Defending truth and free speech takes a lot of effort

As part of his goals for the New Year, my husband wants to create global utopia in 2009.

OK, maybe that's night quite fair. He wants to come up with a plan for utopia in 2009. He admits that actual implementation may take a bit longer.

So now he's outlining his goals. And one of the things Jeff finds frustrating and would like to eliminate in his Utopian society is the prolific lying that so often passes in this nation for honest debate. (Think the tactics of the intelligent-design movement and its leaders like the Discovery Institute.)

Now maybe it's not fair of me to air my side of our marital disagreements like this (especially without allowing him to present his side) but hey, I'm a writer. That's just the way I roll. He knew this when he married me.

And this is just too fraught with opportunity to ignore.

So, as he says, in his utopia, "People wouldn't be allowed to spread lies."

To which I ask, "So, you're saying you want to criminalize free speech? In utopia?"

Oh sure, he hems and haws and insists that isn't exactly what he means. Then he tries to misdirect the argument and tells me that as long as I'm not willing to do something decisively to halt the deception foisted on the public, then nothing will change.

To which I reply: Darlin', I love you, but you're a freakin' moron. (Except I don't really say "freakin.'")

Then I tell him that I'm sorry that I just can't get down with his little tyranny thing.

To which he replies, "How is that tyranny?" even though he knows damn well what I mean by tyranny, but he's got an argument to win.

Sigh. And on and on it goes. He and I can't seem to schedule five minutes a week to balance our bank accounts, but we can fight for days over stuff like this.

(I should note, in the interest of fairness, that this is the way my husband processes things. He starts out with an extreme position and works his way back to a state of reason. But he always comes back.)

And the truth is, I understand his frustration. Who doesn't?

Spend five minutes on the Internet and you'll easily come up with countless egregious acts of misinformation, like, oh say, here, here and here.

Those spreading these lies count on a public to be too ill informed and overwhelmed by information to understand their deceptions.

But, of course, as ACLU members know, the answer isn't to silence those lies with government restrictions. Rather, it's exposing them with the light of truth. Granted, the system isn't neat and tidy. And it takes a lot of work. But it can also be satisfying. So satisfying.

Take, for example, the Kitzmiller case. Remember how after the trial, the pro-intelligent design board members, who lied through their testimony, were voted out of office by an electorate that had grown tired of the deception? That was cool.

But now Casey Luskin of the Discovery Institute wants to go back and rehash the trial, all in an effort to convince readers that intelligent design did not get a fair shake in Harrisburg's federal courthouse.

In a series of posts, he goes over the testimony of defendants' witness Michael Behe and plaintiffs' witness Ken Miller and the issue of irreducible complexity of the blood clotting cascade, which both scientists revealed during testimony to be an utter scientific fraud. (Even though I'm pretty sure that wasn't Behe's intention.)

Why would Casey Luskin be bringing up Dover more than three years after Judge Jones' decision? Doesn't he have something better to do? Like scientific research? ... Ummm, well, the Discovery Institute does no scientific research. It's sole existence is to engage in deceiving the public with lie-filled propaganda. The kind of institution that my poor misguided husband thinks he'd like to see banned from public discourse.

So Luskin goes to great contortions in a series of posts called Smoke and Mirrors (Here, here and here) to say that irreducible complexity, the idea that if a working part of the blood clotting cascade were removed, the entire system would collapse and we'd all bleed to death from a paper cut. So that must mean the system could not possibly have evolved through gradual evolutionary processes.

But it's not true. And no matter how many times he whines about it will never make it true.

Sure, it's tempting to want to make Luskin just shut up. Yes, Casey ... please... shut up. Sure, some people end up believing the lies he's peddling. Sure, his goal is to slip his religious views past the First Amendment's Establishment Clause and force them on our children. I get all that. And that's slimy stuff.

But of course, forcing Casey to shut up would only betray the foundations of democracy.

So, instead, we respond with the truth. As Ken Miller, guest blogging for The Loom, did in a series of terrific posts. Using a howitzer to swat a mosquito, as one observer put it.

His responses are here, here and here.

Miller writes:

Luskin's willingness to misread Behe is then followed by an even more brazen attempt to misrepresent, "irreducible complexity," ID's own argument against evolution. The one strength of that argument is that it makes a testable prediction, namely, that the individual parts of an irreducibly complex biochemical system should have no function until all of those parts are assembled together. The difficulty, which Luskin has worked mightily to obscure, is that "irreducible complexity" fails that test at every turn. So he pretends that the existence of fully-functional clotting systems that are missing as many as five parts of the "irreducibly complex" system is no big deal. It is, in fact, a very, very big deal — because it shows that his argument, the claim of "design," and his revisionist account of the Dover trial are all dead wrong.

So, why even respond to Luskin? The Judge Jones' decision was a decisive smack down more than three years ago. Why all the hoopla now?

In his conclusion, Miller explains:

The only relevant question at this point is why the Discovery Institute keeps highlighting its own failings in this way. Why are Casey and his employers now — three years after the Dover trial — trying to rehabilitate the tattered credibility of both Michael Behe and Pandas? What mischief are they planning now? The only conclusion I can draw is that they must be maneuvering for the next round of state board hearings or legislative sessions — and I'm concerned. These folks are a whole lot better at politics and public relations than they are at science, and that means that everyone who cares about science education should be on guard.

So, gear up for the next battle.

True, it's not exactly a Utopian ideal, where we all get to sit around and eat grapes and pick flowers. This system of governance takes a lot of diligence, and hard work, and rational debate in the face of frustrating arrogance and irrational behavior. But until my husband comes up with something much better, thank you very much, I'll keep defending what we've got.

Lauri in York

Civil liberties summer reading list

SF is not going to become a place where authors can pitch us to read and review their books, so any writers out there, don't bother writing us that email. But the two books I've most recently completed have a civil liberties connection, so this seems like as good a place as any to share.

I most recently finished Freedom for the Thought that We Hate: A Biography of the First Amendment by Anthony Lewis. This was a great book for learning more about the history of free speech and free press in the United States. (Despite the title, the book focuses on speech and press and not other aspects of the 1st A.) This book is a reminder that we really are in the high time of free speech in America.

The book reads a bit like a history text, but it is a relatively easy read. Lewis has a topic for each chapter and then explains key cases on that topic.

Before that, I finished off The Devil in Dover: An Insider's Story of Dogma v. Darwin in Small-Town America by regular SF contributor Lauri Lebo, aka "Lauri in York". This was a great read. I killed it off in five days, which is highly unusual for me. I had multiple sittings where I read 50-75 pages at a time, again highly unusual.

The real draw of Lauri's book is the narrative she spins. The book reads like a novel, and it's incredible that it's non-fiction! As a native of this area, Lauri gives great context of life in south central PA, which adds flavor to the broader story of America's battle over evolution.

For fans of the first amendment and civil liberties, check these out!

Andy in Harrisburg

Creationism 3.0

For awhile, it looked like Florida would be the likely contender. Missouri, Michigan and Alabama all vied for the honor. But now, it looks like the title of Most-Likely-To-Violate-The-First-Amendment-In-The-Interest-Of-Forcing-Creationism-
Into-Science-Class will go to ...

May I see the envelope, please...

Louisiana!

Barbara Forrest, the expert witness in the 2005 trial of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Board whose testimony exposed intelligent design's creationist roots, is now battling the anti-evolutionists again. This time on her own turf.

Proving that evolution does occur, the creationists, in the face of each defeat, have once again changed their tactics. The latest ruse goes by the name of "academic freedom," which Forrest says is a code for allowing educators to teach kids that evolution is a lie.

The state House just passed a bill this week that purports to "promote[] critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning."

The National Center for Science Education has the details.

The Discovery Institute, which has been pushing the legislation and has long been trying to push creationism into science class under the guise of intelligent design, is shocked (Shocked, I tell you!) that anyone would accuse them of pushing a religious agenda. But state Rep. Ben Nevers, told the Hammond Daily Star that the Louisiana Family Forum, which is also lobbying behind the scenes, "believes the scientific data related to creationism should be discussed when dealing with Darwin's theory."

The Louisiana Science Coalition has put out a news release urging state senators to vote against a version of the House Bill that was passed 94-3. The plea will likely fall on deaf ears. The state Senate unanimously passed a similar bill. The site provides plenty of background on exactly what is going on in Louisiana and what we might expect in other states if this bill becomes law.

But as has been said about Forrest, she is Kryptonite to creationists. And even as she has been fighting the bill, she has also no doubt been documenting the evidence should this become a lawsuit.

Already the ACLU and the Americans United for Separation of Church and State have warned that, as the AU's Barry Lynn said, there will be legal action if the measure is used "to promote religion in Louisiana public schools."

Stay tuned...

Lauri in York

This I believe...

From presidential candidate Mitt Romney's speech yesterday:

Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom
opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most
profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure
together, or perish alone.

Ummm, Mitt? What are you saying? That we all have to be believe in God to be free? Is that what you're saying? Because it sounds like that's what you're saying.

Granted, you were addressing the issues of your Mormon faith and you were really only speaking to your evangelical critics, who have blasted your religion because it isn't the right form of Christianity. Vote for Romney is Vote for Satan!

But, really, all pandering to the fundamentalist base aside, don't you think that's ... well...stupid? And, well, a complete misunderstanding of the principles on which this nation was founded?

And, if I might, I'd like to get some clarification on this as well:

Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our constitution rests.

Sure, there's a lot of wiggle room in that sentence, but what it sounds like to me is that you're saying judges should be interpreting the Constitution based on the Christian faith. Is that what you're saying? Really? Wow. Talk about your judicial activism.

Maybe I'm wrong.

But then...maybe I'm not:

I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from 'the God who gave us liberty.'

Honestly? I don't fear Romney's faith any more or less than those of other candidates of fundamentalist beliefs, or, even the faith of certain less dogmatic candidates who are nonetheless willing to sell their souls for evangelical support. Or those of a certain sitting president, who has declared his Christian faith is what has guided him into an unjust war. (OK, I'm lying there. I'm pretty much afraid of everything that guy believes.)

Because it's not faith and religious beliefs that I'm afraid of. What frightens me are those who don't get the First Amendment, those who hint that separation of church and state is a myth and only applies to specific denominations of Protestant faith.

In 1869, Catholic parents in Cincinnati asked that the Bible not be read in public school. The courts denied the request after outraged Protestants filed suit, arguing the reading of the Bible was necessary for good government. The Ohio Supreme Court overturned the lower court with these words:

When Christianity asks the aid of government beyond mere impartial protection, it denies itself. Its laws are divine, not human . . . . United with government, religion never rises above the merest superstition; united with religion, government never rises above the merest despotism; and all history shows us that the more widely and completely they are separated, the better it is for both.

I'm still not sure what you're saying Mitt, but that's what I believe.

Lauri in York

What desperation sounds like

You may remember a couple of years ago when the Dover school board was sued for requiring science teachers at its schools to teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolution. Tonight Nova premiered its two hour special on the Dover Intelligent Design trial. Now, two years after suffering a drubbing at the hands of the ACLU and the judge (a conservative Bush II appointee), the folks who brought you intelligent design are apparently searching for yet another path to get a whipping in court.

You see, the Nova documentary has an accompanying briefing packet for teachers. Here is the section from the FAQ portion of the briefing packet that has given Dr. John West and his cronies at the Discovery Institute the vapors:

"Can you accept evolution and still believe in religion?"

"Yes. The common view that evolution is anti-religious is simply false. All that evolution tells us is that life on this planet could have arisen by natural processes. For many people of various faiths, showing that something is due to a natural process doesn't take it outside the realm of the divine. Religious thinkers across the ages have written that merely showing that something is natural puts it within the influence of God, the creator of all nature. By definition science cannot address supernatural causes because its methodology is confined to the natural world. Therefore science has nothing to say about the nature of God or about people's spiritual beliefs. This does not mean science is anti-religious; rather it means science cannot engage in this level of explanation."

Dr. West and the Discovery Institute assert that this answer "encourages the injection of religion into classroom teaching about evolution in a way that likely would violate current Supreme Court precedents about the First Amendment's Establishment Clause". They have insinuated the threat of legal action against PBS, ominously warning that the Discovery Institute had sent the Nova teaching guide out to 16 attorneys and legal scholars for review and analysis of its constitutionality. If these are the same attorneys and legal scholars who worked on the Dover case for them, I'd say Nova and PBS don't have much to worry about.

What Dr. West and his colleagues ignore is that PBS can't violate the establishment clause or any other constitutional principle because PBS is not in the business of passing laws. In fact, last time I checked PBS can't compel anybody to do anything, otherwise we would probably be forced to spend a significant portion of our lives watching their interminable pledge drives. Aside from the obvious fact that PBS and Nova do not have the same legal authority to compel cooperation from educators as say, the Dover School Board, their assertion that the answer would violate the establishment clause is almost as thin as the scientific basis for intelligent design. It is quite clear that a discussion of "many people of various faiths" is far cry from a state sponsored establishment of a particular religion, even if it were a phrase uttered by a teacher in a public school classroom. What religion is being established here? Where does it say that one religion is more legitimate than another? As far as I can tell the FAQ answer simply points out that some people believe the natural world is also divine and that science really can't address any of these questions. Or maybe the Discovery Institute is taking on a new mission heretofore thought of as too wacky even for them: that evolution is just another religious "ism", so teaching evolution as science is the same as teaching Christianity or Judaism as science.

Of course, I wanted to tell you what the "16 attorneys and legal scholars" had to say about the constitutionality of the briefing packet. Unfortunately I can't because the press conference the Discovery Institute had planned to release the findings was canceled when Dr. West was stricken with a wicked case of laryngitis. I don't know about intelligent design, but that sure sounds like divine retribution to me.

Pamela in Pittsburgh

Aaaaaah! Noooooooo! It's back!!!

Presidential election years certainly seem to bring out the attacks on our children's education. (See 2004 and, umm, Dover?) There's just something about the campaign season that seems to really embolden fundamentalist leaders to try to tear down the wall of separation. It's hard to pinpoint why exactly. Maybe a certain pandering by candidates to the religious right?

Now, with 2008 just around the corner, it looks like it's shaping up to be a busy year for civil liberties watchdogs. Over at Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Rob Boston has an excellent article Public Schools Under Fire in the latest edition of Church & State.

Among the litany of attacks: Dubious Bible study classes; pressing students into evangelical duty; and, inevitably, the latest evolution of intelligent design. This time the creationist battle is brewing in Texas. Next year, the state will be revamping its science curriculum standards. And as Boston writes, "Advocates of sound science education are also watching Texas warily."

Boston explains:

"Gov. Perry has appointed Don McLeroy, a dentist from Bryan, as head of the State Board of Education. McLeroy, who was first elected to the board in 1998, has regularly voted to water down instruction about evolution.

"The Texas Freedom Network noted that McLeroy promoted ID during a 2005 speech delivered to his fundamentalist church. According to a report on the blog of The Texas Observer, McLeroy told the congregation that intelligent design is a "big tent" that represents religious conservatives' best shot at undermining evolution.
"Why is Intelligent Design the big tent?" asked McLeroy. "Because we're all lined up against the fact that naturalism, that nature is all there is. Whether you're a progressive creationist, recent creationist, young Earth, old Earth, it's all in the tent of Intelligent Design."

In something of a tactical switch, McLeroy recently stated that he opposes mandating the teaching of intelligent design in science class. Rather, he said, he would like to see the weaknesses of evolution taught more thoroughly. Sound familiar to anyone?

As a Texas Observer blog poster responded: "Get ready to redo the Scopes Trial, folks."

Lauri in York

What is the sound of one head banging?

The Discovery Institute is still flailing over the very public flogging of intelligent design a year and a half ago. Three articles- two pro-ID (written by DI peeps) and one anti-ID- appear in the latest issue of the Montana Law Review. Ed over at Dispatches from the Culture Wars has a run down.

I love the title of the first section of Irons' article: THE DISCOVERY INSTITUTE'S EFFORTS TO "SWIFT-BOAT" JUDGE JONES. This is a very important bit of work because he documents, as I and others have done, the DI's campaign to smear Judge Jones in order to sow doubt about his ruling.

This really demonstrates, as much as anything, the purely political nature of the ID movement. In response to the ruling, the Discovery Institute behaved exactly like partisan political groups behave: truth be damned, undermine your opponent with distortions, half-truths and ad hominem attacks designed to damage their standing in the eyes of their followers.

Unfortunately, Ed also forewarns us of another brouhaha over intelligent design that is brewing in Virginia. Reading this post brings back warm memories of one of my favorite parts of blogging the ID issue. The readers comments are always hilarious.

As for the ID'ers, I feel like that scene in Tommy Boy where Tommy says, "Please go away, let me sleep, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD!"

Andy in Harrisburg

Dover junkies, rejoice

For those of you who miss the lies, laughter, and tears of the Dover intelligent design trial, you'll be happy to know that the first book about the trial was just published. Written by Pulitzer-prize winning journalist Edward Humes, Monkey Girl: Evolution, Education, Religion and the Battle for America's Soul "chronicles the second coming of the infamous Scopes Monkey Trial, a story about what happens when science and religion collide," according to the author's website.

It's gotten good reviews, and I hear from those who have read it that it's very favorable to our side of the issue. I enjoyed the LA Times review, which had this quote:

...I know the pervasive power of religious fundamentalism in America. Or at least I thought I did. Humes...has opened my eyes. I only wish I could close them again.

Also of particular interest is the York Dispatch article on the book.
We'd love to hear comments from anyone who's read the book!

Note: Edward Humes will be at a book signing at University of Pennsylvania bookstore this coming Monday, Feb. 12 (Darwin's birthday), from 7 to 8:15 pm.

Sara in Philly

Merry Kitzmas!

Do you know where you were this time last year? It's the one year anniversary of the release of Judge Jones's wonderful opinion in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (a.k.a. the intelligent design challenge). In honor of the occasion, the York Dispatch has an article about the writer working on adapting the trial into a screenplay for Paramount Pictures. (Be warned - it's actually a movie "inspired" by the events in Dover.)

In a nice bit of timing, the Cobb County (Georgia) School Board announced yesterday that it will not be placing anti-evolution stickers in high school biology textbooks. The case began in 2002, when the school board decided to place stickers inside the biology textbooks that questioned the validity of evolution. "School officials also agreed not to take other actions that would undermine the teaching of evolution in biology classes," according to the Americans United for Separation of Church and State press release. Several of the same attorneys from the Dover case were involved in the Cobb County effort, including Richard Katskee, assistant legal director of Americans United, and Eric Rothschild of Pepper Hamilton. (No word yet if there will be a movie on of this one.)

Ah! It's the Sudden (Re-)Emergence of the Discovery Institute

I thought for sure that by now the crew at the Discovery Institute had found new careers at Starbucks. But I was wrong.

A federal judge who barred a Pennsylvania school district from teaching "intelligent design" virtually copied findings suggested by the winning side in a key section of the landmark ruling, according to a think tank that promotes the concept and has criticized the decision.

Alas, now we learn that not only are the DI boys not experts in science but law is also not their area of expertise.

But legal experts say it is common for judges in civil cases to rely heavily on findings proposed by lawyers when they write their opinions - and there is nothing wrong with copying those findings if the legal briefs have been well-prepared.

The DI properly got the smack down from our own Vic Walczak...

"They're getting no traction in the scientific world so they're trying to do something ... as a PR stunt to get attention," said Witold Walczak, legal director for the ACLU of Pennsylvania and the ACLU's lead attorney on the case.

"That's not how scientists work," he said. "Discovery Institute is trying to litigate a year-old case in the media."

Walczak said the Discovery Institute staff is not, as it claims, interested in finding scientific truths; it is more interested in a "cultural war," pushing for intelligent design and publicly criticizing a judge.

"Why don't these guys go back to their 'labs,' and do something meaningful?" Walczak asked. "Oh, wait. They don't have labs. Silly me."

...and the York Dispatch:

Well, they're back. Why is anybody's guess, but their latest public relations stunt, claiming that Judge Jones in his final ruling copied text from motions filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on the behalf of the plaintiffs, smacks of more goofiness.

Further -- and this is the silliest part -- a spokesman for the institute claimed that the use of that text in the ruling undercuts its credibility.

Note to Seattle: That's not how it works, folks. At least not in the last 200 years of American jurisprudence. Judge Jones' credibility remains intact, Discovery Institute's claims flop.

I wonder where the DI is getting its funding these days.


Any day now we'll probably hear again from Constitutional Expert Bill Buckingham.

Andy in H-burg