A while back, the Institute for Creation Research tried to get approval to issue degrees in the state of Texas — they would have used this authority to churn out science teachers whose knowledge would have been derived entirely from the Bible and young earth creationist tracts. Fortunately, the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board flatly turned them down, one of the smart moves in which Texas can take some pride.
Now, however, the ICR is now suing the THECB. Seriously. Even better, the lawsuit is a dense compendium of concentrated hilarity.
The sixty-seven-page complaint teems with various factual claims and legal arguments, leading a blogger for the Dallas Observer (April 20, 2009) to quip that it “reads kind of like stereo instructions.” It also teems with unabashed creationist rhetoric, citing articles from the ICR’s publication Acts and Facts along with case law, explaining that Paredes — born as he was in 1942 — was not a witness to the Big Bang, asserting that discussions about the origin of life and the formation of the earth “do not become ’empirical science’ simply because those discussions emit from the oral cavities of ‘scientists'” (p. 33), and insisting that the Big Bang “should not be confused with the ‘great noise’ mentioned in 2nd Peter 3:10” (p. 21).
I find it heartwarming that the creationists are once again demonstrating their profound legal acumen on top of their mastery of logic and science. Those of you who find amusement in outré and hysterical legal documents can read the whole of the complaint online.
ugh
that was painful
Chimpy, what was that great noise and how bad did it smell?
Teach the controversy: creationists are morons.
It doesn’t even really make sense.
not only do they suck at science but they suck at theology and humor.
I’m feeling the stupid just reading PZ’s comments, without even reading the complaint. They didn’t get their way. WWWAAAAHHHHH.
pfft, as if ‘creationists are morons’ is a controversy
When the ICR originally submitted its claim and got turned down, I explained exactly why they were turned down in explicit detail and used the very same ridiculous arguments they use now to show they they’ve never used the scientific method and never will.
http://worldofweirdthings.com/2009/03/22/oh-wait-youre-serious/
Oh and there was a huge debate with lots of very agitate creationists in there throwing out almost every fallacy and falsehood in the book. Apparently there are quite a few of them on the science pages of StumbleUpon.
It takes a profound lack of self-awareness to use the same exact garbage that got them turned down in the first place and expect to get anywhere…
Well I was born in 1951 and I didn’t see it either.
Since then I have seen pictures of its echo, its shadow.
If I look out over the pond and see a spreading ripple I know that something just broke the surface. I just don’t know if it was going into the water or out of it. I didn’t see it, but it left evidence of its passing. And I know my ripples.
give me that tinkertoy box of codons and a billion years and i’ll show you some creations.
You’d think that after Dover and Cobb County the creationists would still be smarting. Definitely not smarter, apparently.
Science education in Texas, as everyone here well knows, is under assault from the ID’ers. The decision reached by the Texas State Board of Education a couple of weeks ago was a step in the right direction, but not nearly enough. In fact, I’m a student down here at LSU and have heard Louisiana will be facing a similar fight over the teaching of creationism in the coming months. A recent article published in the university’s paper (http://tigerweekly.com/article/04-15-2009/10907) has stirred up a hornet’s nest down here. Nearly half the state supports teaching ID alongside evolution in science class; this lunacy has to be put to an end!
Be it resolved that all creationists are malevolent clowns. Oh….no one wishes to contest that motion? I thought so.
What’s ironic is that literally a minute before I hopped onto Pharyngula here, I read about this on NCSE’s page. The creationists didn’t get their way, so they haul out their lawyers.
And speaking of lawyers, I find it interesting that three of creationism’s main proponents are lawyers: Lee Strobel, Philip Johnson, and the infamously inane Casey Luskin.
ICR shouldn’t be doing this. They can get in a lot of trouble for wasting the judiciary’s time by being IRL Poes- which must be what’s happening… right?
The whole thing would have been hilarious if it hadn’t been so sad.
“Academic Freedom”.
Apparently these clowns think that means “teach any damn thing we please, regardless of how steeped in bullshit it may be”.
Sickening.
The more money these guys spend indulging their sado-masochistic proclivity for being humiliated in court, the less money they are spending on undermining education with propaganda and disinformation. Seems like win/win for the side of education and reason.
And the more time and effort they spend the more opportunities for the people (voters) of Texas to see through the thin tissue of complaints and grievances that somehow manage to fill sixty-seven (count ’em, 67!) pages.
On a related note, the Texas Senate will be voting to confirm Don McLeroy’s appointment to a second term as chair of the state board of education. See this post at TFN for how to contact members of the Nominations Committee, which will be meeting on Wednesday. I have a feeling that, despite the nonsense at the SBOE hearings, he’ll be confirmed again, but one can hope….
It beats me that the connoisseurs of “the ultimate truth” want so badly to share it with others, shouldn’t it be like self fulfilling? In a recent study however, the religious people are much more likely to cling to the painful and futile life at the end vs. atheists who are more likely to choose hospice. Go figure. I wouldn’t bet on the outcome of the complaint though, Texans are still, well Texans.
“reads kind of like stereo instructions”
As in stereo instructions originally written in Chinese and then poorly translated into English, perhaps? I’m afraid to go read it myself because it might kill too many brain cells before I could look away from the horror.
And no-one, no matter what year in which they were born, has ever seen our planet circling the sun, so the theory of heliocentrism (NOT A FACT!) also should certainly be roundly spanked by the ICR.
Dwatney, I once had an electronic stopwatch. For lap times the instructions read:
Press button B once by once.
Or press button B twice.
Yeah, it hung me up for a while.
Since the creationists won their battle for “controversies in science”, it makes perfect sense that the next step is to flood the school system with robots who contantly parrot creationist nonsense. It’s so much more difficult to get their robots into the school system if they must first get a real degree – that winnows the chaff out pretty quick.
They are not afraid of making fools out of themselves, are they? Imagine supposedly grown up people fighting to get their favourite crack pot delusions taught as science, like Thor being the cause of thunder and lighting, and the existence of Santa Clause, or to teach Time Cubism in science class.
These things are not one tiny bit more crazy than doing the same for Biblical creationism. It’s just that the Bible is more popular at this point in time.
Good for Texas
“But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night”
O Holy Thief! How Great Thou Art!
If there was a halfway intelligent god, he’d have to be pretty embarrassed by how his followers portray him regularly.
I really HAVE to get out of this town (Dallas), this state (Texas), and maybe even this country. Can’t really imagine that things will improve here anytime soon. Bet I’m the only one in town doing garage biotech. Maybe I should move to the northeast.
dboy
It’s worse in Tennessee.
Hmm… “observation-lacking” … “observationally investigating”. Wow, sounds like some pretty fancy dancy “lawyerly-type talk”.
Just kidding. The whole thing is probably rife with ICR “cult speak”.
The complaint also mention 1 Timothy. Is it normal (or sane?) for an organization trying oh so very hard to prove it’s truly scientific, not religious, to quote Bible passages in its complaint? This is quite pitifully lame. I hope the unlucky judge rips these creationists a bigger one than Judge Jones did for the Dover School Board. “Inane” doesn’t even begin to describe it.
“If there was a halfway intelligent god, he’d have to be pretty embarrassed by how his followers portray him regularly.”
And hence why he must return as a thief in the night, desperately hoping that no one will recognize him.
The fact that they are filing a lawsuit consisting of god babble and gibberish must mean they are getting desperate.
They did move from California to Texas for some reason, probably because California was too liberal or godless. Then they tried to get acredidation to issue science degrees without actually teaching science.
Sounds like they might be running out of money or suckers. Who wants to spend the money for an internet degree in pseudoscience that isn’t good anywhere but a bible school? You could get the same info off of the AIG and a few other websites for free and it all boils down to one word, GODDIDIT.
Yes. Fundies toss out bible verses like cruise missiles. They usually are taken out of context and don’t mean what they say they do and never do any major damage.
I hope those guys at the ICR have a language arts department and lawyer department because they need to take some of their own classes!!
Oh yeah, Bible classes too! Take some of your own classes, ICR people.
i’m allowed back?
Raven said:
Yes, they most certainly do. Like mantras after a fashion. Actually more like confirmatory messages that they convey to one another as they are fighting Yahweh’s battles for him.
After they fray, in a quieter moment, they tell again of the great blows they struck and they are quite taken with themselves. They are, after all, on a mission of deepest import, dwarfing all other human endeavor. That makes them important, and more importantly, specially favored and endowed.
It is a heady brew, a dangerous drug. It is addictive. That is, its chief effect is to make the user want more of the drug.
We need to talk rehab. Heh. What would happen if someone opened up a chain of de-conversion parlors?
yippee.
i don’t post a comment very often but it’s good to know i can.
I’m slogging through the muck right now, and I’m noticing a phrase being used over and over, saying that each member of the board is being “. . .sued in his official and individual capacities. . . .” I’m no expert, but that sounds a lot like “we want relief, but we also want all your stuff, too.”
Is this standard boilerplate or does it actually mean something? Any legal types about who can shed light on this?
Fundies toss out bible verses like cruise missiles.
Yes they do. One could even say they toss them out like a “great noise”.
oh my. I guess the idiots haven’t learned anything from Dover. You can’t sue yourself into being a scientist!
Like a wind from the sky’s Arse.
Summary of complaint:
“We want to teach our religion as science and have our students get the same rights as those who did the hard work”
Lawl.
I’d think this was a parody, if I hadn’t had to deal with ICR “articles” before.
uh…guys… the thing says that they’re allowed to hand out M.S. degrees in California. is that right? that would be tragic. California ain’t what it used to be *sigh*. but what can you expect from the state that gave us Reagan!
*ducks*
So unless we present bronze age scribbles in favor of the Big Bang it can’t have happened? Yeah, right.
That is so stupid. I see no hope in ever having a reasonable debate with these guys. It is really like in that quote: “Debating with a creationist is like playing chess with a pigeon. It throws over your pieces and craps on the board, then flies home to its fellows and claims victory”.
so i’ve slogged through maybe half of that, and obviously their delusions of being denied their 1st and 14th Amendment rights are laughable. but, now I do wonder: what legal standing does accreditation have in the U.S.? what I mean is: what are the laws that govern who gets to accredit, to whom those accreditation rules apply, and what the standards should be?
obviously, the common sense answer should be that places that teach real science should be allowed to hand out M.S. degrees. but what’s the legal standing on standards, accreditation, and the right to hand out pieces of paper that say “Master of Science” on them?
#39, ShadowWalkyr:
I used to be a federal civil rights lawyer, but then I recovered…
Under Federal Civil Rights practice, “official” capacity is really a way of saying “I’m not suing you, I’m suing the entity of which you are an official.” Official capacity suits are generally brought only for injunctive relief where state officials are involved, because states are immune from suit for damages in federal court under the eleventh amendment (and yes, if you read the eleventh amendment it doesn’t quite say that…a very, very long story.).
“Individual capacity” means “I’m suing the individual himself.” This is what you need to do if you want damages, generally. It’s all a bit more complicated than that, but that’s the gist of it.
This confuses a lot of lawyers because they’re accustomed to thinking about people “acting” in an individual or an official capacity. It has nothing to do with that; if they’re not acting more or less in an official capacity, there’s no civil rights claim to make.
Now, as to the complaint: the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require a short and plain statement of the claim. This is an incoherent, crazy complaint, the kind of thing one would expect a non-lawyer with a mental disorder to file. Nobody competent in federal practice, and especially in federal civil rights practice, would file anything that looks the least bit like this. It’s argumentative, it’s unnecessarily wordy, it contains superfluous explanations and unnecessary detail. The complaint probably should have been about ten pages long, double-spaced, and should have stated the claims in a straightforward fashion. I am very curious just what sort of background this lawyer has…
These people are really getting desperate. They clearly have access to tons of money, and yet they have very little to show for the amount expended.
I know that delusional thinking is part of the deal, but, at some point, I think the money people are going to yank the plug, regroup, and start over with some new shills.
I would also like some info on Jadehawk’s point. Are they allowed to hand out M.Sc degrees in California? It would be great to clear that up.
Did a search on it and can’t find anything.
@JadeHawk:
“what are the laws that govern who gets to accredit, to whom those accreditation rules apply, and what the standards should be?”
The individual states determine that. If you’re accredited to hand out degrees as a university, or as a Normal College (do they still exist?), your graduates can get jobs as teachers (if they get other appropriate certificates for teaching at high school or below).
I really don’t think the push for recognition of degrees is to build up an army of evolution deniers to publish peer-reviewed mythology as an alternative to science. I think they want to push their zombies into the educational system and teach kids to be stupid sheep (as if we don’t have enough of those already).
Kurt:
When I was in college, I worked as a temp, which took me to a lot of law offices, often to help with the secretarial end of filing cases at all levels–federal, state and so forth, and I couldn’t remember any being 67 pages long–although some of the really big lawsuits had some high numbers. Not that high, though. I thought maybe I hadn’t experienced enough of it to make a call on that, but I’m glad you came in to verify what I suspected:
These people have lost their tiny little minds.
I was also stunned that they would include Bible verses. I’ve looked at many a legal filing (can’t say I understood them), and I can’t remember ever seeing anything like that, even here in Texas. Not from any firm or lawyer I’ve ever dealt with. You stuck to the law and the facts you wished to present, and you didn’t put in anything that could come back to bite you on the ass.
Or that’s what I could glean from the remarks lawyers made during the drafting process.
IANAL, but I’d also think that the time to mention the biblical information would be in court itself, during testimony, not in the initial complaint. But what do I know?
Such people actually DESERVE to be the benighted slaves of the “God” of their Bible. Would that such a universe were even the slimmest possibility.
#47 jadehawk
accreditation is a funny thing.
it is not even completely devoted to academics.
sometimes accreditation can be tied to financial management i.e. if a private school has very very little debt yet a decrease in enrollment, it would then have a decrease in funds and as it comes up for accreditation review, it is penalized for the lack of debt.
—
as for standards
how does one set boundaries on something that by its components of knowledge and method does change in knowledge, so that some hypotheses and theories are banned without looking just like people who want to ban evolution.
—
they do have an interesting point somewhere between point number 60 and 74 in the original complaint, that they assert that their curriculum produces degrees with a greater than 99% identity to those of other institutions.
your question seems to hit at a crucial point if their claim is correct.
The name of the attorney is James J.S. Johnson, of Dallas, TX, TX state bar #10721540.
LInk here.
One man-shop.
U of NC, 1984
Says he has a degree in “Other” from Duke.
Specialist in Business Bankruptcy Law.
Incredible as this would seem, that explains a whole lot about this filing.
A whole lot.
“Let’s just say it’s the first time I’ve ever felt sorry for a federal judge.” —Timothy Sandefur
@Genesgalore
Only a billion years? you are aware of how many billions of years went by between the earliest evidence for bacterial life that we have and the first appearance of anything that might qualify as a critter aren’t you? Not that I am dissing the wonderful variety of organisms down amongst the protists, but these are creationists you are trying to impress.
that’s not really what I’m worried about. but if accreditation is such a weird, unregulated process, and really weird degree-granting institutions come to the fore, it might kill the American degree on an international basis eventually. Right now, it’s the U.S. that doesn’t accept degrees from many foreign countries. but if the American degree will be continuously tainted with degree mills, PhD’s in geology held by YEC’s, and creationist M.Sc’s… well, sooner or later, the rest of the world might decide that American degrees aren’t worth the paper they’re written on.
Now, I don’t think this is likely right now, if only because MIT, Yale, and Harvard keep up the American reputation for good universities single handedly. But if this shit keeps up, AND if these kind of lawsuits indeed get through because there’s no solid lawful base for science accreditation, then sooner or later, the world will catch on to this and become suspicious of “scientists” coming out of U.S. universities…
A parenthetic note in reference to #46 above:
The Bible is an iron age work, from the oldest passages (linguistic analysis shows that some poems–Judges 5 for example–may go back as far as 1200 BCE) to the latest (the pastoral epistles and II Peter belong to the second century CE). None of it is bronze age. Some of the stories in it are set in the bronze age, and for all we know they may have been told during the bronze age, based on the supposed presence of cultural practices common then but forgotten later on. Bronze age fables–maybe. Bronze age scribbles–not likely. The oldest direct MS evidence we have for any of the books that later came to be part of the Bible dates to the second century BCE.
This can’t be real…
The defendant is called ‘Parades’, and it was written on April 1st.
Having said that, it IS the sort of thing they’d write…
Thanks for brightening my morning!
Addendum to #60 – completely misread the date on the document, proving that I am a useless waste to society until the kettle’s boiled.
Still, ‘Parades’ is an oddly appropriate name in this document.
Aquaria said:
I hate to sound pedantic, but you appear to be labouring under the unfounded assumption that they had minds of any size to lose in the first place.
And a second parenthetic note–this bizarre legal document is over 750 pages long. And PZMyers himself is mentioned on pp. 740-741 in a section called “Evolution’s Evangelists.”
…and insisting that the Big Bang “should not be confused with the ‘great noise’ mentioned in 2nd Peter 3:10”
You know, you all laugh, but the ICR are actually making a very sound point here. I for one shall try hard never to let myself confuse the Big Bang and the Great Noise.
Actually, looking at the verse from 2 Peter that the good Reverend has helpfully printed upthread, it’s hard to see how anybody, even a biblical literalist, could confuse the two. The Big Bang got the cosmos started; the Great Noise, insofar as 2 Peter can be trusted as an astrophysics text, will end it. (Mind you, it’s a very large value of “Great Noise” that can include Heat Death.) Or is Paredes taking a bold stand against the linearity of time?
Isn’t it nice when creationists give scientists a chance to make them look bad in court?
Go get them, ladies and gentlemen.
Jeeeeeeeebus.
I may have to put on a blonde wig and make a tear-streaked YouTube video for the creotards.
“Leave Texas alone!”
At 48:
I think you are missing the target audience for this lawsuit. It is not aimed at actually getting federal civil rights relief. It is aimed at the creationists in Texas, especially governor Rick Perry and the education board chairman Don McLeroy.
They can use this lawsuit as ammunition to push creationism into college the way they were just pushing in the grade schools.
If you look closely at the recent changes in Texas grade school standards you would notice that creationists were able to insert language critical of the Big Bang and an ancient earth. Fresh on that success, they are using exactly the same arguments at the college level.
If I were a betting person, I’ld bet Perry and McLeroy offer a ‘compromise’ of accrediting ICR (and other bible college) science degrees in return for dropping the lawsuit.
Beside the hilarity of calling it “scientific creationism” I agree.
Projection, thy name is the ICR
IANAL, but doesn’t the statement at the bottom of page 8 basically shoot their own foot off?
If that’s it, there’s no civil liberties violation.
Dear ICR:
You use lots of big words like “academic” and “freedom”. I am writing to you today to bring to your attention the fact that your organization, despite its frequent use of these words in statements and lawsuits, have demonstrated a complete lack of understanding in regards to their accepted meanings.
Please see the enclosed OED for further clarification.
Love,
Me.
@Aquaria #55:
The idea that this was made by a single person has implications that are quite serious, actually. The tone of writing shifts enormously through the complaint (suddenly around p 25 or so, dates are written with “AD” appended to the year — do they actually think a judge is going to be confused that May 14, 2003 might refer to 2003BCE?!). It reads a lot more like eight or ten people got together and wrote a list of weird rants and then they were combined and renumbered. I have read a number of court documents, and the weird random bold and underline and such read a lot like Time Cube.
And the point I stopped reading was the surreal 2nd Peter thing too: is this bad enough to draw a sanction from the judge?
Somebody get me out of this state.
@Shadow Walkyr
Yes. That is standard boilerplate in legal documents. Basicly it means that you aren’t just sueing the holder of a position, but a specific person holding that position. These nutters seem to be sueing all the members of the THECB, but they still need a way to single out the board members they are intending to sue. This is how they do it. I am suing “so and so” because of what they did in their official capacity. They can’t just name “The board of the THECD” because when it goes to court the people holding the positions on the board may no longer be the ones that caused the legal “harm”
IANAL, but this is the rough cut of how it was explained to me a long time ago.
This is probably a blatant lie. From what I’ve seen of the ICR, their MS degrees have the same relation to real degrees from real universities as a wooden duck decoy to real ducks.
ICR is a diploma mill and their curriculum is largely “distance learning”. In other words, you can get a fake degree over the internet for a few bucks.
Creationism is more than valid…all other theories are based upon Biblical principles…PERIOD! Blasphemers will perish. I pray for those whom mock God. I pity those that feel insignificant & strive for the things of this world to boost their self-esteem.
You mean like the religious?
Dumbest thing written on the Internet in the last few mins.
All of the internet.
As opposed to creationists, who talk out of their anal cavities.
How can one mock something that doesn’t exist? You have shown no physical evidence for your delusional god, which is why he is a delusion, existing only in your empty mind. We don’t need your prayers, which are mental masturbation. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
You mean like fake scientists who are trying to be able to grant bogus degrees in creation pseudoscience while raking in a few bucks from the naive and stupid?
If it wasn’t for real scientists, you would be living a Dark Ages life and feeling a lot more pity for yourself for being cold, hungry, poor, and sick.
From our dumbass governer to the shining examples of statesmanship like State Rep. Betty Brown (google “texas betty brown asian” for a big dose of facepalm), we Texas sure know how to pick ’em.
Sorry folks, we’re just trying to keep the rest of the nation knee-deep in lulz.
Texas Citizens for Science has covered the ICR’s efforts in Texas in some detail.
California accreditation is detailed here.
A recent example of what passes for “science” in Texas is an article in the Dallas Morning News.
Two things. One is that it will probably not sound quite as stupid in Texas, and yet it probably is not very intelligent language for a lawsuit.
The second is, as others have pointed out, that they’re interested in the politics and fund-raising aspects. Plus, they hardly have sound science to bring up, hence they may as well play to their constituency.
If they win, fantastic (for them). If they lose, they’re martyrs for the Bibble.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Why am I not surprised they don’t know what the word “blog” means and don’t know the word “blog post”.
@63
And a second parenthetic note–this bizarre legal document is over 750 pages long. And PZMyers himself is mentioned on pp. 740-741 in a section called “Evolution’s Evangelists.”
What the heck are ya talkin about, dude? Shrug!
I’m shocked they found an attorney willing to sign such garbage. The attorney is listed as James J. S. Johnson. The TX state bar website lists him as a solo practitioner in Dallas, but the phone number on the state bar site is not the same as listed in the pleadings.
I figures this must be some ancient attorney on the cusp of retirement, but it appear this guy has been licensed for only 24 years. I reaslly think this fellow is joepardizing his law license. Then again, it’s in Texas…
Good grief. This You weren’t there! crap has got to stop. Everything we experience, with the possible exception of our own thoughts, is a forensic reconstruction of past events, it’s just that some events are more recent than others. For instance, when you see something happen, you are actually reconstructing a past event from the photons that strike your eyes. Reconstructing the big bang from current observations of the universe is merely a difference in magnitude, we’re not pulling made-up shit directly out of our asses like theists do.
Won’t Texas just secede already? We’ll offer amnesty to anyone with half a brain….who doesn’t use language like “emit from the oral cavities.”
grumble
True. But I’d just add that it’s not just a lame excuse, by far the most of them really have no idea of how the past is well understood, and they do understand someone telling them authoritatively that they (which might include god–for which we really lack genuine historical evidence, fwiw) were there and can vouch for it.
It is their “folk epistemology,” and as such it considers a privileged text like the Bible to be far more trustworthy than are a bunch of scientists with “their assumptions” (they also don’t know what “assumption” means in that context).
In a way it’s quite understandable. In another way, it’s a ridiculous prejudice that they wish to foist onto their kids rather than allowing them to learn much better ways of arriving at answers.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
PZ the Evangelist… HAW! Ha, ha!
That made my day. Ruined my underwear, but made my day.
Patricia, Queen of Fouls
Was that pun intended Rev?…. :D
“You weren’t there.” WTF?
They weren’t there when the Bible was written, so how do they know whether it was indeed inspired by God? And a zillion other similar instances–there’s even an old hymn, something about “Were You There When They Crucified My Lord”, but I don’t remember the point of it.
Legally, eye-witness testimony is notoriously crap. Many legal processes are efforts to determine what happened without depending on eyewitnesses.
The lawsuit contends that discrimination happened. I’ll bet that they make their case on something other than eyewitness testimony.
Was that a pun?
damn it!
for more, with links to documents and analysis, see
http://curricublog.wordpress.com/2009/04/21/icr-2009-lawsuit/
#90- “In another way, it’s a ridiculous prejudice that they wish to foist onto their kids rather than allowing them to learn much better ways of arriving at answers.”
One correction- In another way, it’s a ridiculous prejudice that they wish to foist onto everybody else’s kids rather than allowing them to learn much better ways of arriving at answers.
WOW!! I feel privileged! I had NO IDEA that the ICR was living a few blocks away from me! All the nuts roll downhill to Texas, it seems.
You know, this is actually a contrived plot by the communion wafer makers to drive up sales. You are all falling for it quite nicely.
My take on creationists being ruled scientifically illiterate, and an invitation to them to “test” the “theory” of gravity, is here.
My take on creationists being ruled scientifically illiterate, and an invitation to them to “test” the “theory” of gravity, is here.
They pulled District Court Judge Jane Boyle. (Cases are assigned randomly.)
Here’s Judge Boyle’s biography from the court’s website:
It’s good that she’s a former prosecutor, in my opinion. Then again, she was appointed by GWB, so who knows how reasonable she is. Like any educated person, though, it’s highly unlikely she’s sympathetic to creationism.
She should really sanction the attorneys and the plaintiff for bringing a frivolous lawsuit in violation of Rule 11.
In my five minutes of Googling, I found next to nothing about Judge Boyle’s religious beliefs or lack thereof.
She did take part in a “Red Mass”–which appears to be a quasi-religious ceremony celebrating unity in the legal profession, but with Jesus added–in 2007. (See below.)
It was at a Catholic church, so my best guess is that she’s Catholic, but who knows.
http://www.lubbockonline.com/stories/092607/rel_092607080.shtml
Mrs. Tilton @ 64 – Are you sure the “Great Noise” doesn’t refer to the complaint itself?
OK- this seriously pisses me off!!! The THECB gives out scholarships/student loans to people like me who came from poorer families and couldn’t have gone to college otherwise. So now the creaotards not only want to destroy our public schools, they want to drain money from a source of college funding for Texas students.
Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrgggggggggggg!
They are sooooo lucky that I’m a principled person, or else I’d lower myself to their standards and do something horrible to them!!!! :(
Then again, she was appointed by GWB, so who knows how reasonable she is.
like Judge Jones.
Like any educated person, though, it’s highly unlikely she’s sympathetic to creationism.
like Judge Jones.
;)
Like sending them a copy of the Ramayana?
I skimmed over the complaint. Same shit, different year: they’re being discriminated against because someone wants to continue to limit science to natural (or, in their terms, “atheistic”) explanations.
The second supplement to the complaint takes the tack that vestigial organs can not be evidence of evolution because there is no such thing as a useless organ (implied). Apparently they didn’t tell their lawyer that vestigial does not mean useless; it means not now being used for the purpose for which it evolved.
Could this be dismissed as ungrounded or frivolous?
SBH, where can I find the “bizarre legal document” that you’re referring to?
I suspect that they picked a good Creationist who happened to be a lawyer, rather than a good lawyer.
#4 “the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.”
So they predicted global warming too? Wow!
My computer locked up on me yesterday while I was in the middle of composing a comment about the 1 Timothy reference in the lawsuit. Somehow I managed to send part of it. (The last thing I did before the crash [I think] was to preview the comment to see if I’d used the blockquote tag correctly.)
The Plaintiff’s Original Complaint for Injunctive Relief etc (16 April 2009) blithely refers us to something called “The Evidence of Nothing” which is supposed to help explain the relevance of the 1 Timothy reference (it doesn’t). I noted that it was included as part of an earlier legal document, referred to on page 49: “Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the information and allegations within said ‘Petition for Contested Case Status (dated May 24th, A.D. 2008), both as to the main text thereof … and as to its component appendices ‘A’ through ‘Z’ thereof, which are not attached hereto, because doing so would make this complaint too voluminous–as the entire Petition with its appendices comprises 755 pages!” (“The Evidence of Nothing” appears on pp 225 to 229–though I’ve since figured out that it’s readily available online.) This is the bizarre legal document that also contains a reference to PZMyers. The address for it can be found on page 49 of the present document.
If you’ll forgive the plug, I analyze this lawsuit on my blog. (I’m a lawyer.) It’s deliriously, gloriously insane.
Very funny write-up, Andrew. Thanks!