12.29.05
Darwin on Appeal?
Law.com has an article on the trial lawyers in the Dover case. Should the case be appealed? Needs a good lawyer.
When given the chance to talk about their efforts in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Board, Rothschild and Harvey quickly reiterate the plaintiffs’ argument — one they seem to hold just as strongly.
“The science is just a façade, a Potemkin village,” Rothschild said.
He said the biggest challenge for his team was deconstructing the defense’s argument that intelligent design is a science.
The science is a facade? Which is it, ID or Darwinism that is a facade? Deconstruction being a postmodern term, perhaps we can deconstruct ’science’ here.
“The argument that intelligent design qualifies as science is incredibly weak,” Harvey said. “Intelligent design doesn’t even qualify as bad science — it’s not science.”
I was just reading Susskind’s The Cosmic Landscape. Here we have a string theorist, in one of the most complex fields of modern science, with his back to the wall on the question of the Anthropic Principle. To say that the design argument is not science, or incredibly weak, is not concordant with the facts. This book shows that a scientific version of the botched ID argument is not only more than possible, it’s a crucial bit of science. And in fact it may be that physics here will show the way through this quagmire. The IDM challenge is too feeble, and too vulnerable to legal sharpshooters who, for a fee, could just as easy show the incredible weakness in the Darwinian position.
So, to these two lawyers basking in Scopes II glory, what’s your price, for the rerun? I can’t wait to see Darwinists crossexamined. How that could happen, I’m not sure. Maybe a product liability suit. This theory stinks and has a bad Oedipus Effect, a high ‘coefficient of murder’.
“They have manufactured a controversy in the public arena and then insisted that it should be taught,” he said.
More power to them. What else can anyone do? Against the Darwin juggernaut everyone is helpless. A bunch of half-educated nerds are obsessed with a flawed and vulgar species or reductionist myth that even quarter-educated Bible Belters can see is problematic have foisted their fallacy on a whole culture. A good manufactured lawsuit is about right. This theory is a big excuse for the powerful to hurt people, and has a clear genocidal history, and the ACLU ought to consider the point, and the propaganda used to cover up the theoretical fraud. This propaganda has metathesized and produced a generation of technicians incapable of reasoning properly on evolution, which preempts any interior self-critique. Hence that critique must come from the outside.
The public arena is exactly where these two attorneys can be found in the coming weeks and months.
They said they have been spending their time since the trial doing interviews for radio, TV and newspapers. Their calendars are now full with speaking engagements.
The next scheduled talk, and by no accident, will be in Kansas, where an intelligent design battle is brewing.
Both attorneys have a strong place for religion in their personal lives and said this case was meant to protect religion. For them it was about protecting the First Amendment and separation of church and state, they said.
“The right to believe includes the right not to believe,” Harvey said.
Rothschild and Harvey dismiss the arguments by intelligent design supporters that say Jones’ strongly worded decision in the case is supportive of dogmatism.
“There is nothing about this judge’s decision that will stop experts from doing whatever they want in their labs,” Rothschild said, but he added that only the fundamentals should be taught in public schools.
“Nobody is teaching alchemy in chemistry class so students can get another viewpoint,” he said.
The wording of Jones’ opinion attracted just as much attention at times as the decision itself.
Jones criticized the school board for its policy and bringing the community into this “legal maelstrom.”
He also went into a lengthy discussion of the history and meaning of intelligent design, which some groups criticized as being activist.