In the News: Experts won't back Dover
Jason Spaceman
---------------------------------------
School district lawyer claims conflict with intelligent-design advocates
By LAURI LEBO
Daily Record/Sunday News
Sunday, June 19, 2005
Seemingly, they're would-be allies.
But a disagreement last week over legal representation means three experts with
connections to the pro-intelligent design Discovery Institute will not be
testifying in a federal court case on behalf of the Dover Area School Board.
The three experts ? William Dembski, Stephen Meyer and John Campbell ? were
slated for testimony on the debate over intelligent design.
But last week, their names were removed from the list before they could give
depositions in the case.
Eric Rothschild, plaintiffs' attorney with Pepper Hamilton, said he was baffled
by the decision.
Meyer is the director of Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science
and Culture, which funds research projects related to intelligent design.
Dembski and Campbell are senior fellows there.
Dembski, a mathematician and scientific philosopher, said the Thomas More Law
Center, which is defending the school board, basically fired him because he
wanted to have his own attorney present during the depositions.
He said he's puzzled and frustrated by Thomas More's refusal to let him
participate.
"I felt like I was in the crossfire," Dembski said.
----------------------------------------
Read it at http://ydr.com/story/doverbiology/74477/
J. Spaceman
--
My email address (notr...@jspaceman.homelinux.org) is fake. Email sent to it
will only get caught in my spam tarpit.
Bobby D. Bryant
> He said he's puzzled and frustrated by Thomas More's refusal to let him
> participate.
>
> "I felt like I was in the crossfire," Dembski said.
Maybe his tent wasn't the desired size.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
username_...@yahoo.com.au
> On Sun, 19 Jun 2005, Jason Spaceman <notr...@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:
>
> > He said he's puzzled and frustrated by Thomas More's refusal to let him
> > participate.
> >
> > "I felt like I was in the crossfire," Dembski said.
>
> Maybe his tent wasn't the desired size.
Dembski wanted a big tent, More preferred a medium tent. It lets him
speak for all of those scientists who died before Darwin and didn't
endorse evolution.
username_...@yahoo.com.au
> On Sun, 19 Jun 2005, Jason Spaceman <notr...@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:
>
> > He said he's puzzled and frustrated by Thomas More's refusal to let him
> > participate.
> >
> > "I felt like I was in the crossfire," Dembski said.
>
> Maybe his tent wasn't the desired size.
Dembski wanted a big tent, More preferred a medium tent. It lets him
Ron O
Also from the article:
QUOTE:
Even though Discovery is probably the country's leading proponent of
intelligent design, it opposes the Dover Area School Board's decision
to make the concept regarding life's origins part of its science
curriculum.
Its members say they don't oppose intelligent design being taught in
the schools, they merely oppose it being mandated.
In December, 11 parents filed a lawsuit against the decision, arguing
that the board violated the First Amendment clause prohibiting the
establishment of religion.
While Dembski said he disagrees with many aspects of Darwinism,
"there is still a long way at hammering out ID as a full-fledged
research program. That said, there is nobody I know that says
intelligent design should be mandated. I think this is the problem with
Dover. It's not a way you build consensus and help education
along."
But Richard Thompson, Thomas More president, said the decision to not
use the three experts had nothing to do with their positions on
intelligent design and whether it should be mandated in a classroom.
Rather, he said he objected to the experts bringing along their own
lawyers, calling it a "conflict of interest."
"The case involves the school board and the parents," he said.
"Now, if you have attorneys coming in and representing the experts
and their attorneys are saying, 'Don't answer that question,'
then you have a conflict with the aims of the school board."
Thompson said the problem arose in the past several weeks when the
Discovery Institute insisted that its people have separate legal
representation.
END QUOTE:
Why would the Discovery Institute scam artists need their own legal
representation? Can you take the fifth when you are answering
questions for a deposition? What answers would incriminate them?
Would their lawyers have been able to get up in court and tell their
clients not to answer certain questions when they were on the witness
stand? Gee, I wonder.... What would it have been like if you heard
something like "I can not answer that question because the answer may
incriminate me." in court from the scam artists at the Discovery
Institute?
Who at the Discovery Institute wrote the Wedge document? The Discovery
Institute admits that it was a fund raising document, but they either
lied in it or they changed their minds about ID. Is it against the law
to misrepresent something like Intelligent design in a fund raising
document? Is that fraud?
Why does the Wedge document clearly use intelligent design as the Wedge
and not the "teach the controversy" replacement scam? ID was the
original scam, so why did the Wedgies drop it for the replacment scam?
Was ID ever the Wedge and did they know that it was bogus and didn't
measure up at the time the Wedge document was written? Why not tell
the people of Dover their reasons for changing their minds if they did,
in fact, change their minds?
Can the DI reps still be called as hostile witnesses by the opposition?
They should know why ID comes up short better than anyone else. They
have their reasons for not teaching it, so why couldn't they be called
as witnesses? Even their refusal to answer certain questions would
tell the judge something about ID.
QUOTE:
Its members say they don't oppose intelligent design being taught in
the schools, they merely oppose it being mandated.
END QUOTE:
What kind of utter bullshit is this? If you can't support teaching it,
why sneak it into the classroom through some back door? Why rely on
the ignorance or incompetence of some teacher to get your ideas taught?
If you have something to teach you should be able to defend it on any
level. You should know specifically how you want it taught and you
should have a lesson plan to demonstrate that ID could be taught
honestly in the science classroom. They have no lesson plan. They
haven't even produced their own "teach the controversy" lesson plan.
The scam artists want their hands clean and they want the ignorant
rubes to take the falls.
This is the same parting scam that Meyers left the rubes on the Ohio
state board with. He claimed that he didn't support teaching it at the
state level, but he thought that intelligent design could be taught at
the local level. Now we have Dover and they oppose mandating teaching
ID, but they are OK with teaching it if someone ignorant or dishonest
enough wants to teach it in its present inadequate state. ID is
inadequate even by the Discovery Institute's Wedgie standards, so why
even claim to be able to teach it?
If anyone didn't believe that ID is nothing but a creationist scam,
this should be the turning point for even the most thick headed
advocate. Why would the Discovery Institute need their own legal
representation if they were legit?
Ron Okimoto
Ian H Spedding
>
> On Sun, 19 Jun 2005, Jason Spaceman <notr...@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:
>
> > He said he's puzzled and frustrated by Thomas More's refusal to let him
> > participate.
> >
> > "I felt like I was in the crossfire," Dembski said.
>
> Maybe his tent wasn't the desired size.
Maybe they were afraid they'd be charged with loitering with intent.
<rimshot>
(The old ones are the best.)
Ian
--
Ian H Spedding
TomS
<1119186743.4...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Ron O stated..."
[...snip...]
>advocate. Why would the Discovery Institute need their own legal
>representation if they were legit?
I don't like this kind of question. If I'm not guilty, why am
I availing myself of my rights?
I think that if I were able to afford a lawyer at my side, I would
at least ask a lawyer if it was a good idea.
--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
..The Earth obey'd, and strait/Op'ning her fertil Woomb teem'd at a Birth/
Innumerous living Creatures, perfet formes,/Limb'd and full grown: out of the
ground up rose/As from his Laire the wilde Beast...
Milton, Paradise Lost. Book VII 453-457
Bobby D. Bryant
> "On 19 Jun 2005 06:12:23 -0700, in article
> <1119186743.4...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Ron O stated..."
> [...snip...]
>>advocate. Why would the Discovery Institute need their own legal
>>representation if they were legit?
>
> I don't like this kind of question. If I'm not guilty, why am
> I availing myself of my rights?
>
> I think that if I were able to afford a lawyer at my side, I would
> at least ask a lawyer if it was a good idea.
Perhaps that would be wise.
However, ISTM that you can calculate the number of sides by counting the
number of teams of lawyers. Apparently the DI folk don't think the TM's
lawyers have their best interests in mind, and the TM folk don't think
the DI lawyers have _their_ best interests in mind.
ianpa...@gmail.com
1) Does Evolution with random mutation provide an adaquate explanation
for everything we obseve.
2) Should it be mandated in schools.
I feel that to adaquately begin to answer question 1 one needs a
considerable background which few students will possess. To say I
believe in ID but I do not approve of it being mandated, or of the
legal shinanogins is completely consistent.
I personally believe that the lawyers are being inherenly dishonest. A
lot of the shool board believe in <10K yr. The leeches are fastening on
to this..
Roger Coppock
Dover is lost, and the Discovery folks know that.
Nick
> "On 19 Jun 2005 06:12:23 -0700, in article
> <1119186743.4...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Ron O stated..."
> [...snip...]
> >advocate. Why would the Discovery Institute need their own legal
> >representation if they were legit?
>
> I don't like this kind of question. If I'm not guilty, why am
> I availing myself of my rights?
If the Discovery Institute were being sued, that would be one thing.
But they are neither a plaintiff or defendant in Kitzmiller v. Dover.
Rather, some DI fellows are testifying, on their own accord, as expert
witnesses.
Or, were. I think 5 of the ID experts were DI fellows; now Meyer,
Dembski, and Campbell have dropped out, leaving Behe and Minnich. But
there are many long months before the trial in September...
Ron O
TomS wrote:
> "On 19 Jun 2005 06:12:23 -0700, in article
> <1119186743.4...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Ron O stated..."
> [...snip...]
> >advocate. Why would the Discovery Institute need their own legal
> >representation if they were legit?
>
> I don't like this kind of question. If I'm not guilty, why am
> I availing myself of my rights?
Sure, I agree that anyone is intitled to representation, but the
Discovery Institute hasn't been sued or charged with anything at this
time. What expert witness needs representation? How many expert guys
that testify in criminal investigations have their own lawyers in the
courtroom? If this were really about the science and not some scam
that they have been running for over a decade they wouldn't need
representation.
The funny thing is that if there are civil suits against the DI they
will come from the guys that they have scammed and have made to look
like idiots in public. You know, the guys that have repeated their
junk and even tried to get it taught.
Ron Okimoto
Ron O
I don't see what this has to do with Tom's comment.
Whatever the answers to 1 or 2 are doesn't matter in terms of whether
ID should be taught. Evolution could be totally bogus, and ID would
still be even more bogus. If ID is too bogus to consider teaching, why
would anyone consider teaching it? You are trying to shave some pretty
thin hairs. If you can't justify teaching it, why advocate teaching
it? Why claim that you want to teach it, but you don't want it
mandated? What difference does that make? You still have to answer
the question of whether you can teach it or not, and it is obvious that
Dembski and the other scam artists at the DI aren't willing to justify
teaching it to the public.
If they want to advocate teaching ID let them put up a lesson plan so
that everyone can see what they want to teach. ID is obviously a scam
because they have yet to do that simple thing. No lesson plan, no
evidence that they have anything valid to teach. Where is the DI's
"teach the controversy" lesson plan? Why do they want to keep their
hands clean and make the rubes that they've scammed put up the bogus
lesson plans?
These guys wouldn't know honesty or integrity if it bit them in the
face. Where is Dembski's ID lesson plan if he still thinks that ID can
be taught in the public schools? I rest my case.
Ron Okimoto
ianpa...@gmail.com
against each other you would need to run simulation ofn a GA and then
find out the limits of the technique.
I think too that Dover has lost, everyone does indeed know this. There
is of course one eternal winner. The lawyers on both sides. Michael
Jackson cost $60e6 and Arnold Schwartznegger lost. Personally I would
"terminate" the prosecutor.
Ron O
I still don't get what this has to do with Tom's post or with your
questions 1 or 2.
How does mathematics fit in? GA run offs with what? ID and some other
kind of selection? How would you do the experiment? You are stuck
with at the point that the IDiots are stuck at. They can't demonstrate
that their notions are viable. You can make all the assertions that
you want, but as long as you can't test them and verify them they are
worthless to science.
Ron Okimoto