A nice long writeup on Eric Rothschild, one of the lead attorneys for the Plaintiffs in the Kitzmiller case, has just come out in the Pennsylvania Gazette, the UPenn alumni magazine. The cover article is entitled “Intelligent Demise” and focuses on Rothschild’s dissection of ID arguments during the trial. Rothschild seems to come off slightly better than fellow UPenn alum Michael Behe…
A second article examines the role a UPenn commission played in debunking spiritualism in the 19th century.
As a Penn grad, I’m proud of Mr. Rothschild - and embarrassed by Dr. Behe.
Nice and interesting article there…
Btw, you can find links to most or all of the Dover transcripts here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmi[…]al_documents
Rothschild’s cross-examination of Behe starts here and the amusing part re: evolution of the immune system is here.
I don’t think the transcripts really highlight the “drama” of the actual cross-exam with a huge heap of books in Behe’s lap, but some excerpts (emphases all mine):
Then another great line of questioning later on that page:
I love reading about ID’s Waterloo. here’s a great bit.
Yeah, those are some classic bits from the transcript. Here’s a fun part that came slightly later than most people miss:
Reality does have some impact, apparently.
PS: I feel like I should mention that I personally dragged that stack of books from the Berkeley library, to my apartment, and then later walked them to the BART station, then BART to San Francisco International, then on the AirTrain to the right terminal, then flew with them to Harrisburg, then a taxi to the Harrisburg Pepper-Hamilton office. I think someone else took them over to the courthouse – Pepper had a documents-moving guy just to move the necessary boxes of exhibits back and forth each day.
Anyway, if only the Berkeley librarians knew how many miles those books had logged…
I just got to that part of the Gazette story. Great stuff. We’re lucky we had such a good lawyer in Rothschild. Really good work there. (and of course everyone else involved)
Heh heh. Masterful understatement!
the new biology library wasn’t yet complete when i left berzerkely;
how did it turn out?
So the high point of the trial was when Behe was buried under more scientific literature than he could easily lift, all of which directly refuted his claims. And Behe’s response was (1) to admit he hadn’t read it; (2) to claim it couldn’t possibly address his requirements anyway; and (2) to write, after the trial, that “all the other side has is rhetoric and bluster”, (4) to admit that he has done no research of his own. Yet he insists this is science.
I got the impression that Rothschild could have clarified things a bit more in some places, but by and large did a very good job. And to be sure, Judge Jones understood completely and needed no further clarification. I hope Rothschild gets his wish, to prosecute a few more cases.
My favorite bit from the article:
Once more for the record: how did the “Deer in the headlights” story turn out?
search on Buckingham + “I was like a deer in the headlights”
http://www.pennlive.com/printer/pri[…]l&coll=1
Perhaps he took so many pills he forgot he wasn’t ambushed.
I am very disappointed in Behe. Not only did he blow it in his testimony on ID in the Dover trial, but the Pennsylvania Gazette article noted that “he did not respond to telephone and e-mail requests for comment for this article,” despite the fact that he has written a long condemnation of the Dover decision. He has been a very poor spokesperson for ID. The right word for Behe is “resign,” not “design.”
Aside from the effort to interview Behe, I thought that the Pennsylvania Gazette article was very one-sided. It contained very little of the views of any people or organizations connected with the Dover defense or ID.
It was interesting to learn that Rothschild apparently had a religious motivation of his own. As a practicing Jew, he apparently feels threatened by the Christian “fundies” who are supposedly the main supporters of ID.
The Dover decision probably marks only the second time in American history (the Selman v. Cobb County textbook-sticker case was the first) that something that on its face appears to have nothing to do with religion – in the Dover case, irreducible complexity – was ruled by a court to be a government endorsement of religion. Jones ruled that ID – which includes irreducible complexity – “cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.” Maybe laws against murder and stealing should be declared unconstitutional because they cannot uncouple themselves from the Ten Commandments.
Ironically, the article called Rothschild a “Philadelphia lawyer” – something of a synonym for “shyster.”
BTW, I wonder what hourly rate Rothschild, as a partner in Pepper Hamilton, a huge law firm of about 400 attorneys, asked for in the calculation of the plaintiffs’ award of imaginary legal costs. The initial bill was a humongous $2.5 million, but the parties agreed to settle for $1 million. See http://www.ydr.com/doverbiology/ci_3533888 It was predicted that the calculated bill would be over $1 million – I had not idea that it would be $2.5 million.
Sure they can. Murder and stealing are illegal everywhere, even in places where they’ve never heard of the ten commandments.
Shut up, Larry.
Larry/Andy:
Well, at least you got one thing right.
But, just for the heck of it, shut up anyway…
The final judgement awarded the plaintiffs lawyers $2,067,226.00 in attorney fees and expenses, which the DASD’s solicitor verified to be a fair estimate. That is the number that should be quoted when warning of the costs of potential litigation. The plaintiffs then agreed on a settlement of $1 million. Approximately one quarter of that is for costs associated with the litigation (such as filing and copying fees), the remainder was split between the ACLU and Americans United - Pepper-Hamilton did not receive any attorney fees.
So again, remember $2,067,226.00 (or over $2 million).
I vote for super Larry for ID president!
better get out there and start campaigning, Larry!
Lawrence “I’m not a Holocaust denier just a revisionist” Fafarman posting under the FALSE name of Andy. H. something he has never denied after hundreds of posts says: Ironically, the article called Rothschild a “Philadelphia lawyer” — something of a synonym for “shyster.”
Larry that has eerie echos from the 1930’s care to explain?
Or is the irony .…a lying shyster making a racial slur on a model of citizenship?
hmm, seems i recall somebody else with a similar excuse. Someone who used oxycontin…
Hmmm. I wonder.
Hmmm. Looks like, um, zero.
But
I guess Landy Hafarman will do his research next time before making unsupported assertions.….….….just kidding. Good one though, huh? [wipes tear from corner of eye] Whew. I kill me.
Shut up, Larry.
Larry/Andy/Billy-Bob/Sue/whatever you want to call yourself: given your demonstrated — and often admitted — lack of knowledge of the subjects of which you speak; given your constant refusal to answer questions regarding your motives and dishonest use of multiple names; given your blatant repetition of arguments that have been refuted several times before; given your explicitly-stated disregard for all facts and logic that contradict your assertions; given the mockery you now consistently attract; and given your now-obvious reputation as a lonely pathetic dishonest cranky loser; I have to ask the following questions:
Why do you continue posting here, when you are clearly unwilling to deal honestly with us?
What makes you think you can convince anyone of anything here?
What makes you think your assertions have any credibility?
Of course, the easiet thing to do with Larry is just to tell him to shut up (or, depending on the current state of our ever-shifting consensus In Re: To Feed or Not To Feed, to virtuously restrain ourselves from telling him to shut up).
But I must confess to gettin’ my jollies when, ever’ one in a while, Kevin Vicklund hauls out his big whoopin’ stick and just whomps the ever-livin’ tarnation out of our poor wittle Larry-Muffin…!
Thanks, stevie. It’s nice to know my efforts are appreciated, though I do truly understand why some people just wish I’d let him alone. But for me, it is training for the fights I know I have in front of me, and Larry is so easy to refute, it allows me to hone my skills. Heck, most of the sources he pulls in contradict him (remember Blum v. Stenson?) when examined - it’s almost too easy. But I do try to space them out a bit.
I’ve got lots of counters lined up and ready to go, just waiting for one of the Larry-bots to post.
Once again, a good article is tainted by a misleading statement. Most of those who “embrace [any one of several mutually contradictory “literal” interpretations of the] Genesis account of creation as gospel” are not skeptical, but selectively incredulous. “Skeptical” means accepting a claim based on evidence. No amount of evidence would convince them of evolution, and no evidence at all is needed for them to believe their favorite origins myth. One has to wonder, though, about the small % that actively promotes anti-evolution propaganda. If they truly believe one of the “literal” interpretations of Genesis, why are they increasingly covering up the flaws and contradictions?
ask Carol.
*snicker*
The York Daily Record said that the calculated bill reported by the DASD’s solicitor was $2.5 million. So what is your source?
Not necessarily – there is no guarantee that another court would hold such a costly trial. In fact, in the district court trial that led to the Supreme Court case of Edwards v. Aguillard, the judge refused to hear any expert scientific testimony at all, saying that the expert witnesses offered by the defendants had played no part in the law’s passage or implementation. Also, another court could simply defer to the Dover decision’s rulings on whether ID is science, or rule that irreducible complexity is not religious because it does not mention anything related to religion, or whatever. Anything could happen. Also, a bill has been introduced in Congress to bar the awarding of attorney fees in establishment clause cases.
The filing and copying fees are trivial. The $1/4 million in expenses probably went for such things as travel and lodging. Maybe even the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses were reimbursed for travel and lodging – expert witness fees are not allowed in the calculation of expenses in establishment clause cases, but the court has no control over how the award money is distributed.
Anyway, maybe you could tell us the attorneys’ hourly rates that were used in the calculations. An argument that the hourly rates were excessive would probably have been a good negotiating point for the school board.
And I showed that the Senate report that the Supreme Court cited in Blum v. Stenson did not actually support the decision ! See http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives[…]omment-80901
Who are “us” ? Your statement reminds of that story about the time that the Lone Ranger and Tonto were surrounded by hostile Indians, and the Lone Ranger said to Tonto, “it looks like we’re in trouble,” and Tonto answered, “what do you mean, ‘we,’ paleface?”
Kevin claimed:
batter up!
“Us” would be the honest, ethical, informed scientists and scientifically literate posters on this board.
Sorry. You’re not a member of the club.
Syntax Error: mismatched tag at line 25, column 2, byte 5513 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.8/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187
Damn. I meant to click Check Spelling.
Anyway, the quick response is that the $2 million figure comes from the actual order signed by Judge Jones, Document 352, of which I have an electronic copy.
I’ll redact the rest of the post tomorrow.
Frank wrote:
“If they truly believe one of the “literal” interpretations of Genesis, why are they increasingly covering up the flaws and contradictions?”
What “flaws”? What “contradictions”? What cover ups? Who is they? Whoever they are, why don’t they seriously consider the literal interpretation of the original Bible that has been demonstrated to be entirely in agreement with science? Why does not the scientific community find a way to highlight this important development? What are “they” afraid of? Are “they” covering up their fear that this will demolish the party line to the effect that science discredits the Bible?
Mention Genesis and science in a more recent post, and see if she pops up again.
Here, this should flush her out in a hurry:
Hey! Carol! Noah’s could never have happened! There’s absolutely no evidence for a worldwide flood! And Methuselah could never have lived to be 900 years old! And there are two contradictory creation myths in Genesis!
There. Works just like a bird call. Expect her in no more than 5 minutes.
Yes. And if you are a Philadelphia lawyer who is good at pointing out gnats, it is good to have a judge who tends to strain at gnats and swallow camels – e.g., Judge Jones.
No one wants to hear what you say, Larry.
In a fascinating new experiment, 8-celled chorella “colonies” have been shown to have more functioning neurons between them than all of the multiple personalities clustering around the alleged human entity known as Larry/Andy FarFromHisMeds.
(The experimenters were forced to concede, in a footnote authored by grad student B. L. Astfromthepast, that even the far more typical one-celled cholera might well have more functioning intellectual capacity than Larry: “However, that was not the focus of our work, and we’re really not in a position to comment further at this time.”)
Shut up, maroon.
The second attempted use of “chorella” came out as “cholera” in the above post.
My apologies to single and multi-celled chorella everywhere. No offense was intended to any pond scum anywhere (other than the maroon).
And several more major “creationist” interpretations thereof, such as flat-earthism, geocentrism, YEC, day-age, gap, progressive OEC, and the increasingly popular “don’t ask, don’t tell. It’s all kind of moot though, since most major Biblical religions don’t take the accounts literally. And with DADT, even pseudoscientific anti-evolutionists are slowly abandoning them as well.
And without disagreeing, my point is the positive view (the one very very popular in Philadelphia): a Philadelphia lawyer uses the law to circumvent law.
And without defending robber barons, in many cases the law’s attempt to regulate economics is crude and heavy handed. Depending on the circumstances, I could easily find the above example to be a positive sense of Philadelphia lawyer.
Update