Video: Kitzmiller v Dover is on the web!

NOVA produced a pretty great episode a couple of years ago about our 2005 case against teaching intelligent design in science classes, Kitzmiller v Dover Area School District. It's almost two hours long and examines the case from several angles, and it's pretty entertaining - and it's actually a pretty good two-hour lesson on the basic tenets of both intelligent design and evolution theory, including the origins of the flagellum, the relevance of using a mousetrap as a tie clip, and the missing link between creation and intelligent design, "cdesign proponentsists."

The video is available on the web for free. The embedded version below comes from Google Video, which loads considerably faster than the one at PBS.org. While I'm at it, I'll also plug Devil in Dover, a book about the trial written by ACLU of Pennsylvania board member Lauri Lebo, who also appears in the NOVA episode.

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

The Boss (hearts) Dover

This morning, I'm staring bleary eyed into the computer screen. "Thunder Road" is playing on my I-pod.

The screen door slams
Mary' dress waves
Like a vision she dances across the porch
As the radio plays

I'm jealously thinking that I will never write a narrative that so completely encapsulates not the big story, but a perfect little moment, a tiny shiny sliver of existence. But that's why he's the Boss.

Bear with my overburdensome prose. I'm sleepy.

Last night, I stayed up far too late with some good friends - Friends made through Dover's famous intelligent design trial. Vic Walczak, ACLU-PA's legal director, Steve Harvey, one of the Pepper Hamilton attorneys who represented the plaintiffs, his wife Mimi, Cyndi Sneath, one of the trial's 11 parents who believed in standing up for the religious freedom of their children, her husband Paul and my husband Jeff.

As everyone who knows Walczak is already aware, the guy is a huge Bruce Springsteen fan. Huge. So, when he learned that Springsteen was playing in Hershey, Walczak suggested that a bunch of Dover folks go to the concert. So that's where we were. Just a few yards from the stage.

Springsteen is, of course, a natural draw for these folks, those who believe in defending the Constitution. Springsteen's support of civil liberties is evident to even the most casual listener. On his latest CD Magic, he sings about the past eight years in "Livin' in the Future":

My ship Liberty sailed away
On a bloody red horizon
The groundskeeper opened the gates
And let the wild dogs run

Anyway, the concert, by the way, was incredible. And it was noted by the press that Springsteen played a song that hasn't made his set list in years: "Part Man/Part Monkey".

Well, there's a story about why it was played last night. It's not a big story. Just a perfect little moment. Here's the little background that you won't read about in the reviews of the concert.

Every morning before the 2005 trial, Walczak climbed in his car headed for the courthouse and ritualistically played the song. Every...single...day. That's because in August 2005, Springsteen introduced the song at a New Jersey concert with the words, "Folks in Dover aren't sure about evolution. Here in New Jersey, we're counting on it."

Well did God make man in a breath of holy fire
Or did he crawl on up out of the muck and mire
Well the man on the street believes what the bible tells him so
Well you can ask me, mister, because I know
Tell them soul-suckin' preachers to come on down and see
Part man, part monkey, baby that's me

So, knowing that Dover had made it onto Springsteen's radar, Walczak saw an opportunity. He called a few friends last week, who had a few friends... And, Mr. Springsteen, no doubt because he supports the ACLU and the Bill of Rights, agreed to not only meet us, but he also granted Walczak's rather giddy request. "We're kinda hoping you'd play 'Part Man/Part Monkey'?" Springsteen, more than a little hesitantly, asked Walczak who he should dedicate the song to.

Later, after first telling the audience that the band didn't remember how to play the song, Springsteen dedicated "Part Man/Part Monkey" to, "the Dover parents and sound science education." Just as Walczak had asked.

And then, of course, the E Street Band nailed a terrific Bob Marley-infused version.

So, there you have it. It's not a big story. Just a perfect little moment.

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

When little constitutional violations become big ones

There were folks, including the Dover school board's attorney Richard Thompson, who called the entire Dover case a "tempest in a teapot." Trying to downplay the religious significance of what they were trying to pull, they said the entire First Amendment case was based on a mere four-paragraph statement, one that only mentioned the concept of intelligent design.

But of course, there is no such thing as a "little constitutional violation" and the following case exemplifies why. Because if ignored, if accepted in the name of tolerance, these little unchecked constitutional violations almost certainly grow to become something much more ugly.

This week, Ohio parents filed suit against their 8th grade son's science teacher John Freshwater and the Mount Vernon School District. The reason? According to an independent consultant's report, in addition to a long list of brazen disregard for his students' First Amendment rights, the teacher used an electro-static device to burn a cross into their kid's forearm.

Yup. You read that right. But don't take my word. Read the story in the Columbus Dispatch and look at the picture.

More importantly, read the consultant's report (PDF). Read all of the report. The much-awaited results of the investigation conducted at the behest of the school district provides details that say Freshwater "undermined science instruction in the public school district by discrediting evolution in his classroom and focusing on creationism and intelligent design." He had been proselytizing and teaching students creationist ideas for as long as 11 years. District administrators had received numerous complaints over the years, but other than asking him to stop, nothing was ever done.

From the report,

"a teacher who was present in Mr. Freshwaters' classroom on a substitute basis for one period in either 2006 or 2007 (The teacher could not recall which year) stated in a written statement (Copy as Attachment 15): "The lesson of the day had been on the creation of the universe. John talked about how the textbook could be wrong. He said, 'Let me give you an example of how science can be wrong.' He then went on to say that an article in Time magazine a few years back stated that scientists had found a genetic link to homosexuality. 'In that case science is wrong because the Bible states that homosexuality is a sin' and so anyone who is gay chooses to be gay and therefore is a sinner. My reaction was one of disbelief that he was saying these things to eighth graders. I thought of how those two or three students in that classroom who might be struggling with their sexual identities would be feeling, hearing that they were sinners from a teacher. ... I was surprised at how comfortable John was talking about the Bible stating that homosexuality is a sin, and that anyone who is gay makes a conscious choice to be so. ... He had no problem declaring that not only can science be wrong by the example he gave, but heavily implied that the students' textbook was wrong as well on how the universe was created."

It's hard to believe, but the report concluded:

Mr. Freshwater did improperly use an electrostatic device on the student who filed the complaint and other students in his science class in a manner that was not in compliance with the manufacturer's instructions. While there did not appear to be any intent by Mr.Freshwater to cause injury to any student, he was not using the device for its intended purpose. Contrary to Mr. Freshwater's statement he simply made an "X" not a "cross," all of the students described the marking as a "cross" and the pictures provided depict a cross."

According to USAToday, quoting from The Mount Vernon News, described how the family, who is remaining anonymous in the suit, sent a fax to the newsroom through their attorney, Jessica Philemond, that said:

"We are religious people, but we were offended when Mr. Freshwater
burned a cross onto the arm of our child," they wrote in a faxed comment
released by their attorney. "This was done in science class in December
2007, where an electric shock machine was used to burn our child. The
burn was severe enough that our child awoke that night with severe pain,
and the cross remained there for several weeks."

They say they were offended, not outraged? And they qualify their reaction by pointing out they are religious people? As if objecting to a teacher burning a religious emblem into your kid's flesh could be misconstrued as, perhaps, intolerant?

But, sadly, in the next paragraph, they reveal the insanity of this situation when they explain their hesitancy to come forward:

.... We have tried to keep this a private matter and hesitate to tell
the whole story to the media for fear that we will be retaliated
against.

Panda's Thumb has the latest updates.

Lauri in York

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

Kitzmiller Redux

Some folks just refuse to get it. Earlier this year, Florida's Board of Education revamped its science standards to fully include the teaching of evolution and rebuffed creationist attempts to hijack the wording to make them more intelligent-design friendly. And, for a bit, it seemed like folks down there understood that the teaching of religion has no place in public school science classes.

But after they were unable to sway the majority of BOE members, the defeated creationists turned to Florida lawmakers, many of whom have little knowledge about science or educational issues.

Now, "academic freedom" bills are being introduced in the legislature and it looks all so familiar. The Florida Citizens for Science organization is following the fight closely and offers this account of what's really going on: Politicians are once again trying to sneak religion through a backdoor, this time under the code words of "academic freedom." Also, the Sun-Sentinel has a great story on the dishonesty and evasiveness of the bill's primary sponsor:

Opponents have voiced concerns that Storms' bill will open the door to teaching religious-based theories, like intelligent design, in public school classrooms. But Storms, one of the Senate's most conservative members, repeatedly refused to answer questions on whether that could happen.

Her only reply: teachers could discuss a "full range of scientific views."

Senate Democratic Leader Steve Geller of Cooper City, frustrated at her answers, later said: "We could have stuck bamboo shoots under her fingernails and she wouldn't have answered."

On Monday, ACLUPA's legal director Witold "Vic" Walczak was in Florida at the invitation of the state's ACLU and science organizations. As someone with more than a little experience with this issue, Walczak warned lawmakers that the bill is a "litigation magnet."

According to Wes Elsberry, posting on the science blog Panda's Thumb, Walczak said not only does the bill invite religion into the classroom, it also makes it impossible to take it out. If passed into law, it would give teachers the authority and right to teach whatever what they wanted, including their personal religious views. The school district would then be caught in a no-win situation. Should they prevent the teacher from religious proselytizing to students during the school day, the teacher would be able to sue the district under this law of academic freedom.

Should the school district ignore the teacher's behavior, parents who object to the teacher's religious bullying would be within their rights to sue the district under the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. And we up here in Pennsylvania know how that would likely turn out.

Walczak said at the press conference that, just as he and others involved in the Kitzmiller case were able to convince a conservative judge that intelligent design was merely repackaged creation science, "We will be able to do the same in Florida when teachers use the same religious anti-evolution arguments in classes."

Let's hope folks listen.

Lauri in York

Recognition for NOVA special on intelligent design

This is kinda cool. Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial - the Nova documentary about Kitzmiller v. Dover - has won a Peabody. The award is one of the highest awards in television.

Here are the judges' comments:

The centerpiece of this thoughtful, topical edition of NOVA was the recreation, verbatim, of key testimony and argument from a six-week trial in Pennsylvania that served as a crash course in modern evolutionary theory, the evidence for evolution and the nature of science.

Lauri in York

Expelled from Expelled

I realize not everyone shares my obsession with issues of intelligent design and fundamentalist Christians' fervent battle against the teaching of evolution. So I try to restrain myself and not write too frequently about it.

But this is just too good not to pass on.

For those with lives, you may not have heard that there is a new movie coming out next month on the topic of intelligent design. Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed stars Ben Stein (Yes, that Ben Stein. "Bueller? Bueller?").

While the film reportedly never actually defines "intelligent design" - the concept that life's complexity demands the guiding hand of the divine - it makes the not-very-convincing argument that academics around the country are being persecuted for believing in its scientific validity.

Recently, the movie's producers have been promoting the movie with private screenings across the country. One has to advance register to attend. While no tickets are necessary, identification must be presented at the screening.

Based on the trailer and those who have been able to get into the screenings, the movie argues that scientists, in cahoots with the media and our public education system, is doing everything they can to shut down honest discourse.

It also makes a rather disgusting connection between Charles Darwin and the Holocaust. Stein, who is a Jew, muses over his fate at the gates of a Jewish concentration camp and equates Darwin's theory of natural selection with genocide.

So, it's ironic that a movie that argues it is merely trying to present the truth would do this.

Lauri in York

Editor's note: This blog was founded on an obsession with intelligent design.

ID folks lose another battle. And don't censor the bloggers

Wow. Is anybody else a little freaked out by the fact that Republicans want Jack Bauer to water board House Democrats? I just think that's going a little too far. And it seems everybody can't stop talking about that controversial article yesterday in the New York Times. You know the one I mean. Poor Ashton Kutcher. Having to call all up all those A-list guests like Madonna and Salma Hayek and tell them they needed to get Hepatitis shots? That must have really bummed out his birthday party.

So, perhaps I can be forgiven if a few stories may have escaped my attention.

So ... scientists in Florida are cautiously celebrating over the state Board of Education's changes earlier this week to its education curriculum. For the first time, the teaching of evolution is spelled out in Florida's science standards. Anti-evolutionists had hoped to take advantage of the revamping of the curriculum and had been leading a campaign to champion the latest incarnation of intelligent design. Since Dover, pro-ID groups have been pushing for their latest attack on the teaching of evolution - what is often referred to as "critical analysis" or "teach the controversy." The ploys are designed to raise doubt about the legitimacy of evolution and create opportunities to force creationist talking points into the classroom.

From the Sun-Sentinel:

The standards state that evolution is "the fundamental concept underlying all of biology and is supported by multiple forms of scientific evidence." That statement rankled opponents, some of whom had urged the board to add an academic freedom provision that would have allowed teachers to "engage students in a critical analysis of that evidence.

After a lengthy battle, the board rejected the ploy. Instead, it voted to include the words "theory of" in front of references to evolution as a concession to one of the board's vehement opponents to the standards. Yes, yes, we all know evolution is a scientific theory, so there is no harm to the truth. But some educators are a little concerned that the word theory will be used as a wedge by those who know so little about science - this level of ignorance continues to astound me - that they believe a scientific theory is merely a hunch.

Also, MSM take note: Here's an interesting article in the Guardian on what happens when the courts, ruling in the interests of a corporation, step on the First Amendment rights of the blogosphere.

Last week, Swiss-based Bank Julius Baer obtained a court order to stop the anonymously run website Wikileaks from posting internal company documents that purported to show the bank's Cayman Islands branch involved in money laundering and tax evasion. But the court order went even further, demanding that the entire website, which be shut down. (Wikileaks publishes leaked documents that often prove incriminating for governments and corporations.)

But the shutdown order backfired as bloggers rushed to Wikileaks' defense, posting the very documents the bank was working to suppress. The Guardian article says, "mirror copies of the website sprouted like weeds."

"Clearly, the court and Bank Julius Baer underestimated the ingenuity of the web development community," the whistleblower protection group Project on Government Oversight wrote on its blog.

What makes this case especially interesting is that much of the Internet remains unexplored territory for issues like libel, privacy and even prior restraint. It will be interesting to watch how the courts handle these kinds of cases over the next several years.

Lauri in York

Inside memo leaked to blogger

MEMORANDUM
TO: ACLU Membership
DATE: Dec. 17, 2007
SUBJECT: War on Xmas

My dear Comrades:

By now, you no doubt heard. We have lost.

As Bill O'Reilly wrote last week

The far-left secular progressive community is furious, furious, I tell you about losing the war on Christmas...

All over the country, the sights and signs of Christmas are on display. Few department stores are telling employees not to say a 'Merry Christmas.' And the Taliban like oppression of the holiday has largely ceased, but the SPs (secular progressives) are not happy about that.

It pains me terribly to say it, but Bill O'Reilly...is right. We haven't killed Christmas.

Even though, for the past two years, we had been making such great strides. Oh sure, even as we had been working cleverly behind the scenes at killing Christmas, we had been busy dabbling in protecting the rights of Christians. Remember the 2003 case in which teenagers in Massachusetts were suspended for passing out candy canes with Christian messages? And we defended them? And how about that 2001 "friend-of-the-court" brief filed on behalf of Jerry Falwell defending the right of churches to incorporate in Virginia?

Ahhh, yes, but as you know, that was merely part of the coverup - a way of distracting the proletariat from our eventual success of "Taliban-like oppression." (I'd really like to know how O'Reilly got his hands on that memo.)

So why? Why have we failed? Perhaps, for this, I must take some responsibility. My assertion that nobody takes Bill O'Reilly seriously was a tactical error on my part. But, I mean, come on. Bill O'Reilly? Who would ever have imagined that clown had such influence? Other than him, of course. Obviously, his freedom-fighters in the Wal-Mart aisles were listening. And they responded with demands that Christ's message of salvation will be delivered in Martha Stewart Collection "Trousseau" decorative pillows and Toshiba 42-inch hi-def flat-screen television sets.

As York Daily Record columnist Mike Argento, who has been an undercover agent of ours for years, wrote in his dossier

Saying 'Merry Christmas' used to be a perfectly nice way of wishing someone well. Now, it's uttered like a threat.

But now is not the time for wallowing in failure. Now, is the time to look to the future and foresee the glorious victory that yet awaits us. We must regroup. We remain only 373 shopping days away from Christmas 2008.

By now you've all gotten your information packets outlining next year's talking points. Remember, and I can't stress this enough, it's important to stay on message if we're going to win this.

The official line remains: There is no war on Christmas. The ACLU defends the rights of people of all faiths to worship according to their beliefs.

Talking point No. 1: "The free exercise clause of the First Amendment guarantees the right to practice one's religion free of government interference. The establishment clause requires the separation of church and state. Combined, they ensure religious liberty."

Talking point No. 2: "The ACLU will continue working to ensure that religious liberty is protected by keeping the government out of the religion business."

Some have complained that our tactics are somewhat dishonest in light of the fact that "separation of church and state is a myth."

Fortunately, because we're all Godless heathens, the dishonesty shouldn't be too great a problem. People, must I remind you? It's about moral relativism. The end justifies the means. If you're still confused by this, I suggest you read the Discovery Institute's famed Wedge document (PDF). It gives a great overview of the importance of setting aside one's morals for the long-term greater good.

And on that note, don't forget, Thursday is the second anniversary of Judge Jones' Dover decision in which intelligent design received such an outstanding pillorying. There remain only three more shopping days left until the holiday. For those still searching for a perfect gift for your children, may I suggest that Karl Marx's The Communist Manifesto makes a great stocking stuffer?

Merry Kitzmas to all.

Lauri in York

Here we go again....

A bit of a kerfluffle erupted last week when it came out that the Texas Education Agency's director of science was forced to resign amid accusations because she wasn't "neutral" enough on the topic of the teaching of evolution.

From today's New York Times article:

Ms. Comer, 56, of Austin, is out of a job, after forwarding an e-mail message on a talk about evolution and creationism — 'a subject on which the agency must remain neutral," according to a dismissal letter last month that accused her of various instances of 'misconduct and insubordination' and of siding against creationism and the doctrine that life is the product of 'intelligent design.'

Sigh. You'd think, perhaps, people might have learned a few things since Dover was thrust onto the international stage and Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design wasn't science.

By the way, who was giving this oh-so-controversial talk about evolution and creationism? None other than Barbara Forrest, the expert witness in the Dover trial whose damning testimony exposed intelligent design's creationist links.

Remember? Cdesign proponentists? Maybe they can't get PBS in Texas.

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

Remembering a champion for justice

"So keep fightin' for freedom and justice, beloveds, but don't you forget to have fun doin' it. Lord, let your laughter ring forth. Be outrageous, ridicule the fraidy cats, rejoice in all the oddities that freedom can produce. And when you get through kickin' ass and celebratin' the sheer joy of a good fight, be sure to tell those who come after you how much fun it was." - Molly Ivins

As most of us know, the ACLU lost one of its greatest supporters in January when Molly Ivins died of cancer at 62. On Tuesday, in a tribute hosted by the Society for Ethical Culture, writers and journalists gathered on the anniversary of 9/11 to remember the Texas firebrand and the causes for which she stood.

Ivins, who famously gave one speech each month on behalf of the ACLU until the cancer she was fighting made it impossible, was a true believer in defending the causes of justice and civil liberties.

As she once wrote: "There's not a thing wrong with the ideals and mechanisms outlined and the liberties set forth in the Constitution of the U.S. The only problem is the founders left a lot of people out of the Constitution. They left out poor people and black people and female people. It is possible to read the history of this country as one long struggle to extend the liberties established in our Constitution to everyone in America."

Next month, her final book, co-written by long-time collaborator Louis Dubose, will be published by Random House.

The Bill of Wrongs: The Executive Branch's Assault on America's Fundamental Rights, documents the struggles of little guys – always a favorite topic of Ivins – to defend their constitutional rights against government bullies.

Dubose, who attended the tribute, said he regrets his writing partner is no longer here to see the success of the people whose stories are told in the book.

The Bill of Wrongs includes a chapter on the Dover Area School District's First Amendment battle over intelligent design. Thankfully, Ivins lived to see the concept ruled creationism and its teaching in science class struck down as unconstitutional. But Dubose wishes she had lived to see more recent successes. "I regretted Molly didn't stick around long enough to see our subjects prevailing as plaintiffs," he said.

One of those subjects is John Doe. In Doe vs. Gonzales, the anonymous internet provider's free speech rights were silenced by the amended Patriot Act's National Security Letter (NSL) provision. Last week, U.S. District Court Judge Victor Marrero struck down the NSL provision, which the FBI uses to demand personal customer records from Internet service providers, libraries and others without prior court approval. Marrero ruled the gag order, which prevents those served from discussing the letters, violates the First Amendment.

Additionally Dubose said Ivins would have really enjoyed seeing a Texas couple cash their $80,000 check with the U.S. Treasury last month, restitution paid by the Bush Administration for illegally arresting them because of the messages - "Love America, Hate Bush" and "Regime Change Starts At Home" – they peacefully wore on their T-shirts.

"I really miss Molly," Dubose said. "As a reader as much as a colleague.

"After she died, I got all these letters from people about her columns, saying things like, 'They made me realize I wasn't crazy.' Or 'They made me realize I wasn't alone.'"

The Bill of Wrongs: The Executive Branch's Assault on America's Fundamental Rights, published by Random House, comes out Oct. 23.

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