Is ID DOA?

| 71 Comments | 2 TrackBacks

If current results hold, it looks like the creationists on the 10-member Kansas Board of Education have lost two seats in the Republican primary. The likelihood is therefore that the new Board of Education will switch from being a 6-4 pro-creationism majority to at least a 6-4 pro-science majority (depending on the November general election). This probably means the pro-ID/creationism science standards are history.

So let’s sum up the last 9 months:

* November 2005. After the dramatic revelations of the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial, voters in Dover sweep the ID/creationists out of office. Coincidentally (I’m sure), on that very day, the Kansas Board of Education votes in the Intelligent Design Network’s creationist intelligent design “critical analysis of evolution” standards, overturning the recommendation of their own appointed standards writing committee.

* December 2005. The judge in Kitzmiller declares “intelligent design” unconstitutional, especially the book that introduced ID to the world, the public school biology textbook Of Pandas and People. The judge furthermore notes that various other euphemisms are just as problematic.

* February 2006. The Ohio Board of Education reverses its previous decision and removes the “critical analysis” standard and the attached lesson plan from the curriculum, removing the Discovery Institute’s “crown jewel” in their program to mess with education.

* August 2006. The creationists on the Kansas Board of Education lose their majority in the Republican primary, in which the creationist intelligent design “critical analysis of evolution” standards were the main election issue.

The ID movement has been pushing the “intelligent design” strategy for 16 years now, and what has it accomplished? What has the Discovery Institute got to show for the several million bucks it has spent on ID each year for the last 10 years? In three very different forums (court, board politics, and elections), their approach has been rejected. Despite a lot of propaganda claiming they are doing research, the ID movement has nothing but a handful of articles, all of which, upon inspection, fail to be (a) peer-reviewed, (b) original research, and/or (c} actually supportive of ID.

Again and again, people eventually figure out that ID is not really science, and that instead it is a shell game that really has no substance or mission other than to push the specific religious view of special creation in the public schools. And the predictable results followed.

I am not foolish enough to declare this “the end of creationism” – such confident predictions have always failed in the past. But I do think that this series of defeats may convince the creationists to go back to the drawing board yet again and come up with something new. Perhaps they will just latch on to “critical analysis is not ID/creationism!” even more doggedly than before, but I’m not sure this is the complete future: no one believes these things are different, not even the ID/creationists.

The Berkeley Science Review interviewed Kevin Padian and Phillip Johnson last month about the Kitzmiller case and the future of ID:

For Padian, the decision represents an incredible victory: “Not a single sentence of the judge’s decision would give comfort to the ID crowd. We don’t see how it could have been any better.” “The judge’s decision made a lot of things easier for the American public,” he continues. “He drew the line that scholars and educators asked him to draw. He didn’t muddy the line like the fundamentalists asked him to do. For Phil Johnson and the Discovery Institute, the fat lady has sung…No one who can fog a mirror intellectually can have any more illusions that this drivel should be taken seriously as science, or even as social studies.”

For his part, Johnson agrees: “I think the fat lady has sung for any efforts to change the approach in the public schools…the courts are just not going to allow it. They never have. The efforts to change things in the public schools generate more powerful opposition than accomplish anything…I don’t think that means the end of the issue at all.” “In some respects,” he later goes on, “I’m almost relieved, and glad. I think the issue is properly settled. It’s clear to me now that the public schools are not going to change their line in my lifetime. That isn’t to me where the action really is and ought to be.” Whether Dover really was the swan song of intelligent design remains to be seen. Either way, the decision has dealt a serious blow to the cause. The movement that Phil Johnson started may just have run aground on the rocks of Padian’s testimony. Or rather on the fossils in the rocks of Padian’s testimony.

(bold added)

Is Phillip Johnson right? Has the fat lady sung for the ID movement’s efforts in the public schools? If so, what’s next?

2 TrackBacks

Kansas roundup from Stranger Fruit on August 2, 2006 2:53 AM

News from Kansas seems to be that Bacon & Willard won their primaries and Morris & Patzer lost, being replaced by pro-science Republicans. As Nick notes, "[t]he likelihood is therefore that the new Board of Education will switch from being... Read More

This morning the Kansas State Board of Education is all shook up. Last year the board voted 6-4 for much-criticised, creationism-friendly science education standards. Yesterday the primaries for the board elections took place, and on balance, the scien... Read More

71 Comments

If she hasn’t sung she best get warmed up. Something tells me every bodies favorite fundamentalist millionaire banker won’t keep throwing money down the DI rat hole much longer.

February and August 2006, methinks…

As regards the future of ID, the current tide may be against them, but they will still have a fairly strong undercurrent in the social waters for some time to come.

I wonder if Bill Gates will pull the plug - his millions are supporting the Discovery Institute’s “Cascadia” group (regional transportation), not the Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture - but I imagine that the overhead on that grant supports the whole lot.

As for the religious backers of the DI, many of them might be happier if the DI would simply explicitly promote its religious mission: if you are arguing for creationism and divine miracles, just argue for creationism and divine miracles explicitly, don’t try to do it on the sly. This change would make both sides much happier, I think, but it would represent an explicit withdrawal from the governmental/public school arena.

Has the fat lady sung for the ID movement’s efforts in the public schools? If so, what’s next?

I’ve wondered about this for a while:

Posted: Mar. 04 2006,16:06 ID is starting to meet the legal system and be obliterated. Soon creationists are going to turn to a new strategy. What will the strategy be? I have no idea. But I can tell you what I’d do, if I were them. I would create a system of creationist science classes, and tell parents it’s an innoculation against the evils of Darwinism. I’d assemble a network of instructors, which would be creationists with any kind of undergrad science degree. And I’d try to get churches and rich christians to sponsor the meetings. Meetings would be once a week, an hour each time, for perhaps two months. All the creationist ‘science’ would be taught in those eight lessons. Privileged Planet would be shown, and maybe a tour to a Natural Sciences museum with a creationist tourguide. Since it’s not official, no judge could stop me, and I would be able to give the kids creationism with both barrels, not the pussyfooting Intelligent Design business. And a lot of the program would be devoted to things like Icons of Evolution, where scientists are portayed as scheming liars. That way, when the kids do get to high school science classes, they are already suspicious of the whole thing, and find it easier to reject.

That would be my plan. what about the rest of you? What would you do?

that was at AtBC, but it would be good to have the discussion here, too.

In the intervening months I haven’t had any new ideas. It’s hard to come up with something as powerful as changing the public schools, but it does look like the fat lady’s sung on that. Maybe they’ll put all their money into funding IDEA clubs? But college is too late. Is there a High School IDEA movement? If they built up a High School IDEA movement they could aggressively lean on the local biology teachers to give them classtime, that would be harder for us to legally combat. I have to agree with Ken, though, is that millionaire wacko content to keep funding these failures?

Nick Matzke Wrote:
  • February 2005. The Ohio Board of Education reverses its previous decision and removes the “critical analysis” standard and the attached lesson plan from the curriculum, removing the Discovery Institute’s “crown jewel” in their program to mess with education.
  • August 2005. The creationists on the Kansas Board of Education lose their majority in the Republican primary, in which the creationist intelligent design “critical analysis of evolution” standards were the main election issue.

wouldn’t that be 2006?

What’s next is complacency… until the next major evolution of anti-science appears.

I hope scientists, in every discipline, learn from this ordeal. It’s not merely enough to do the research. You can’t pretend to live in a social structure that is isolated from the masses. You can’t rely on the masses to keep up your research. And you definitely don’t want to hedge your bets on some federal judge ruling your way every time.

We were fortunate enough this time that ID wanted to appear as science. In other words, there is still enough prestige in the label, ‘science,’ that it was worth the IDer’s time to adopt the label, albeit in a very corrupted manner. Next time, I think anti-science will get more explicit. The fundamentalists will fight to relabel everything scientific as mere philosophy. The notion of evidence-based knowledge is reduced to hunches and clues. Theories become interpretations. Fruitfulness of a theoretical system is measured by how well they meet theological intuitions. In short, science becomes fully associated with materialism, just as they have always wished it to be. Science becomes a dirty word, just like being gay or liberal. They didn’t get it right this time, but they’re learning…

I fixed the 2005/2006 thing, thanks for pointing out the error.

Two post-victory questions for those in Kansas. What are the prospects of increasing the pro-science majority in the general election? What can we say about the 2008 elections? If I understand it right, the five board members who did not face election this time will be up in 2008. The current creationist majority is 6-4. Four out of five seats this election cycle where held by creationists. This suggests that next election cycle that two creationists and three pro-science candidates will face reelection. This suggest that 2008 has the potential to be harder though not impossible. Hopefully pro-science Kansas citizens will not let the creationists sneak up on them again.

And if ID is DOA, we can expect the creationist to do what they have always done: repackage it into something else and start it all over again. They are not going to stop.

Sorry to hijack a thread about good stuff, but msn.com has chosen today to show an article about Ken Ham’s creaion “science” museum.

The worst is a live poll that is linked by the article. Of msn.com users answering the poll: 35% think the bible is literally true in every way, 33% think it’s fundamentally true but with some inaccuracies, and only, 26% say the bible is primarily fiction with some historical stuff, with ~5% none of the above.

These guys have gobs of cash (it’s a pretty fine-looking building) and 68% of the population is still instinctively on their side. If that’s not a warning for us to be on the ball for the next round of elections, nothing is.

I suspect that what you will find is a further exodus (if you’ll pardon the expression) from public schools and (hence) increased private schools and homeschooling. Perhaps also an attempt to “go further up” - supreme courts?

What’s next?

1. There will be textbook battles in Texas – and the anti-science forces hope to expand it to California, too. Constant pressure is applied to publishers to soft-peddle evolution. In a few places (is Virginia Commonwealth University among them?), administrators cave on teaching evolution straight, or well.

2. Biology classes continue to be “extras” in most high school curricula – kids can take math, physics and chemistry and avoid biology completely. Fewer kids will take biology overall, and America’s science circles will become increasingly dominated by foreign-born scientists who came to the U.S. for graduate study, and stayed to fill a vacuum of scientists in academia and industry.

3. Outstanding progress will be made against disease by biologists. In the face of advancing deserts and tropics, botanists and geneticists will be pressured hard to develop crops and livestock that can do well in dramatically changed climate conditions. Foreign companies will move in to the U.S. because they have the expertise. Cargill or ADM will be purchased by a South Korean science-based conglomerate with deep research labs. Before the progress, however, tropical diseases will make a comeback in the U.S. Bill Gates will suddenly look like a great visionary when tourists to Washington, D.C., start coming down with malaria. Headlines in the papers will ask, “Where is American Science?”

4. America’s three 24-hour television channels of fundamentalism will have half-hour news “specials” dedicated to the story that weather and disease are prompted by God’s being unhappy with America’s “fascination with Darwin.” Polls will show that 35% of Americans think Darwin founded the Soviet Union, sold airplanes to Nazi Germany, developed drugs to keep Fidel Castro alive to age 95, and was the real source of the designated hitter rule. William Dembski will re-emerge as a publisher of textbooks – in U.S. history.

5. Public school graduates from the U.S. will continue to dominate the Nobel Prizes in science. Many of them will give thanks to “Mr. Jones, my 8th grade biology teacher.” Those speeches will not make the newspapers.

6. Cubs fans will watch baseball on TV in October, from stadia other than Wrigley.

7. The Dow-Jones index will fluctuate.

NOw that the Western Kansas voters have rejected the ID candidate, and mainstream standards will prevail in Kansas, when can they expect all those jobs from interested companies to start?

You all remember that ID was keeping the jobs out, don’t you? Thats what a lot of voters were told.

So when will the jobs start?

Gee …one senses a little bitterness in Christensen’s post. I love it! Christensen would have Kansas students wallow in ignorance.

Maybe there is yet hope for education in Kansas, now that Connie Morris will have time to study her Wholly Babble instead of retarding science education.

Nah, C, it was all those godless atheists out on the high prairie in their socialist collectives planning genocide, just like you always said.

They just infiltrated a little deeper than you had planned.

Re comment #116277 and “These guys have gobs of cash (it’s a pretty fine-looking building) and 68% of the population is still instinctively on their side. If that’s not a warning for us to be on the ball for the next round of elections, nothing is.”

They’ve just had a 1 million dollar donation:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/doc[…]donation.asp

I agree with everything you have said. Forget the discovery institute. It’s these guys we should really be worried about. It will be interesting to see how many people actually file through the museum’s doors when it opens.

NOw that the Western Kansas voters have rejected the ID candidate, and mainstream standards will prevail in Kansas, when can they expect all those jobs from interested companies to start?

You all remember that ID was keeping the jobs out, don’t you? Thats what a lot of voters were told.

So when will the jobs start?

I wonder how you’ll defend your side if the ID side won and we don’t see any significant research done due to a predicted renewal of scientific thinking.

Of course nothing will stop some people from believing in ID-Creationism, but the “ID Movement” has been over for a while now, except for a few death spasms here and there. It was over as soon as everyone on the fence (or even close to the fence), and especially the media, had a chance the digest the Kitzmiller decision. We saw a big shift there.

It’s over.

If the IDers were true to their word, they would go off, do some research (well, lots and lots of research), and try to persuade the scientific community of their position. Instead, they do things like swiftboating the judge who ruled against them.

I predicted some time ago that 2005 would be seen as the high-water mark of the ID movement. That seems to be coming true.

It’s over.

Unfortunately, I’m not so optimistic.

Undisguised creationism was already judged to be incompatible with the Constitution. People thought it was over then.

Then Creationism evolved into ID with a few offshoots called “critical analysis” and “teach the controversy”.

Unfortunately, as we have discovered through the study of evolution, diseases evolve and continue to be even more nasty than before.

Physical violence, even if unconcerted, is very much a probability.

Either way, Creationism will continue to evolve.

Christensen wrote: “You all remember that ID was keeping the jobs out, don’t you? That’s what a lot of voters were told. So when will the jobs start?”

See…This is the kind of response we get. It is so over.

If I recall correctly, the jobs thing had to do with the notion that large corporations might be less likely to locate their offices in Kansas since their workers’ children would be going to bad schools. Personally, I think that’s sort of a vague argument, but it certainly does not imply that measurably more jobs will materialize when the standards are repaired (especially since it has only been a year or so).

Anon. Coward–

You’re probably correct about the continuing efforts of the hard-core ID/Creationism crowd, as their energy for this seems boundless. But all potential avenues (scientific, political, educational, philosophical, etc.) have been officially and clearly blocked, so they cannot even maintain the appearance of success or progress anymore.

Elections? What elections? I don’t see no stinking elections…

From Paul Nelson at http://www.idthefuture.com

Once upon a time, there were a whole bunch of people who thought that what really mattered in thinking hard about design and evolution were state science standards. And school board elections.

Along came a 15 year old kid who loved science, read a lot, thought for herself, and generally saw the adults around her as missing the point. “As if,” she said to the cat sleeping at her feet.

Then she smiled and went back to her web browsing.

The End.

Hey, you all aren’t backtracing on that jobs promise are you?

I mean, that would suggest that the claim that ID was keeping jobs out of Kansas was, well, like a lie and all.

“JB,” the voters voted. It’s up to you to figure out why.

I would suspect that there were a number of reasons, not the least of which included the pushiness of the pro-ID camp.

Another might just be the shifting stories this camp spun about the standards during the past two years.

Finally, you might want to note that the two districts which rejected pro-ID candidates were the ones where especially stealthy campaigns were conducted previously. What goes around …

Of course, demanding economic results a mere twelve hours after the votes were counted is a straw man argument, but keep weaving. I mean it. Keep weaving.

You guy(s) provided incalculable assistance.

Nick Wrote:

Is Phillip Johnson right? Has the fat lady sung for the ID movement’s efforts in the public schools?

I don’t think Johnson is being sincere. He has long stated that he isn’t interested in getting ID put into public schools, but his actions have shown otherwise. He is the admitted author of the Wedge Document, which says quite directly that the DI’s goals include getting ID into public schools, holding teacher training seminars, fighting legal battles, etc.

I think he is simply playing the “ID in public schools isn’t important” angle to shrug-off how bad of a defeat the Kitzmiller case really was.

Hey, you all aren’t backtracing on that jobs promise are you?

I mean, that would suggest that the claim that ID was keeping jobs out of Kansas was, well, like a lie and all.

It looks like we burned out the infection before it got symptomatic. Most decisions like that take a couple of years. The standards never got implemented (at least, no reports of any school district implementing them to my knowledge).

Hey, you all aren’t backtracing on that jobs promise are you?

I mean, that would suggest that the claim that ID was keeping jobs out of Kansas was, well, like a lie and all.

Misrepresentation.

No promises were made. Only warnings.

Jobs were not promised. The warning was that Kansas would look less attractive to relevant firms looking at establishing themselves somewhere.

It’s still up to the firms to decide where to get employees from.

Either way, people with proper education have more of a chance to get employed at any firm than those who were caught up in ID’s dishonest tactics.

…that’s funny…looking at the quotes I can’t figure out why Padian doesn’t take ID seriously.

Comment #116300

Posted by Kevin on August 2, 2006 09:51 AM (e) | kill

If the IDers were true to their word, they would go off, do some research (well, lots and lots of research), and try to persuade the scientific community of their position. Instead, they do things like swiftboating the judge who ruled against them.

But Kevin, they can’t do research–they’re living in fear of Darwinian fascists!

I think this whole notion of the university as a cult of Darwinist worshippers is completely overblown and damaging to the ID movement. It’s often a convenient excuse for poor scholarship and casts us as victims of “the man.” Like Godel, our theory needs to be laid out as nearly indisputable to topple the reigning paradigm. And yes, that means being held to a higher standard than the Darwinists. It’s like boxing and all of life for that matter. Frankly, I like Davison’s approach. He doesn’t complain about the man keeping him down or worse, spend time complaining about holes in the Darwin theory. At least he’s laid out an alternative and he’s no victim.

Comment by Barrett1 — August 2, 2006 @ 8:34 am

Barrett1: What have you experienced at the hands of scientific materialists? Are you aware of the Sternberg case? The pressures directed against frontline ID proponents are real. From your armchair, it is easy enough to say that we need simply to get to work. But families and livelihoods really are under threat by these Darwinian fascists, and when our days are spent trying to shore up the latter, the former does not get done.

Comment by William Dembski — August 2, 2006 @ 8:43 am

We really have to ask if it’s over in Kansas, first. We’ve had this triumph before, only for the anti-science forces to find their way back into power. There’s a strong core of religious anti-science out there that knows almost nothing about Phil Johnson, the DI, and ID, who may push for some version of creationism at any time.

There’s nothing especially new about “criticisms of evolution,” either, as this was tried out in Louisiana after McLean. And I should note that Kansas has been sold as mere “critical analysis”, so to the extent that the Kansas primary means anything, it isn’t a blow against ID by name (the coincidence of criticisms of evolution apparently is a surprise to them).

I’d say that ID as “critical analysis” is going to continue for a while. We’ve all argued with these people, and they aren’t persuaded by evidence or genuine critical analysis (to them, “critical analysis” means criticizing actual critical analysis for its insistence upon the need for evidence of causation). They’ll go on and on about how mean we are to “new ideas”, how an agent that can do anything and has no constraints on goals or purposes is the best answer to origins questions (in a way it is–if it could ever be shown to act in this universe), and how they’ve proved, without data no less, that evolution is not responsible for the flagellum, bombardier beetle, etc.

Johnson can be sanguine about it all. He’s old, rich, and seems to think he’s a superb thinker in the realm of biology that he hardly knows, so has little to lose. Dembski and Behe have put their reputations (such as they were) on the line, and have themselves to defend. I assume that this is the case for most of the DI contingent. They’re also the “best of the creationists”, sad as that may seem, which means that the many unalterable creationists will continue to listen to these “scientists” as they “demonstrate” how evolution is impossible. They are also not terribly imaginative (remember, Behe’s book depends heavily on YEC sources), and are unlikely to do much of anything but “critically analyze” evolution and try to sell “design” as the only alternative. Hence ID will live on as propaganda, though tilted toward “critical analysis”.

Package deals of “critical analysis” may be proposed outside of Ohio in the near future. In Ohio they recognized that calling for “critical analysis” of one sector of one science was all too obviously a religious act, which is why they bundled several concepts that the religious right doesn’t like into a whole package. Unfortunately for them, this probably won’t work very well either, since the partisan nature of their package criticisms will evoke even more opposition–and by the time they dilute their agenda enough to be acceptable, they’ll have to concede that teaching every objection to every bit of science is unworkable in the schools.

I’d like to say that “intelligent evolution” is the next phase, but there’s no way that can be. The balloon was floated, DaveTard tried to make UD into a site that largely accepted directed evolution, and the balloon was promptly pricked by Dembski. They can’t tell the Bible bashers to support anything called “evolution”, so “intelligent evolution” is right out.

“Directed processes”,”directed intelligence”, or something like that might sell somewhat better.

What might happen is that they’ll try out a variety of names and slight repackagings, hoping that the courts will let their guard down long enough for one to succeed. Or, depending on how Ohio and future Kansas elections go, they may just crawl into their holes again for a decade or two, reading Behe and lauding Dembski and cursing the courts, until something sort of evolves out the current mix.

The fact of the matter is that all that creationism needs for a resurgence is a good name (in context), a good PR machine, and the promise of victory. ID never asked for a commitment to any kind of science whatsoever, no matter how hard it tried to accommodate those who couldn’t bear to say that the earth is 6000 years old. The core constituency, and even a number of the “scientists” pushing ID, were always YEC, so that with the right name, repackaged YECism will sell any time that anyone can promise a new lease on creationism’s life. The name means nothing, so it could be almost anything that doesn’t include “evolution”.

If we’re fortunate, attempts to enshrine religion in the public schools may wane for a while, especially since the courts and many of us are wary about repackaging. If we’re vigilant, we’ll pay attention to the continuing lack of good teaching of evolution, which perhaps is part of the reason why creationism never dies as a political force.

Glen D http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Just as promoting (establishing) a religious view is unconstitutional, so is DENIGRATING (restricting the free exercise thereof) a religious view unconstitutional.

All the better reason to keep ID out of schools.

ID is religion, and it belongs in church and Sunday school and the state should leave it alone (as it does).

If ID’s proponents insist that ID is a fact of science, then it has to play by science’s rules and rule number one is that a fact, unlike a religious opinion has to be verifiable, and ID is manifestly not verifiable by any known evidence.

A fact cannot be denigrated, and a religious opinion canot be taught in public schools. There’s nowhere to go with this.

Jack is quite right that science is not inherently atheistic.

But that is NOT my argument.

However, it is a FACT that many scientists who the public hears (although Jack repeatedly tries to avoid this at KCFS)like Dawkins, Dennet, Harris, Shermer, et al. use science as a cover for their atheistic propaganda.

Thus, for a teacher to recommend some of their materials could provide a basis for a challenge.

In my opinion only, of course.

Who knows, maybe the plaintiffs are working on it now?

Christensen fans on the puck again:

Just as promoting (establishing) a religious view is unconstitutional, so is DENIGRATING (restricting the free exercise thereof) a religious view unconstitutional.

Bad-mouthing the Bible-thumping ignorami isn’t restricting the excersize of their belief. It’s just voicing an opinion. Last I heard that was legal. What is not legal is teaching religion as science, no matter how it is disguised, camouflaged, and just plain lied about… isn’t there something in that book about ‘bearing false witness’? Or are there exceptions to that rule?

Who knows, maybe the plaintiffs are working on it now?

I sincerely hope so. I *love* the smell of creationuts frying themselves in court in the morning. I hope they continue to file lots and LOTS of idiotic court cases that they have no prayer at all of winning.

(snicker) (giggle)

ID was dead even before Dover. But alas, the IDiots will continue to prop up the stinking corpse and walk it around, a la Weekend at Bernie’s, for as long as they can continue to wring something out of the dubes.

The argument that science is inherently atheistic is the key argument used by Calvert et al in supporting the Kansas science standards.

But ID isn’t about religion. no sirree Bob. It’s just them lying atheist darwinists who say it is. (snicker)

Perhaps Christensen would be kind enough to testify in any future court case that opposition to evolution is just another way of fighting the atheists. (giggle)

I sure am glad that creationist/IDers are SOOOO utterly stubborn, dumb and unimaginative. It makes it sooooo much easier to fry them in court every time.

So who ya gonna blame?

I hold you personally responsible.

I only mean that as half satire; your idiotic statement that ID would have anything to do with the public school system belies the fact that folks with YOUR attitude, and the the thing that ID is essentially, creationism, do in fact play a large role in dumbing down kids, and reducing their performance in the public school system.

So yes, in a way i do blame ID, because it is a total drain on what should really be the focus on real science education. Moreover, your support of it tacitly amounts to support of that drain, so I do hold you personally responsible.

are you gettin it yet?

In my opinion only, of course.

Which is utterly worthless, of course, being based on ignorance, dishonesty, and willful stupidity.

I venture a prediction by the way.

The next move, coming soon, will be in the Constitutional area.

Just as promoting (establishing) a religious view is unconstitutional, so is DENIGRATING (restricting the free exercise thereof) a religious view unconstitutional.

Well, of course that would maintain ID’s current practice of simply repeating everything that the creation “scientists” already tried decades ago. I suggest you do a Google for “Segraves v California” and “Peloza v Capistrano”. Your, uh, legal strategy has already been laughed right out of the building. Twice.

I am of course not surprised in the slightest that such an ardent IDer as yourself would indeed be completely totally utterly absolutely pig-ignorant of any preceding history.

“Denigrating a religion” sounds a lot like blasphemy.  Blasphemy is protected speech under the Constitution.

You may believe this is wrong and try to undo it, but be careful what you wish for.  If you do revoke it, the Islamists will be the first to take advantage of the ability to prosecute (and they’ll prosecute you).

If you do revoke it, the Islamists will be the first to take advantage of the ability to prosecute (and they’ll prosecute you).

Given that Christian fundies have been doing that without regards to free speech (they even send death threats to a federal judge), it won’t be just the Islamists.

Just any fundamentalist of any religion. Christian, Jew, Muslim. If they’re fundie, they’ll take advantage even now if they believe they can cover their tracks well.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Nick Matzke published on August 2, 2006 12:42 AM.

Kansas Primary Election Results was the previous entry in this blog.

Tangled Bank #59 is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter