Mike Dunford is a graduate student in the Department of Zoology at the University of Hawaii, Manoa, where he studies evolution. He's also a contributer to 
Given that today really is April 1st, let me start by saying that although Behe is a fool, this post isn't a joke. Everything you're about to read is real. This is the third part of my post on the summary judgment decision in the California Creationist Case. Part 1 is here, and part 2 is here.
It would seem that Mike Behe has, once again, managed to shoot an own goal in the courtroom. The last time that he was an expert witness, during the Dover case, the judge quoted extensively from Behe's testimony, but not in a way that he particularly liked. Ultimately, it seems that he scored more points for his opponents than he did for his friends. He's also an expert witness in the California Creationism Case, and he seems to have once again managed to put the ball right through the wrong goal.
Behe's contribution to the pro-science side of the case appears on page 40 of the written order:
Plaintiff's evidence also supports Defendants' conclusion that these biology texts are inappropriate for use as the primary or sole text. Plaintiffs' own biology expert, Professor Michael Behe, testified that "it is personally abusive and pedagogically damaging to de facto require students to subscribe to an idea. . . . Requiring a student to, effectively, consent to an idea violates [her] personal integrity. Such a wrenching violation [may cause] a terrible educational outcome." (Behe Decl. Para. 59.)
Yet, the two Christian biology texts at issue commit this "wrenching violation." For example, Biology for Christian Schools declares on the very first page that:
(1) "'Whatever the Bible says is so; whatever man says may or may not be so,' is the only [position] a Christian can take. . . ."
(2) "If [scientific] conclusions contradict the Word of God, the conclusions are wrong, no matter how many scientific facts may appear to back them."
(3) "Christians must disregard [scientific hypotheses or theories] that contradict the Bible." (Phillips Decl. Ex. B, at xi.)
Based on the facts, I'm confident that the judge would have been able to reach the decision that the books used by the Christian schools were inappropriate even without Behe's able assistance. Nevertheless, we should probably thank him for (accidentally) helping us out again.
Comments
Gods, I love Michael Behe. Never fails to shoot his own side in the foot, in an amusing way. Let's all chip in and send him flowers.
Posted by: Eamon Knight | April 1, 2008 4:11 PM
Actually Behe IS on our side. And he doesn't hide it. Whenever he's pushed, he affirms that evolution is an accurate statement of reality and that he agrees with an ancient earth, common ancestry and evolution. In the meantime he milks the creationists every decade with another book that recycles tired old arguments. When he gets pulled in front of a judge, he make a token effort and either takes a dive or carefully points out the flaws in his own token argument.
His faint support is brilliant. He manages to make a career and good money from creationists while subtly castrating them. If he didn't show up someone else might.
Posted by: Quidam | April 1, 2008 4:39 PM
Other choice moments from the decision - seriously if folks have got the time peruse it, it's basically "Plaintiffs argue A and A is proven to be completely totally false and also plaintiffs dont really know what they're doing."
On page 16, lines 17-19:
{
Finally, Plaintiffs futilely attempt to distinguish Forbes by incorrectly characterizing the decision as one involving "a public school prescribing its curriculum." Forbes did not involve a public school, it involved a public television station...
}
Posted by: Reginald | April 1, 2008 4:40 PM
It wasn't clear to me that the judge quite understood what Behe was trying to say. The first page of the quoted text is most emphatically NOT a "wrenching violation" of the ideas trained into the students bringing the suit. It is not only entirely consistent and congenial with those ideas, but embodies them as comfortably as one might imagine. It is the judge's understand of science that is violently wrenched by these (quoted) prerequisites.
So contrary to the judge's interpretation, Behe was not offering testimony *against* this text. Behe was saying that IF you believe these things, your belief should not be discomforted by exposure to observed reality, evidence, facts, and other pesky violations of your integrity. Otherwise, you will suffer the "terrible educational outcome" of actually LEARNING something.
What emerges only obliquely from the judge's careful wording, and very little from Dunford's commentary, is that without exception the texts used in these Christian schools had preaching the faith as their primary goal, and only incidentally touched on their nominal subject matters - and then only as leverage to illustrate the sermons.
And so the "science" texts only alluded to "scientificial" illustrations of biblical passages. History texts focused on the glory of the righteous believers of the past and the evil of those who believed differently. Historical events that couldn't be used to underscore the bible didn't make the textbooks. English texts were excerpts of sermons. Comparative religion texts were howlingly doctrinaire extolling of creationism and fulminations against the godlessness of anything else.
Across the board, through and through, these students were exposed to pure religious indoctrination, to which all other topics were subservient and illustrative only. The entire goal was preparation for heaven, not college. The kids lived Jesus Camp 24/7. I fully understand UC's reluctance to remediate these kids into reality.
Posted by: Flint | April 1, 2008 4:44 PM
I know Judge Otero. Another very conservative judge. The Christian Schools Association couldn't have done better. If they lost here, they'd get creamed in any other court.
Posted by: Joe McFaul | April 1, 2008 5:03 PM
We should take a collection and send him a VERY NICE gift (think Elliot Spitzer).
Posted by: Gerardo Camilo | April 1, 2008 5:21 PM
Posted by: ERV | April 1, 2008 6:05 PM
You want to send Elliot Spitzer to Behe as a gift?
Posted by: John Marley | April 1, 2008 6:07 PM
John Marley,
You of all should appreciate that Behe figuratively found another horse head in his bed.
For those of you who haven't a clue of what I mean, check the cast of The Godfather.
Posted by: Frank J | April 1, 2008 6:59 PM
His faint support is brilliant. He manages to make a career and good money from creationists while subtly castrating them. If he didn't show up someone else might.
there is a rather large hole in your idea:
ERV has castrated Behe himself on several occasions for spewing utter nonsense about the evolution of various aspects of HIV that if you were correct, Behe himself already would have known none of his target audience would have cared about or understood anyway.
He just made himself look intractable and stupid.
In fact, one can't even make the case he intended to use this episode to play the "victim" card, since he horribly insulted ERV at every turn.
nope.
he's just an intractable old coot that hasn't forgotten EVERYTHING he learned, but whose cognitive dissonance has broken much of his brain.
much like Egnor.
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 1, 2008 8:12 PM
I think this is just another instance of the crafty ID creationist plot to make people feel sorry for them because they're so incompetent.
Posted by: RBH | April 1, 2008 9:42 PM
I think this is just another instance of the crafty ID creationist plot to make people feel sorry for them because they're so incompetent.
Incompetence Apologetics?
yeah, that works.
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 1, 2008 10:16 PM
Is Dr Behe saying that you should never attempt to teach someone a concept that contradicts their religious notions? What's the point of going to school then? Does he grade his students based on how well they defend the beliefs they already have?
Posted by: ellazimm | April 1, 2008 11:22 PM
It looks like Judge Otero decision indicated that UC's admission policies were Intellegently Designed. I noticed the judge's Nixplanatory Filter weeded out every single argument made by the plaintiff.
Posted by: Walt | April 1, 2008 11:23 PM
It's amazing how bad these guys can be in court. Absolutely amateurish. I have a list a lot of laughable quotes from the decision if any one is interested that doesn't want to wade through 50 pages.
My personal favorite:
"UC is under no duty to employ only those individuals whose religious beliefs coincide with the Plaintiffs"
Posted by: Science Avenger | April 2, 2008 1:08 AM
(http:// prefixes removed from links to prevent comment from hanging up. Comments with more than one link are apparently treated as "spam." Links must be cut and pasted)
This blog has three separate current comment threads on this subject, so I am not sure where to post my comment. I could post it in all three threads, but then I may get responses in different threads, which would further complicate things. For the time being, I will just post in this thread.
I am not sure yet that this whole story is not an April Fools Day hoax. Your link to the decision does not work for me (correction -- I finally got the link to work after trying all day) and I could find neither hide nor hair of the decision on the websites of ASCI, UC, or the court. In particular, the court is supposed to post decisions immediately if not sooner, and here it is Tuesday evening and the decision was supposedly issued on Friday and is still not in the court's list of decisions. That's unforgivable, particularly in a case as closely watched as this one. See
www.cacd.uscourts.gov/CACD/RecentPubOp.nsf/Recently+Issued+Opinions+and+Orders?OpenView
My blog has several articles about the case, e.g.,
im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2008/03/hearing-held-in-acsi-v-stearns-fundy.html
One of my blog articles says that the fundies reported that at a meeting with UC representatives, the UC representatives admitted that "UC did not have any objective evidence that students from religious schools are deficient in science when they arrive for their freshman year of college":
Has UC ever presented any objective evidence that the fundy students are deficient in science when then arrive for their freshman year of college?
UC apparently does not always enforce the general education requirements. For example, Eugene Volokh of the Volokh Conspiracy blog received a UCLA BS degree in computer science at the age of 15. Some general education requirements were almost certainly waived in his case.
A lot of the issues in this case have already been covered in the following post and comment thread: scienceblogs.com/authority/2007/09/viewpoint_discrimination_and_t.php
As for Behe and the other expert witnesses, the judge here is making the same mistake that Judge Jones made in Kitzmiller v. Dover: holding a "Monday-morning battle of experts" who advised neither the plaintiffs nor the defendants. In Edwards v. Aguillard (1987), the courts refused to hear such a battle.
Here is a summary of my views so far as the fundy biology text is concerned:
Since the approach of the fundy biology text is unorthodox, students claiming admissions credit for courses using this text should be required to either (1) get a satisfactory score on a standardized biology test such as the SAT II AP biology test or (2) pass a general college course in biology. Requiring these students to apply through special admissions (top 2-4% of high school grads) instead of general admissions (top 12.5-15% of high school grads) is unreasonable.
The courts waste too much time on high-profile cases, with the result that (1) decisions on these cases are greatly delayed (this lawsuit was filed in August 2005), (2) court costs are driven up, and (3) low-profile cases are given short or no shrift. ACSI told me that UC submitted 350,000 pages of materials! So much for the bullshit that ACSI is solely responsible for complicating the case.
Posted by: Larry Fafarman | April 2, 2008 1:35 AM
Gosh Larry Fafarman, you are full of it!
Yes, courts waste a lot of time on high-profile cases. So the kretinous kristian kreationist kooks should stop initiating them.
UC submitted so much evidence because christian manure makes flowers grow. It requires a mountain of truth to cover a dungheap of lies.
If you were paying attention, you'd realise that the case is nothing to do with whether fundy students are individually adequate for UC courses (although one would hope they might have broken their programming by college age). It's about whether doctrinaire courses centred around textbooks full of haranguing anti-rational drivel can be judged to be OK for the "short'n'sweet" entry path. What UC is saying is this: if it a high school course appears to be a religious course with a splash of abused science when assessed on its description, we don't consider it to be prima facie a proper science course, so students must demonstrate their fitness some other way.
Why do christians lie so much? Life would be so much easier if they started to respect the truth occasionally!
Posted by: Sam C | April 2, 2008 5:14 AM
Well, were he really just trying to blend in with the ID crowd for his ownfinancial gain, that would be the perfect disguise.
Posted by: MartinM | April 2, 2008 5:18 AM
Christians must disregard [scientific hypotheses or theories] that contradict the Bible...
If you are going to put that in a science book, why are you even trying to do science. It's laughable. If someone had been taught from that book, i wouldn't trust them to tie their own shoelaces never mind hold a test tube.
Posted by: Richard Eis | April 2, 2008 8:22 AM
However, studying exclusively from texts where the subject matter is ancillary to the goal of religious indoctrination, and where the content of that subject matter is presented totally inadequately (omitted, misrepresented, or plain wrong) to force it to meet religious litmus tests, is what's at issue here. UC is saying that students who suffer this mental crippling MUST use one of the other avenues to demonstrate the development of knowledge and critical thinking skills to qualify for admission.
It's important to emphasize that credit was not denied on religious grounds, and in fact UC grants credit for a great many courses where a single religous viewpoint is emphasized (and the decision lists several of them). Credit was denied when the ONLY "exposure" to the necessary skills and knowledge could not reasonably be expected to impart either one.
I think Larry's religious puppet strings are being pulled here, as usual. UC has many many more applicants than spaces available. They have to apply SOME means of selection. Failure to demonstrate minimally necessary qualifications is surely one such means. I think Larry would have no problem with this, EXCEPT in cases where the students were kept in obvious ignorance for religious reasons. Then he wants to change the rules.
Posted by: Flint | April 2, 2008 8:35 AM
Re Larry Fafarman
Hey Mr. Fafarman, how's your campaign to get Ed Brayton expelled from scienceblogs going? Apparently not well as he's still there.
How about your campaign to join the plaintiffs team suing Mr. Brayton going? Apparently, their threats to file such a law suit are just that, threats.
Posted by: SLC | April 2, 2008 9:02 AM
(http:// prefixes removed from links to prevent comment from hanging up. Links must be cut and pasted.)
Flint said ( April 1, 2008 4:44 PM ) --
Right on. Unscrupulous Judge Otero quote-mined Behe. Judge Otero had no business twisting Behe's statement to help the defendants. Behe obviously did not intend that his statement be misused in that way, and he had no opportunity to clarify his statement to prevent it from being misused in that way. It could be argued that students who find those statements in the fundy biology text to be a "wrenching violation" of their "personal integrity" do not belong in a fundy school in the first place. Also, there is a fair possibility that the students at Calvary Chapel have the option of taking biology courses that use non-fundy textbooks. A 2006 USA Today article says, "UC has certified 43 Calvary Chapel courses and has admitted 24 of the 32 applicants from the high school in the past four years." -- from
www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-01-12-christian-school_x.htm
No, Darwinists, you didn't "score." That was a foul.
Flint continued,
I disagree. When UC rejected the biology texts, UC apparently did not claim that these texts do not present the core material adequately. Apparently it was only later that UC made a feeble effort to claim that the textbooks have some factual errors -- see
im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2007/05/dover-aint-over-iii-update-on-fundies-v.html
Posted by: Larry Fafarman | April 2, 2008 9:05 AM
Correction -- I said,
Those objections were raised by the Panda's Thumb blog -- not by UC.
Posted by: Larry Fafarman | April 2, 2008 9:28 AM
Larry is a holocaust denier. Why would anyone take him seriously. Just laugh at him.
Posted by: Ravilyn Sanders | April 2, 2008 9:49 AM
It's almost cute that Larry thinks people are listening to him ramble on.
Posted by: Stephen Wells | April 2, 2008 9:54 AM
Behe: "it is personally abusive and pedagogically damaging to de facto require students to subscribe to an idea..."
Shorter version: It's wrong to teach people anything.
Okaaaaayyyyyy (backs away slowly).
Posted by: Stephen Wells | April 2, 2008 10:01 AM
Interesting interpretation of a decision that explicitly states that UC put together a committee of qualified people to evaluate the texts, which reported that the texts were inadequate on the merits. The decision goes on to quote several of the evaluators to that effect. And a key part of the decision itself was based on this well-documented evaluation. Which Larry somehow missed. How very typical.Otero (as I read it) didn't expect a supposedly expert witness (and tenured professor!) to take that position. Otero mistakenly treated Behe as SANE! Big mistake, but understandable.
Posted by: Flint | April 2, 2008 10:09 AM
No...Behe made a valid point here. Requiring someone to subscribe to something is quite different from teaching something since someone can, presumably, debate a taught subject and present an alternate concept. Further, I *taught* concept is one wherein an explanation and examples on why and how something is valid is presented. Requiring someone to subscribe to something on the other hand is dogma. Seems the Judge Otero understood the difference too. :)
(And yes, Stephen, I realize that your tongue was fully planted in your cheek here, but I thought I'd elaborate a bitt for the noodles like Fafarman).
Indeed the whole problem with the Christian schools' approach was noted by the judge -
(2) "If [scientific] conclusions contradict the Word of God, the conclusions are wrong, no matter how many scientific facts may appear to back them."
This is not teaching, by definition, and UC is under no obligation to accept such "personally abusive[d]and pedagorically damag[ed]" students.
Posted by: Robin | April 2, 2008 10:17 AM
"Shorter version: It's wrong to teach people anything."
This misses the key point, and misses it badly. Behe is NOT saying it's wrong to teach people anything, he's saying that it's wrong to teach people stuff that undermines that part of their religious indoctrination that Behe happens to agree with.
Maybe this is obvious, but I think it should be made explicit. The fight here isn't for education, the fight here is for souls. Every sentence in every educational text must be vetted for doctrinal purity. The goal isn't really to keep the kids ignorant, but rather to keep them blind members of the creationist flock.
So Behe, like all creationists, is two-faced. He's all for knowledge, critical thinking, good education, EXCEPT when he feels his religious delusions are threatened. Suddenly out comes the non-negotiable double standard.
I suggest that Otero has little exposure to how creationists think; he lacked the context to understand the encodings. He took Behe at his word.
Posted by: Flint | April 2, 2008 10:20 AM
"No...Behe made a valid point here. Requiring someone to subscribe to something is quite different from teaching something"
Here's exactly the place where we went through the looking glass. In creation-land, 24/7 indoctrination, with punishment for failure to swallow it sincerely enough, is deemed by the creationists to be "well-rounded exposure" and good education. Conversely, neutral and non-judgmental exposure to a wide range of viewpoints, especially those based on solid mountains of verifiable evidence, are deemed "requiring someone to subscribe to an idea".
On the creationist side of the looking glass, there is right (their doctrine) and there is WRONG (everything else). There is no useful differentiation possible among different wrong ideas - wrong is wrong. Exposure to wrong ideas may confuse, upset, or even mislead the properly-educated creationist.
Sheer exposure, then, is "requiring someone to subscribe to something" in creation-land. Narrow indoctrination, embedded deeply in all academic subjects including lunch and athletics, isn't "requiring" them to accept anything, it's just saving their immortal souls. Different thing, see?
Posted by: Flint | April 2, 2008 10:32 AM
Oh yes. I'm well aware of the creationist understanding of "teaching" and I'm pretty sure I understand what Behe *thought* he was saying. Thankfully the Judge apparently understands that the "real-world" is not creation-land and that "teaching" Christian doctrine is not education.
Posted by: Robin | April 2, 2008 11:04 AM
***"(And yes, Stephen, I realize that your tongue was fully planted in your cheek here, but I thought I'd elaborate a bit for the noodles like Fafarman)"***
Calling Larry a noodle is an insult to the FSM and thus to all Pastafarians.
I know noodles. I've worked with noodles. Larry Fafarman is no noodle.
Posted by: Donnie B. | April 2, 2008 11:11 AM
Have the IDiots no pride?
It certainly confirms that 'Gegen Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens!'
'Professor' Behe, - my ass.
Posted by: JonnM | April 2, 2008 11:21 AM
That didn't take long. Already it's the Judge's fault. I figured Otero would get the "Judge jones" treatment soon enough. It's never the fault of the creationists utter incompetency, it's always the Judge.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | April 2, 2008 11:29 AM
That is Larry's M.O. He hates any judge that has a lick of sense. It must be pretty hard to take the fact that even conservative judges hand picked by G.W. Bush see through the Fundamentalist charade.
Posted by: J. Biggs | April 2, 2008 11:48 AM
Yeah, you're right. I'm sure as we sit here the rest of the rationally challenged crowd is feverishly typing away their indignation at Judge Otero completely ignoring his credentials, just as they did with Jones.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | April 2, 2008 12:06 PM
Apologies to all the noodley enlightened for my insensitivity towards your faith. I will choose my terminology more carefully in the future and avoid terms relating to mein, udon, pasta, or other such delights.
Posted by: Robin | April 2, 2008 12:21 PM
Perhaps you meant unwittingly? :-)
Posted by: WetLabMonkey | April 2, 2008 12:58 PM
These creationists (ID'ers) are the Osama Bin Laden's of the christian world and terminators that will never stop until science, particularly evolution, is laid to rest.
Posted by: DavidK | April 2, 2008 1:28 PM
Larry is a holocaust denier. Why would anyone take him seriously. Just laugh at him.
Really?? Are there actually people that stupid that are willing to speak up in public?
Larry? Is it true?
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | April 2, 2008 1:35 PM
Flint said (April 2, 2008 10:09 AM) --
You are reading too much into Behe's statements. You are putting words in his mouth.
AGAIN:
Otero should not have twisted Behe's statements to help support an argument in favor of the defendants. That's quote-mining. Behe had no chance to clarify his statements. That was a very snide thing that Judge Otero did.
AGAIN:
-- from http://www.acsi.org/webfiles/webitems/attachments/007875_1.%20Overview%20of%20ACSI%20Law%20Suit.pdfAGAIN:
What is wrong with my proposed solution:
===================================
"I'm always kicking their butts -- that's why they don't like me." -- Gov. Arnold SchwarzeneggerPosted by: Larry Fafarman | April 2, 2008 3:11 PM
"These creationists (ID'ers) are the Osama Bin Laden's...."
I personally see them mirrored to the fundimentelist Talaban. Luckily for Americans, they don't have the political power they crave to carry out their twisted agenda that their favored sky fairy demands. It's all about power over others, always has been. History amply demonstrates what happens when these nutcases come to power.
Posted by: RAM | April 2, 2008 3:32 PM
If you want to know what's wrong with your proposed solution, you're going to have to ask the people who filed the lawsuit. UC's policy on the A-G course requirements has allowed students to demonstrate proficiency in the subjects by passing SAT II or AP exams since before the suit was filed.
You would have known this if you'd ever bothered to actually read any of the legal documents that you moan and whine about on a regular basis.
Posted by: Mike Dunford | April 2, 2008 3:40 PM
No, it is not true. I am a holocaust revisionist, not a holocaust denier. One of my main arguments is that a "systematic" holocaust of Jews was impossible because the Nazis had no objective and reliable ways of identifying Jews and non-Jews.
Posted by: Larry Fafarman | April 2, 2008 3:43 PM
Yeah, that explains all the dead Jews.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | April 2, 2008 3:54 PM
Larry:
You explicitly wrote (and I quoted): "UC apparently did not claim that these texts do not present the core material adequately."
This statement is prima facie false. The decision shows that you are lying in detail, taking several pages doing so. When I pointed out that you were lying, you now try to change the subject. This is known as "lying".
Yes, you have twice presented this, which you claim is a quote from a creationist source you do not link to. But even if it's accurate (you will surely understand that since creationists cannot help lying, this is a dubious assumption), it is a different topic. Now the (creationist) complaint is that UC has not accepted enough people who can show no evidence of exposure to education, to demonstrate that uneducated people underperform! To correct this, I would suppose, your creationist source would demand that UC accept everyone who passes their religious litmus test, a few of whom would very likely be able to graduate, who could then be used to demonstrate that selection criteria to eliminate low-probability applications are without merit, provided the applicant adheres to the One True Faith. If he does not, then he has unacceptable ignorance, right? Your religious double standard shines through everything you write.Only that the UC has already published guidelines laying out alternative means of qualifying, and accepts 18% of their entering class via these alternative means, which remain open to those subjected to academically useless or dangerous indoctrinaton *instead* of education.
The creationists are NOT suing UC because these other avenues don't exist. They are suing in the hopes that applicants uneducated for reasons of religious doctrine not be required to demonstrate compentence by any means whatsoever.
Really, Larry, if you could only take of your religious blinders, you'd see that you are being an idiot. Pretend, just for the exercise (if critical thinking is still possible in there) that there are schools which exist to convince kids that the moon is made of green cheese. The Cheesists might examine every sentence of every (self-published) "textbook" to make sure every one adheres strictly to Cheesist doctrine. In fact, the text might explicitly say "Where reality is perceived to conflict with Cheesism, reality is wrong by definition"
Now, imagine that you are charged with deciding whether Cheesist students have received a well-rounded education and are capable of critical thinking. How can you tell? By interviewing them and being told in no uncertain terms that the moon is made of cheese and reality is irrelevant? By reading texts that make this point to the exclusion of all others?
I would hope you could see that to anyone but a devout Cheesist, these schools would be graduating mobs of ignoramuses. Perhaps a Cheesist would defend his delusions the same way you do: by lying.
But UC is in the business of educating students, not remediating those whose parents refused to give them the necessary academic grounding.
So we finally get to the core issue here: To the UC, the core issue is academic - how to provide the best education they can to those applicants best able to gain it. Religion has nothing to do with UC's position here - they also refuse to accept applicants who dropped out of 9th grade, and applicants who fared dismally on standard tests.
To the creationist, religion is the ONLY issue. Their entire claim hinges on UC using religion, and ONLY religion, as an excuse to persecute them. Academics are entirely irrelevant to the plaintiffs. If their faith requires them to keep their kids as stupid as you, they then attempt to blame someone else, for "reasons" irrelevant to their demands.
Judge Otero is offending you and the other religiously blind victims of the same sort of child abuse, by accepting UC's framing of the issue - that it is academic and not religious. And on academic grounds, schools that don't educate don't qualify. The REASON they don't educate, UC doesn't care about.
Posted by: Flint | April 2, 2008 3:57 PM
Flint, if you expect Larry to change his argument just because you obliterated it. Think again. Larry will just repeat the same argument ad nauseum regardless of how thoroughly you refute it, and claim victory when you tire of the game. Debating Larry is enjoyable the same way that hitting your head against a brick wall is enjoyable. It feels so good when you stop.
Posted by: J. Biggs | April 2, 2008 4:13 PM
Sheesh, Mike, I just got back to Minnesota from Oahu Monday...I was looking for someone knowledgeable to snorkle with and discuss the humuhumunukunukuapuaa I observed while snorkling at Ko Olina and Electric Beach! We could have had a few beers and some chuckles about Behe's idiotic references, too! Maybe next time.
Posted by: Rick Schauer | April 2, 2008 4:34 PM
"Pretend, just for the exercise (if critical thinking is still possible in there) that there are schools which exist to convince kids that the moon is made of green cheese."
Flint, great point, but many of them are already doing exactly that at so many other levels. They just hate evolution the most. I personally love the "the earth is 6000 years old" example, which is silly at any level.
Does ANYBODY really think that IF the creationists somehow won the evolution debate, "cause reality hurts my ears" it would stop there? Their stated goal is to revise ALL science to agree the bible, right?
Posted by: RAM | April 2, 2008 4:38 PM
the Nazis had no objective and reliable ways of identifying Jews and non-Jews.
Funny, I don't have any trouble, and I'm not even trying to hurt them. The Nazis were probably more motivated than to identify them than I am, and they could be pretty efficient when they were motivated.
Posted by: CJColucci | April 2, 2008 4:51 PM
"No, it is not true. I am a holocaust revisionist, not a holocaust denier. One of my main arguments is that a "systematic" holocaust of Jews was impossible because the Nazis had no objective and reliable ways of identifying Jews and non-Jews."
-Larry Fafarman | April 2, 2008 3:43 PM
Everyone knows that Nazis would never stoop to using subjective or unreliable methods!
;)
Posted by: Phoca | April 2, 2008 4:52 PM
The important point here is that UC is a large diverse organization, composed of members of every major religion and a good many minor ones. Their goal is to teach universal, common human understandings of every subject from language and literature to math and science to sociology and psychology to comparative religion. They aren't out either to convert or deconvert anyone, only to impart both information and the ability to think about it. Religious faith is simply outside their academic frame of reference.
But for the plaintiffs, religious faith is the only possible frame of reference, through which all information must be filtered, and with respect to which all behaviors must be judged. And this striking contrast of orientations explains why Behe's testimony worked against him - because Behe was testifying within the creationist context, and Otero was interpreting his testimony within the academic context.
And so it's amusing to see the plaintiffs "discovering" either support for, or antagonism to, their One True Faith in all of UC's guidelines and policies. Just like they construct or evaluate textbooks, science, history, and every other subject. Compounding this, of course, is the conviction that there is no neutral - that which does not praise and ratify their narrow and irrational, reality-defying superstitions, is ipso facto out to get them, explicitly The Enemy. (And I suppose once a set of delusions gets weird enough, reality can seem pretty damn hostile. Which explains the existence of these schools and texts in the first place. They're an escape out of sheer desperation lest reality erode their childrens' souls.)
So Otero's decision is truly fascinating reading. He points out, on almost every page, that the plaintiffs' claims are inaccurate, inappropriate, or present untenable interpretations of the facts on the ground. Almost like the plaintiffs don't live in the same reality as the rest of us. And he's quite right, as Larry consistently demonstrates. What reality is permitted to pass their demons bears only surreal, nightmarish resemblance to what lies beyond them.
Posted by: Flint | April 2, 2008 5:22 PM
It is nice that there is somewhere where we can debate Larry openly. His own blog which is headed "My biggest motivation for creating my own blogs was to avoid the arbitrary censorship practiced by other blogs and various other Internet forums. Censorship will be avoided in my blogs -- there will be no deletion of comments, no closing of comment threads, no holding up of comments for moderation, and no commenter registration hassles. Comments containing nothing but insults and/or ad hominem attacks are discouraged."
Larry's blog is heavily censored, is now moderated, and if loaded with ad-hominem attacks, mainly by Larry himself. He also claims to be the founder of the "Association of Non-Censoring Bloggers", an association of which he is the only member and whose principles he does not practice.
Larry's claim is that he is censoring "gossip about his personal life", but few of the posts that have been censored even mention him. They are only posts that point out his hypocrisy and inconsistency.
He does a better job of debate here than on his own blog where his only answer seems to be insults and attack towards anyone who takes an opposing side and repetition of the original failed arguments. He invariably ends up with merangue pie dripping off his face while proclaiming "See. You missed me."
They are always kicking his ass. That's why he doesn't like them.
Posted by: Voice in the Urbanness | April 2, 2008 7:39 PM
This is the second time I've seen Mr. Fafarman insist his view of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Edwards v. Aguillard is correct, and that two Republican appointees to the Federal bench have got it wrong. What are the chances? (IAAL, have read the Edwards decision, and can tell you there is no chance at all that Mr. Fafarman's interpretation is correct.)
Mr. Fafarman wrote:
To make such an argument in the face of the evidence, mere stupidity or thickheadedness will not do; it takes motivation.
For that motivation, sir, on behalf of myself and all the people I have known with concentration camp tattoos on their arms (there have been many, several of whom I have known quite well), may I say that you must be a particularly vile excuse for a human being.
Posted by: Jud | April 2, 2008 8:52 PM
Mike Dunford said,
So why hasn't UC been emphasizing that solution that I proposed?
Darwinists are more interested in finding fault with the fundy biology texts than in finding a solution to the dispute.
There is no question that the approach of the fundy biology texts is unorthodox, so my proposed solution is an obvious one. Why can't the judge just impose this solution on the parties, instead of wasting everyone's time and money? The time the courts waste on high-profile cases takes time away from low-profile cases -- I know that from sad personal experience.
Posted by: Larry Fafarman | April 2, 2008 9:18 PM
Larry: Darwinists are more interested in finding fault with the fundy biology texts than in finding a solution to the dispute.
The premise of that claim seems to be built on a false assumption. It isn't the university's responsibility to find a way to compromise with any group. It is the university's responsibility to educate students, and before doing so, to assure that the students have a suitable foundation to receive such education.
Using test scores, as you suggest, is but one means to assess their foundation. A very limited means, in fact. Reviewing the curriculum the students studied under provides other informative data points. That information can be much more valuable, especially if the curriculum didn't provide the information and foundation that the university is interested in for their entering students.
It is, I'm suggesting, up to those wishing to enter the university to meet the requirements.
Posted by: Q | April 2, 2008 9:39 PM
Jud moans,
The chances are excellent -- in fact, they are 100%. The Edwards v. Aguillard decision expressly rejected a "Monday-morning battle of experts."
Being a federal judge does not mean that one is smart -- Judge Jones is one of the dumbest jerks I have ever seen.
The holocaust is off-topic here, dunghill. If you want my views on the subject, I invite you to visit my blog, where the sidebar has post labels for holocaust revisionism and Darwin-to-Hitler --
http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/
Posted by: Larry Fafarman | April 2, 2008 9:45 PM
To follow up what Q said, colleges and universities also award more points for the intensity of a course (weighted/AP/Honors). Most of that is based on the rigor of the course materials, whether the books are more difficult or if they are explored in more depth. These students should probably be negatively scored the way "Content Mastery" students should be.
CM, or other alphabet soup phrases generally refer to the students who are underperforming and consistently need help in a certain area.
Posted by: zoltan | April 2, 2008 11:13 PM
Larry wrote:
Impossible doesn't mean they couldn't, and didn't, try.
Do you think actions are only possibly f they are rational?
Also, Larry, it's not really impossible to know your neighbor's religion. I imagine people withhold such information from you, because you're an obnoxious creep, but for the rest of us it's pretty much common knowledge.
If there were a sudden pogrom against Catholics it would not be a difficult task find and "reveal" the whereabouts of a great many of them. Including my friends, neighbors and relatives. I could provide employers, addresses and phone numbers within minutes. I couldn't pick them out of a crowd unless I knew them. In which case I could pick them out of a crowd.
To think that Nazis wouldn't be able to ask around is beyond stupid. Identifying a Jew was probably as simple as asking the neighbors. Just as easy as it would be for us to point to you when and if a government agent were to ask about the presence of annoying jackass holocaust deniers.
Posted by: Leni | April 3, 2008 1:30 AM
UC knew about their policy. I knew about their policy. The judge knew about their policy. The people who filed this idiotic suit, believe it or not, know about this policy. Your stupendous ignorance in this matter is not in any way the fault of the University of California.
Larry, "your" proposal is something that the University of California has been doing since long before the lawsuit was first filed. It's part of their policy. It's part of the policy that the Christian schools are challenging in the lawsuit. What part of this don't you get? You didn't come up with anything that is in any way, shape, or form new.
Larry, you do understand that all that the judge would have to do to make that happen is dismiss the Christian schools case, yes?
Posted by: Mike Dunford | April 3, 2008 1:39 AM
One of my main arguments is that a "systematic" holocaust of Jews was impossible because the Nazis had no objective and reliable ways of identifying Jews and non-Jews.
Apparently the existence of census data that identified religious affiliation isn't good enough for Mr. Fafarman. When someone claiming to be a "revisionist" anything conveniently overlooks reams of available and documented data, what you're really seeing is a denier. (Five gets you ten we now hear the whooshing sound of goalposts being moved by a parsec or two.)
In other words, treat Mr. Fafarman's further points with some skepticism, since he's obviously willing to conveniently miss large chunks of factual evidence in order to continue making claims.
Posted by: Interrobang | April 3, 2008 1:39 AM
That Larry is a holocaust denier/revisionist is certainly evidence that he has problems that go well beyond his views on this issue.
However, I do have to agree with Larry on one - and only one - point. The subject is well and truly off topic here. I would appreciate it if that aspect of the discussion is dropped by everyone.
This includes you, Larry. I would also suggest that you refrain from referring to people as "dunghills", even if they refer to you as a sorry example of a human being first. I just lifted your ban here a couple of days ago, and I won't hesitate to toss your comments into the junk folder in the future if I find it necessary. You have no goodwill to spend here, and I won't warn you a second time.
Posted by: Mike Dunford | April 3, 2008 1:48 AM
(http:// prefixes removed to prevent comment from hanging up. Links must be cut and pasted)
Mike Dunford said,
Yes, but you had to get in one last potshot at me before dropping the subject, didn't you.
There is a big difference between "knowing" about a policy and doing something about it. This "policy" is usually not part of the discussion -- I am the one who brought it up here. Usually the discussion is just about whether the fundy biology textbook is good or bad -- there is never going to be any agreement on that issue (BTW, even I think that the textbook's philosophy about science v. religion is bad). Also, a lot of people believe that the university is forcing fundies to apply under the special admissions program (top 2-4% of high school grads) instead of under the general admissions program (top 12.5-15% of high school grads).
UC's previous motion to dismiss did call special attention to this policy and even the original complaint suggested the use of standardized tests as an alternative, but I am not seeing much about this alternative now. In the previous motion to dismiss, UC said,
And the plaintiffs' original complaint said,
Under UC's Subject A English requirement, students are allowed to take remedial English courses after enrolling.
This and other issues were discussed under one of your previous posts on the subject:
scienceblogs.com/authority/2007/09/viewpoint_discrimination_and_t.php
Well, the lawsuit is not just over the biology textbooks or science textbooks -- it is also over other textbooks for courses that might not be covered by standardized tests.
Anyway, so far as the fundy biology textbooks are concerned, he wouldn't have to dismiss the lawsuit completely -- he could rule that otherwise-qualified fundies who flunk the SAT biology test (i.e., get an unsatisfactory score) be admitted upon the condition that they must pass a general college biology course to graduate (similar to the Subject A English requirement). Evolution is a part of the SAT AP biology test -- albeit a relatively small one -- and not studying evolution could cause someone to flunk the test. Here is the breakdown of the SAT AP biology test:
I. Molecules and Cells (25%)
A. Chemistry of Life (7%)
Water
Organic molecules in organisms
Free energy changes
Enzymes
B. Cells (10%)
Prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells
Membranes
Subcellular organization
Cell cycle and its regulation
C. Cellular Energetics (8%)
Coupled reactions
Fermentation and cellular respiration
Photosynthesis
===============================
II. Heredity and Evolution (25%)
A. Here