Today is the final day of testimony in the Dover trial. Scott Minnich is scheduled to finish up his cross examination, and likely already has, and then we'll move on to closing arguments this afternoon. Expect a ruling in the next 6-8 weeks, give or take.
On another note, the New York Times has an interesting article today about the Thomas More Law Center that includes information I did not know. The TMLC, it turns out, has been going around the country trying to find a school board to adopt a policy like this so they could take it to court. They've gone in and lobbied for it, offering to provide a free defense when it inevitably goes to court:
To find its first intelligent design case, the lawyers went around the country looking for a school board willing to withstand a lawsuit. In May 2000, Robert Muise, one of the lawyers, traveled to Charleston, W.Va., to persuade the school board there to buy the intelligent design textbook "Of Pandas and People" and teach it in science class.
Mr. Muise told the board in Charleston that it would undoubtedly be sued if the district taught intelligent design, but that the center would mount a defense at no cost.
"We'll be your shields against such attacks," he told them at a school board meeting, a riff on the center's slogan, "The Sword and Shield for People of Faith." He said they could defend teaching intelligent design as a matter of academic freedom.
John Luoni, the former president of the Charleston school board, said he remembered listening to Mr. Muise and concluding: "It's not really a scientific theory. It's more of a religious theory. It should be taught if a church or a denomination believes in it, but I didn't think that religious viewpoint should be taught as part of a science class."
The board in West Virginia declined the center's offer. So did school districts in Michigan and Minnesota and a handful of other states, Mr. Muise and Mr. Thompson said.
But in Dover, the firm found willing partners when it contacted the school board in the summer of 2004 and promised it a first-class defense.
That's very interesting information. There's nothing wrong with doing that, of course. The ACLU has done something similar in the past. In the Scopes trial, for instance, they took out ads in newspapers around Tennessee looking for a teacher willing to be arrested so they could challenge the law. What makes this interesting is that if further highlights the major split between the TMLC and the Discovery Institute.
The Discovery folks are much more politically savvy than the TMLC, it seems, and they knew that they had to be very careful in selecting which case to take to court. And they knew that this was not the case they wanted as their test case because of the obvious track record of religious motivation on the part of the board. The TMLC, on the other hand, seems to be so eager to get their name attached to a case that they were willing to do it no matter what the legal facts of the case. And that sort of eagerness may well end up costing the ID movement dearly. I'm not exactly broken up ove the matter.
- Log in to post comments
I'm wondering if maybe by now the Dover School Board is thinking perhaps this wasn't such a good idea after all.
The TMLC might be able to shield them from legal attacks, but it couldn't shield them from themselves.
As for the DI, they had a very difficult task...to keep the rank and file pumped and excited about ID whilst simultaneously downplaying the very reason they'd be pumped (i.e.apparent scientific validation of their religious beliefs), and at the same time having to reign them in and wait until a suitable test case cropped up.
It was never going to be pretty, and it ain't. Now they probably just want to get out with as little of the stink of Dover attached to them as possible. Behe might have to bathe in tomato juice and take a back seat for a while.
Anyone have a prediction as to how much damage this will do to the DI's agenda, assuming a victory for the good guys at Dover?
I'd like to think that it will be a death blow for the Wedge, but a serious body blow seems more likely.
I have a slightly different take on this
...In May 2000, Robert Muise, one of the lawyers, traveled to Charleston, W.Va., to persuade the school board there to buy the intelligent design textbook...
To buy it? What are the TMLC doing, acting as advertisers for book sales? If they really were interested in a legal case, it strikes me that they would have given copies of the book to the school district and then followed up. In other words, if the TMLC were really interested in a legal case, the TMLC would have paid for the books.
I am very sorry, but there is something very strange going on here. I'm a lawyer and I can smell a rat before I see one.
Completely off topic, Ed, and I apologize
Heads up on the Limon case in Kansas
http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/11/110405limonUpdt.htm
The interesting part is
"He (Limon) is to stay with an aunt and uncle and must work on their farm. He must attend church on Sundays."
That last strikes me as totally unconstitutional, coming, as it does, from the Kansas Supreme Court.
Thanks for the link, raj. I'll definitely write that up.
The Thomas More Legal Center is a religious-oriented legal service. Why is their interest in the case not sufficient evidence, all by itself, that this is a religious issue rather than a scientific controversy?
The Thomas More Legal Center is a religious-oriented legal service. Why is their interest in the case not sufficient evidence, all by itself, that this is a religious issue rather than a scientific controversy?
Their argument is that this is purely a scientific issue and the enemies of ID are just dragging religion into it to discredit the theory. Since religion is being used, or abused as they see it, they then have their mandate to intervene.
I'm not saying I agree, I'm saying that's the argument.
Am i correct, that the TMLC is funded by, or at least partially funded by, some of the millions of dollars generated by the Amway "pyramid" marketing program??? And are there not some civil cases pending regarding fraud w/ Amway operations and its off shoring of funds???
spyder wrote:
I don't believe this is true. TMLC was founded by Tom Monaghan, who is the founder of Domino's Pizza. From what I've read, the TMLC is now self-sustaining from private donations and grants. It is also affiliated, in some manner, with Monaghan's Ave Maria Law School.
"So you have a theory that is nothing but a thought..."
From here. For fun...
+++
Thanks for the correct information Ed. I had read that one of the Board members was the son of the Amway founder, which didn't seem likely given their own litigation problems.
One of the places TMC shopped was Darby, Montana. It would be interesting to visit Charleston, WV, and Darby, MT, to see if people think they dodged a bullet, or if they are wistful they didn't get the first "trial of the century" in Scopes XXXXI.