Thoughts in a Haystack: Every Which Way . . .

Wednesday, January 18, 2006

Every Which Way . . .

If you follow Casey Luskin’s statements over the last few days, it is hard to see where the Discovery Institute thinks it is going with Intelligent Design in the wake of the Debacle in Dover.

Luskin, an attorney and the DI’s point man on the El Tejon School District case in California, is quoted in an article dated January 18th in the Los Angeles Times as kvetching about the settlement the school board reached with Americans United for Separation of Church and State:

"What you have here is a small school district that essentially got bullied into an overreaching settlement by Americans United," said Casey Luskin, an attorney for the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, a public policy think tank that promotes intelligent design. "They want complete censorship of intelligent design from state-run schools. It's a problem, because intelligent design is a science. It's not a religious point of view." ...

[B]y promising to never again offer a course that promotes or endorses creationism, creation science or intelligent design, school officials had essentially "abdicated their constitutional right to present this scientific theory in schools," Luskin said.

Never mind that the DI had its chance to convince an impartial Republican judge that ID is science and chickened out and that their fellow travelers spend six weeks attempting just that and Judge Jones' still found that the "overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory." Also forget that "promote" and "endorse" have very technical meanings in Establishment clause jurisprudence, as Luskin certainly knows if he paid any attention in law school or even read Judge Jones’ decision, where both terms were extensively discussed. In point of fact, all the board did was promise not to violate the Constitution again.

But did Luskin manage to forget his own role in the case so soon? Here is what Mr. Luskin said when he appeared at the January 13, 2006 public meeting of the El Tejon School Board:

But if you do not cancel this course, and if you let this lawsuit go forward, you are going to lose and there will be a dangerous legal precedent set which could threaten the teaching of intelligent design on the national level.

If the school board was being bullied, the DI was right there exhibiting its own set of brass knuckles.

But in a post entitled "Discovery Institute Praises School District for Withdrawing Class Misrepresenting Intelligent Design" on the DI’s blog, Evolution News & Views, dated January 17th, Luskin is quoted as saying:

We are pleased that the school district followed our recommendation to withdraw this class. From the very beginning this course was not formulated properly and was confusing students by including discussion of intelligent design with material that promoted young earth creationism as fact.

Moreover, there is no mention of evil evolutionists kneecapping innocent phys ed teachers or fitting cowering school board members with cement overshoes. Instead, Luskin goes on:

While we are pleased by the outcome in this case, we continue to believe that teaching objectively about intelligent design is permissible in public school science classes, and is certainly acceptable for philosophy or social studies courses. We offered to work with the district and with Americans United to create a philosophy course on origins which people on all sides agree would be acceptable and that they could re-teach next year.

So, ID is really science but it’s OK if it only gets taught in a philosophy course. Uh huh.

Even allowing for the usual amount of both-sides-of-the-mouth verbalization by the Discovery Institute, this seems to be deeply conflicted policy on its part. Not able to resist turning it into a PR ploy, however, the article ends with Luskin throwing down this gauntlet:

If Americans United really believes that it's OK to teach about intelligent design in philosophy or social studies courses, we challenge them to join with us to come up with an objective course that can be taught in the El Tejon district. Otherwise, it will become clear that their real goal is the suppression of any discussion of intelligent design in any classroom anywhere in the country.

I would just remind the people at the Discovery Institute that it is they who are advocating the teaching of ID in public schools against the backdrop of the decision in Dover. It should not be up to the opponents of ID to initiate the attempt to find a constitutional curriculum for it. The DI is staffed with more lawyers and philosophers than scientists and they would seem to be ideally situated, both by training and interest, to come up with a proposal that could then be evaluated by a broad spectrum of educators, philosophers and other experts.

Speaking of put up or shut up . . .

Link - Posted by John Pieret @ 8:42 PM

Comments:

'If you don't help us promote ID, you're supressing ID.' Wow, you think they could get any more disingenuous?

Those of us favoring reality should adopt a slogan. I think a paraphrase of Cuba Gooding's character in Jerry McGuire would do. "Show me the science!"

# posted by