Here’s Your Pre-Kitzmas Free Fire Zone

Mars is red,
Uranus is blue,
Kitzmiller Demolished the Discoveroids,
And Intelligent Design too!

Yes, dear reader — Kitzmas is coming! This Wednesday, 20 December, will be the twelfth anniversary of the decision on 20 December 2005 by Judge John E. Jones III in the case of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. It’s a triumph of law and science over theocracy and ignorance.

If you’ve never seen our series of old posts about that landmark case, they’re Kitzmiller v. Dover: Is ID Science?, and Who is the Intelligent Designer?, and What’s the Wedge Document?, and The Role of The Discovery Institute, and Michael Behe’s Testimony, and lastly John Haught: Witness in the Dover Case.

Since the Kitzmiller decision, no school board has dared to take the issue of teaching creationism or intelligent design to court. School board lawyers tell their clients that if they do something that’s obviously crazy when they’ve been advised against it, their insurance won’t pay their losses when they lose.

Look at this history of Google searches on “intelligent design”: Google trends. It’s gone downhill — drastically so — since Judge Jones’ historic decision. Most of the searches that do show up are probably ours.

We look forward to the Discoveroids’ traditional rant about the Kitzmiller case. That task always fell to Casey, but since his departure, it has now fallen to Klinghoffer to carry on that sad tradition. We await the entertainment.

To begin your merriment this Kitzmas season, we are declaring another Intellectual Free Fire Zone. We’re open for the discussion of pretty much anything — science, politics, economics, whatever — as long as it’s tasteful and interesting. Banter, babble, bicker, bluster, blubber, blather, blab, blurt, burble, boast — say what you will. But avoid flame-wars and beware of the profanity filters.

We now throw open the comments to you, dear reader. Have at it.

Copyright © 2017. 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

17 responses to “Here’s Your Pre-Kitzmas Free Fire Zone

  1. So, did y’all hear about Judge Crabb’s ORDER in the FFRF v. IRC 107 case?

    She basically said the IRS should stop allowing “ministers” to claim the income tax free ministerial housing benefit because the provision (IRC 107) is UNconstitutional.

    Appeals are expected, so the dust has not yet settled.

    https://ffrf.org/images/1DOCKET095_OPINONANDORDER.pdf

    By the way, did I ever tell you I got Annie Gaylor to take up that cause!

    And with all the buzz about tax reform, Congress and the President didn’t dare just repeal IRC 107.

    —————————–

  2. Proposed For Discussion:

    If you could have only one of the two following super powers, which would you choose:

    the Ability to See the Future, or the Ability to See the Past?

    https://www.sciencenews.org/article/would-you-opt-see-future-or-decipher-past

  3. From Washington Post:

    The Trump administration is prohibiting officials at the nation’s top public health agency from using a list of seven words or phrases — including “fetus” and “transgender” — in official documents being prepared for next year’s budget.

    Policy analysts at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta were told of the list of forbidden terms at a meeting Thursday with senior CDC officials who oversee the budget, according to an analyst who took part in the 90-minute briefing. The forbidden terms are “vulnerable,” “entitlement,” “diversity,” “transgender,” “fetus,” “evidence-based” and “science-based.”

  4. @Random: the past, no doubt. I don’t have any desire to turn into another Cassandra.

  5. @mnb0

    The past for me, as well.

    AFAIK, there is only one past from which we have emerged, but imo an inordinate number of possible futures — what good to see them all if you never know which we’ll actually traverse.

  6. Mesmerizing reënactment of the 2017 Atlantic hurricane season — I never suspected so much dust got sucked out of the Sahara (you’d think they’d be down to the pine boards by now):

    https://www.sciencenews.org/article/watch-nasas-mesmerizing-new-visualization-2017-hurricane-season

  7. In June 2016, the Discoveroids were so passionate about advocating Brexit for the UK that they published two puff pieces about the topic in the run-up to the referendum: Stephen Meyer Asks: There Will Always Be an England…Or Will There? and Stephen Meyer on a “Special Relationship” at Risk. They explained their foray into British politics as follows:

    The evolution debate isn’t an issue here, of course. But there are certain overlapping themes — notably skepticism, freedom, and independence versus lockstep homogenization and always having to look over your shoulder in concern about what a distant, bullying authority might say. Don’t you think?

    The Discoveroids have not, however, been following up, despite the referendum giving them the result for which they so ardently hoped. And the past 18 months have exposed that the omissions, distortions, and outright lies of the Leave campaign were even more egregious than most folks realised at the time, and absolutely no one who voted Leave is actually going to get a result that conforms to their expectations–which should be no surprise, really, although some of the deleterious and unintended consequences which will ensue on departure from the EU were mostly predictable, though they won’t really start to bite until whatever shambolic form of Brexit is actually delivered.

    It’s disappointing the DI have gone silent on the topic, but surely they will comment when the full extent of the disaster is apparent?

  8. @Megalonyx: So, would the DI also be for secession of (some of the) American States? It would surely make it easier for them to wedge in ID, state by state, unhindered by the Constitution. Why don’t they write about that?

  9. Michael Fugate

    The DI’s new book.
    Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique. Crossway.
    The debate about biological origins continues to be hotly contested within the Christian church. Prominent organizations such as Biologos (USA) and Faraday Institute (UK) insist that Christians must yield to an unassailable scientific consensus in favor of contemporary evolutionary theory and modify traditional biblical ideas about the creation of life accordingly. They promote a view known as “theistic evolution” or “evolutionary creation.” They argue that God used—albeit in an undetectable way—evolutionary mechanisms to produce all forms of life. This book contests this proposal.

    The DI is claiming that the first three chapters of Genesis are not only historically true, but believing they are historically true is essential for being a Christian. This is why they oppose common descent and argue for a human species unrelated to all other species with Adam and Eve as the original two humans. They are arguing solely from the Bible – anything contradicting the biblical narrative must be false. If anything shown to contradict said narrative were true, to be a Christian you must believe it to be false. So much for science.

    The Crossway site lets you read Stephen Meyer’s intro chapter – and boy is it a doozy. Did you know that direction actually means directed by intelligence?

  10. I wonder how people get the authority to speak for Christianity.

  11. Michael Fugate

    One would think the Nicene Creed were sufficient, but apparently not.

  12. When the Bible describes the important things, does it ever mention that kinds form a barrier to evolution?
    There are people who are just making things up and demanding that they have the authority of God.
    How can they get away with that?

  13. From Michael Fugate

    DI: “[Evolutionary creationists] argue that God used—albeit in an undetectable way—evolutionary mechanisms to produce all forms of life. This book contests this proposal.”

    Does DI claim to know of something — anything — that God has done in a detectable way? How would evolution differ from that, whatever it might be?

  14. How about any supernatural agent doing something in a describable way?
    Are there any laws which the supernatural follow?
    Is it possible for a supernatural action to follow natural law?