when we speak about “intelligent design”? According to Judge Jones, ID is a religious argument — merely a negative criticism of evolution that appeals to the supernatural. In his view: “In addition to the IDM [intelligent design movement] itself describing ID as a religious argument, ID’s religious nature is evident because it involves a supernatural designer,” and “ID proponents primarily argue for design through negative arguments against evolution…”

We haven’t checked that quote to see if it’s accurate, but it sounds right. If you want to search for it, here is the full text of the Kitzmiller opinion. Let’s read on:

But this is not at all how ID proponents define intelligent design. It is certainly not how ID proponents defined ID during the Dover trial. Instead, Judge Jones ignored how ID advocates define their own theory and instead struck down a straw-man version.

Really? Witnesses for intelligent design, who are associated with the Discoveroids, described their “theory” during the trial. We’ve written about the Discoveroids’ official description before — see Discovery Institute: Intelligent Design Redefined. After we wrote that, Casey Admits the Designer Is the First Cause. And before that revealing post they had already emerged out of their closet, pranced around wearing ecclesiastical garb, and confessed that their “scientific” designer — blessed be he! — is transcendent. That means their designer exists beyond time and space, in that inaccessible and incomprehensible realm known only to the gods.

Savvy Sarah isn’t doing very well today. Then she gives some big quotes from Casey and Behe, and from Pandas, after which she continues:

Judge Jones was wrong to claim that ID deals with the supernatural. His false definition of ID also ignored the positive case for design, framing ID as simply a negative argument against evolution. He claimed that intelligent design proponents hold to a “contrived dualism,” stating, “ID is at bottom premised upon a false dichotomy, namely, that to the extent evolutionary theory is discredited, ID is confirmed.”

Yes, that’s what he said, and that’s what the evidence clearly demonstrated. Here’s more:

Judge Jones is right that negative arguments against evolution are not by themselves arguments for design. But intelligent design is not merely a negative argument against evolution. Instead, it requires positive evidence. How? Intelligent design uses the scientific method to make its claims.

We’ve already discussed that clunker in Discoveroids’ Kitzmas Series: #7 — The Designer. Savvy Sarah thinks that whenever a Discoveroid posts something, it’s automatically elevated to the status of Truth. Moving along:

So what is the correct definition of intelligent design? As our Frequently Asked Questions page notes, “The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.”

Yes, and when a “theory” is framed like that, then in the immortal words of Michael Behe, astrology is also a scientific theory. Another excerpt:

Smoke and mirrors, unfortunately, were the tactics of the Darwin lobby at the Dover trial. Judge Jones did not strike down the actual theory of ID. His ruling addressed the ACLU’s caricature of ID. At Dover, the positive, scientific theory of intelligent design emerged unscathed and continues to grow in persuasiveness today.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! On with the Discoveroids’ Kitzmas article:

Good scholarship demands letting a person or group define their own position. Unfortunately, before critiquing what he thought was “intelligent design,” Judge Jones failed to do that.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! That’s exactly what the judge did. By the Discoveroids’ own definition, intelligent design is pure Oogity Boogity! We’re getting near the end:

At the end of the day, therefore, the Dover ruling really is not a refutation of intelligent design at all. Judge Jones presented and criticized only the straw-man version, effectively ignoring the theory of ID as its advocates explain it. This means that, contrary to what you hear from the media, from evolution activists, and from Darwin defenders in academia, ID’s big day in court has not yet come.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! And this is the last of it:

The theory of ID, meanwhile, is doing just fine. It flourishes because the scientific evidence continues to accumulate — unveiling information throughout nature that we recognize, from our positive experience, comes only from intelligence.

That was absolutely wonderful! And so, dear reader, let us raise our glasses and sing:

Roll me ooooo-ver,
In the Doooo-ver …

Merry Kitzmas, to one and all!

Addendum: To make our Kitzmas day complete, John West (whom we affectionately call “Westie”) has a post at the Discoveroids’ blog asking for contributions to keep up the Discoveroids’ brave struggle, which they’ve been waging since Judge Jones “unleashed a wave of persecution against scientists friendly to intelligent design.” You can see it here: The Day a Judge Tried to Kill Intelligent Design.

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

41 responses to “The Discoveroids’ Ultimate Kitzmas Post

  1. What a lovely Kitzmas Present from Sarah Chaffee, the DI blogger and signatory of the Patrick Henry College Statement of Faith!

    Ya just gotta love Savvy Sarah’s plaint:

    Judge Jones was aware of these points, because Michael Behe explained to him during the trial

    I mean, how outrageous that not every word of everyone’s testimony wasn’t uncritically accepted as TRVTH by the Judge. Clearly, Dover was as grotesque a miscarriage of justice as the time the jury ignored Ted Bundy’s testimony, under oath, no less, “I am innocent!”

    Indeed, the Disco’Tute’s continuing whining about Dover are hugely reminiscent of the vehement protestations by Ted’s mother, Louise Bundy, which continued even after his conviction:

    ”Ted Bundy does not go around killing women and little children! … And I know this, too, that our never-ending faith in Ted – our faith that he is innocent – has never wavered. And it never will!”

    Actually, her faith in his innocence did eventually waver, just a tad, when he confessed while on Death Row…

  2. “The theory of ID, meanwhile, is doing just fine. It flourishes because the scientific evidence continues to accumulate — unveiling information throughout nature that we recognize, from our positive experience, comes only from intelligence.”
    Really? I’d like to see some of this “scientific evidence”!

  3. “So what is the correct definition of intelligent design?”
    Shall we consult the Dishonesty’s Institute’s very own Wedge Document?

    https://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2013/08/04/what-is-the-wedge-document/

    “The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built.”
    “this cardinal idea came under wholesale attack by intellectuals drawing on the discoveries of modern science. Debunking the traditional conceptions of both God and man ….”
    “The cultural consequences of this triumph of materialism were devastating.”
    “Discovery Institute’s Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies.”
    IDiocy is an integral part of the attempt to restore that bedrock principle.
    Savvy Sarah may fool her demented granny, but not us and certainly not Judge Jones.

  4. Okay, let’s accept for the moment that they could be right, that life is the product of intelligent design. The thing they never speak about is how the designs got executed. If their designer is as they insist it is not (God) then the mechanism is magic. God willed all of this in place. If it is not god, then some very advanced technology was involved, no?

    You can see why they don’t speak of how the designs were executed because it would immediately spill the beans, as it were. If they argue that life was programmed in from the beginning, then they don’t have a god who answers prayers, if they … ack … Nest of Snakes Alert, Nest of Snakes Alert. If ID were a real theory, they would be trying to identify the mechanism of the execution of the designs and to identity the designer, but they don’t, do they? Because, because? wink, wink, nudge, nudge, ‘know what I mean?

  5. Is that the official statement?

    “There is an explanation satisfying certain conditions.”

    NOT “Here is an explanation.”

    (The only condition being the negative one, that it isn’t an undirected process like natural selection.)

    That is, IMHO, the primary fault of ID. It has nothing to say. Of course there is no evidence for it. “There is no there, there.” The most that they can say is that there is such-and-such that evolutionary biology doesn’t account for. (They might claim that evolution can’t account for, but let’s not get off on that tangent, as tempting as it is.) And to hope that maybe, someday, somebody will come across a better idea. Not that they have demonstrated such hope by searching for a better idea.

  6. I’m afraid I have to give Savvy Sarah an ‘F’ in Logic 101 for her attempt to clarify Intelligent Design ‘theory’, viz.:

    Human beings are capable of producing information that is both complex and specified. Complex refers to high improbability. Specified means that the information matches an independent pattern. When we find high levels of complex and specified information in nature, we conclude that it was a product of intelligent design.

    Just try parsing that out as a syllogism and see how badly it fails for want of second logical premise, e.g.:

    Major Premise: Human beings can produce information that is complex and specified.
    Minor Premise: [not provided by PHC alumna Chaffee]
    Conclusion: Complex and specified information in nature is a product of intelligent design.

    Trying to fix this is with a viable second premise—which would have to say something about ‘intelligent design’– is a fun little game. How about:

    Major Premise: Human beings are intelligent designers (they make things that are ‘complex and specified’).
    Minor Premise: Things are ‘complex and specified’.
    Conclusion: Intelligently designed information in nature is a product of human beings.

    It’s actually far worse than that, of course (f’rinstance, Savvy Sarah’s telelogical definition of ‘specifed’ as ‘matches an independent pattern’), but the above faulty syllogism should at least satisfy the ‘ain’t no kin to monkeys’ droolers, as it is logically equivalent to:

    Major Premise: Human beings make complex things.
    Minor Premise: Plants and animals are complex.
    Conclusion: Human beings made plants and animals.

  7. Do you think the DI sees parallels to the Israelites’ captivity in Egypt to their plight? God has hardened the hearts of scientists, judges, and even clergy to their captivity in materialistic Darwinland? Will Westie lead them to the promised land, but not get there himself? Is Ben Stein up for another movie?

  8. Here’s the abridged version for those without the time or interest in reading all relevant material:

    If you publicly approve of ID, or whatever replacement scam the DI advocates (e.g. academic “freedom”), you can define ID any way you want, and the DI won’t object. But if you object to any of the DI’s scams, none of your definitions will meet their approval – even if it quotes theirs verbatim.

  9. But enough of this weighty (NOT!) rumination: it’s Kitzmas!

    So, for anyone in need of some festive diversion with a seasonal short story, herewith is a link to Charles Dawkins’ classic tale, A Kitzmas Carol

    Merry Kitzmas, everyone!

  10. Well done, Megalonyx!

  11. michaelfugate

    Yes, well done Megalonyx.
    Merry Kitzmas!

  12. Well of course Judge Jones addressed a straw man version of the “theory” of ID, because there is NO theory of ID. The straw man is it.

  13. I was watching TV on the stepper this AM when I stumbled across a show in Houston with a guy named Shook from The Woodlands describing in rapturous detail the scientific information inserted by God into human DNA , as an animated DNA strand, winking and glowing, rotated in mid air next to his pulpit. It was sheer magic. Literally !
    And now, to Dawkins Kitzmas Carol.!!!!!!!!!!

  14. Och Will:”…describing in rapturous detail the scientific information inserted by God into human DNA , as an animated DNA strand, winking and glowing, rotated in mid air next to his pulpit.”

    The perfect comment would have been: “Wow, that’s cool! Did you know that Michael Behe, the most cited popularizer of that argument, made it clear that humans share common ancestors with other species? And did you know that, while Behe insists that in-vivo ‘insertion’ is necessary in some cases, never claimed that it was necessary to form our species?”

  15. We just amended the post with an Addendum about a Discoveroid article by John West, asking for contributions to keep up the Discoveroids’ brave struggle, which they’ve been waging since Judge Jones “unleashed a wave of persecution against scientists friendly to intelligent design.” The Day a Judge Tried to Kill Intelligent Design.

  16. “This means that, contrary to what you hear from the media, from evolution activists, and from Darwin defenders in academia, ID’s big day in court has not yet come.”

    Indeed, the ID’ers have absolutely no intentions of ever doing any scientific research or presenting any scientific evidence to support their supernatural designer, only by playing their legal game do they hope to make any gains.

  17. michaelfugate

    The Day a Judge Tried to Kill Intelligent Design. How can a judge kill something that has been dead for at least 226 years?

  18. Westie’s whining and sniveling is music to my ears.

  19. @Och Will: I gather the preacher man from Texas thinks humans are genetically modified organisms. I ain’t no kin to no monkey — I’m a GMO ape!

  20. waldteufel declares

    Westie’s whining and sniveling is music to my ears.

    Indeed! And after all, a tall, sparkling glass of bubbling schadenfreude is the beverage of choice for raising a toast for a Happy Kitzmas!

  21. And don’t you love the way the Disco’Tute, in today’s offerings as in so many previous ones, are utterly unaware of their repeated contradiction when they make this two simultaneous demands

    [1] Intelligent Design Theory isn’t at all religious, but genuine science, and

    [2] Genuine science is inadequate for explaining nature, because it does not admit religious explanations

  22. A question for Savvy Sarah.

    In the definition of ID “theory” you provided:

    “The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.”

    Allow me to point out a couple of things.

    First, “certain features of the universe and of living things” is not only fuzzy and ill-defined, but it is redundant. Wouldn’t “of the universe” by definition include living things? Why not just say “of the universe” and be done with it?

    Second, your very definition implies that, “certain features of the universe and of livings things” are NOT designed. In decades of following your employer, the Disco Tute, I have never, EVER heard of or read about an ID proponent describing something that was NOT designed. Why is that?

    Third, and this is a biggie, why add the negative argument against evolution at the end of the definition of your theory. Certainly, a definition of the theory of evolution does not end with, “unlike magical intelligent design creationism.” It seems to me that the Disco Tute spends a lot of time and energy trying to refute that their “argument” is not just harping about evolution, but there it is right in your own definition!

    So, really, the True ™ definition of “Intelligent Design” creationism boils down to this:

    The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe are best explained by an intelligent cause.

    There. Done! Of course, you could replace “intelligent cause” by “Harry Potter” and it would be just as good.

  23. This collection of posts from the Discoveroids actually does serve a purpose for them. From now on, whenever they want to “debunk” Kitzmiller, all they need to do is refer to these posts and say: “That case doesn’t mean anything. It’s all been explained [link to the recent series].”

  24. michaelfugate asks

    Do you think the DI sees parallels to the Israelites’ captivity in Egypt to their plight? God has hardened the hearts of scientists, judges, and even clergy to their captivity in materialistic Darwinland? Will Westie lead them to the promised land, but not get there himself?

    That may well be how Westie sees himself–but he’s no Moses.

    He is, however, remarkably similar to Hiroo Onoda, the Japanese soldier who refused to believe World War II ended in 1945 and carried on fighting it in the Phillipine Philippine jungles until 1974–and even then, he refused to surrender until his erstwhile commanding officer had been flown in to order him to lay down his arms.

    Westie and the Discoveroids will continue their lonely guerilla warfare indefinitely, as it is unlikely that God will put in a personal appearance to say that he doesn’t exist…

  25. And before anyone points out that the ‘Phillipine’ jungles appear on no atlas: yes, ’twas a slip o’ the finger for ‘Philippine’. Apologies!

    [*Voice from above*] It’s been fixed, but your error was preserved. After your recent creative triumphs, it’s necessary to keep you humble.

  26. The theory of ID, meanwhile, is doing just fine. It flourishes because the scientific evidence continues to accumulate — unveiling information throughout nature that we recognize, from our positive experience, comes only from intelligence.

    No. First of all, there is no “theory” of intelligent design, just a lot of hand-waving about how “Darwinists cannot explain this, therefore intelligent design is proven.” (It’s actually worse than that, since evolutionary scientists can explain a lot of the stuff creationists claim they can’t, and keep closing in on more and more of what remains.)

    Second, ID “flourishes” not because of the evidence but because there is no shortage of simple souls who don’t know much science but do know the Genesis story and believe it came straight from God. Such people are easy prey for hucksters selling the notion, basically, that the Bible is too right about everything,so there, no matter what all them atheistic secular-humanist commie innaluckshuls say.

  27. Merry Kitzmas !
    bear bellyacher bug crab crank faultfinder growler grumbler grump malcontent moaner sorehead sourpuss whiner griper grouser
    aka The Curmudgeon

  28. With apologies to Theodore Geisel, I think Ms. Chaffee’s brain is two sizes too small.

  29. Anyone who thinks Kitzmas needs a sweet piece of candy after the dessert I can recommend to visit Jeffrey Shallit’s Recursivity. Nobody less than Mr. Egnorance himself weighs in in the comments section! Short version: “Shame on everybody who was involved in censoring science.”

  30. michaelfugate

    No wonder the only supporters Westie can cite in his appeal are authors of fiction – Stephen King, Tom Wolfe, and Dean Koontz. Maybe they can write the next DI book together – since it is all make believe.

  31. Charles Deetz ;)

    What they have won is ‘intelligent design’ as politically correct term for creationism. This is a problem for evolutionists, it is harder to sweep away from unsophisticated believers. It is also a problem for the DI, because those same unsophisticated believers don’t really believe in the need for the science that they are trying to promote.

  32. Steve Ruis ponders:

    Okay, let’s accept for the moment that they could be right, that life is the product of intelligent design. The thing they never speak about is how the designs got executed.

    (***raises hand furiously***) Ooh! OOH! I know! It’s always one step beyond our knowledge. Right now, it’s obviously happening somewhere in the genome. Once we know all about the genome, it will be whatever follows the genome. Then whatever follows that. And so on. And so forth. Ad infinitum.
    At some point, if we reach the end of our knowledge, we’ll find a turtle. We’ll know at that point, “It’s turtles, all the way down (at the bottom).”

  33. docbill1351 notes

    I have never, EVER heard of or read about an ID proponent describing something that was NOT designed. Why is that?

    Yes, that has long struck me as a bit of double-think on their part, for surely cdesign proponentsists maintain that the whole cosmos and everything in it was oogity-boogitied into existence by [insert the name of your preferred Sky Daddy here–but discreetly, please, and not in public].

    But on reflection, I think one can have a good guess at just how they would shuck and jive if they were ever to try and answer this. I imagine they would blather along the lines that, although everything is in fact ‘designed’, unambiguous ‘hallmarks’ of design are only detectable in the Good Ole Designer’s real signature pieces, like living things, filled as they are with mystic and vitalistic ‘information’ that is absent from a mere boulder.

    And of course that’s nonsense, though I’d love to hear them explain why something like the Giants’ Causeway does not exhibit their magical CSI, and why they think that is either quantifiable, or even of any significance if it were.

    And the example I’d really like to see them address would be: set a painting by Jackson Pollock next to the drop-cloth he had spread on the floor under the easel while he was painting it. On ID ‘theory’, one should be bursting with CSI and in the other CSI should be wholly absent–but how do IDiots actually determine this? It’s no answer to say the painting was intended and the drop-cloth was not, unless they have some sort of magical Intent-o-Meter to support their telelogical fallacies.

  34. I like to think of one of their examples of how one can detect design: The images of the US presidents on Mount Rushmore. Those are shown to be intelligently designed. Which, according to ID, leads to the conclusion that the flora and fauna of Mount Rushmore are also intelligently designed. That is, the sculptures are not any different, with regards to their designedness, than the trees and weeds, worms and insects growing on the mount. As far as design inference can tell, the images might have grown there.

  35. I proposed something similar to this a decade or so ago on a discussion thread with no other than the Attack Gerbil hisself in the days he came out of his hole:

    And the example I’d really like to see them address would be: set a painting by Jackson Pollock …

    Being cheap and not owning a Pollock I proposed my garage floor. Two paint splatters. One from a bucket of paint that fell off a shelf one night, pushed by gremlins, and one from a bucket of paint that I attempt to create a Doc “Pollock” Bill masterpiece, designed and all that good CSI stuff.

    In fact, my masterpiece would trump Pollock’s by being huge, classy and making art great again.

    I asked the Gerb the obvious question: How can you tell the difference between my huge, classy masterpiece and gremlin splatter?

    Guess what? I never got an answer. I pestered the Gerb many times, as did other posters, to answer the question and he just ignored it, babbling on about CSI, FCSI, FIFA, BIBBITY, BOBBITY and BOO. Pretty stark admission, though, that IDc is nothing but a big, steaming pile of [edited out]!

  36. @docbill1351
    There were some who claimed to find complex mathematical fractal patterns in Pollock’s paintings. See the Wikipedia article on Jackson Pollock.

  37. There were some who claimed to find complex mathematical fractal patterns in Pollock’s paintings. See the Wikipedia article on Jackson Pollock.

    Some say that Bigfoot painted those canvases. Same thing. Unverified. I see Margaret Thatcher’s face in my shower. Sure, it’s a turn-on but what does that prove?

  38. docbill:
    “I see Margaret Thatcher’s face in my shower. Sure, it’s a turn-on…”

    What — Maggie Thatcher, or the shower? You got one o’ them fancy massage shower heads on a hose or something?

  39. docbill1351, perhaps through over-indulgence of Kitzmas cheer, over-shares on the internet:

    I see Margaret Thatcher’s face in my shower. Sure, it’s a turn-on but what does that prove?

    It proves you are a very naughty boy and were not paying attention when Mistress Maggie warned you, “The lady’s not for turning!

    Now, write that out 100 times, and then report to Matron for further chastisement…

  40. I can imagine the new golden rule spelled out by the D.I. contingent upon them somehow getting another day in court.

    1. Golden Rule: Take the 5th.

  41. If ID is science, and includes methods of objectively determining the amount of CSI present in any given object or organism, then the DI should let us in on the secret. They should post the formulas and provide examples that we can all do at home.

    Seems only reasonable.