I know, that’s hardly worth noting. But it’s just amazing to watch someone be so completely disingenuous in making an argument. He can’t be dense enough not to realize how weak the arguments are. In a new comment on the thread over at Larry’s blog where he endorsed the bullying and intimidation of the children of the plaintiffs in Dover, he spews this crap too:
Blaming the old school board for violating the law is hindsight. They didn’t believe they were violating any laws and one lone district court judge’s opinion is hardly the definitive word on whether or not they actually did violate the law. It’s one man’s opinion.
Talk about confirmation bias. Dave has to ignore facts that he knows to be true. Like the fact that the Dover school board’s own attorney told them if they passed the policy they would lose the case (which is why their liability insurance won’t cover the legal fees in the case, because ignoring their legal counsel’s advice voided the policy – yet this moron still wants to absolve them of blame for it; it’s stunning). Even the Discovery Institute told them that if they passed the policy, they would lose in court.
Folks, having the DI tell you not to pass a pro-ID policy is like having your drug dealer suggest that you’ve got an addiction problem – it isn’t in their best interest to do that. But they knew that this was a losing case and they told the school board it was losing case and the school board still went forward with it. Early on in the case they were offered the opportunity to settle the case without costs; they refused that opportunity. And on top of that, at least two members then chose to commit perjury on the witness stand. Any sane and rational person would put the blame squarely on the school board for ignoring all of that advice and pressing on anyway. The folks in Dover did, which is why they voted them out of office in a clean sweep.
The bottom line remains that 11 snotty parents hated religion so much they thought it was worth taking a million dollars from the school district so their children didn’t have to be burdened with either hearing that 60 second blurb or excusing themselves from it.
This is utter nonsense. The creationists always accuse the other side of being anti-religious, but it just ain’t so. Almost all of the plaintiffs in Kitzmiller were plain old churchgoing Christians. In both McLean and Edwards, the plaintiffs included ministers and bishops from mainline Christian denominations. It doesn’t have a damn thing to do with being anti-religious, it has to do with understanding that religion has no place in a public school science classroom. Period.
What all could that million dollars have purchased for that tiny school district? We ought to make a list of the things that a million bucks will buy that these 11 parents decided to take from the school district to defeat a trivial concession granted to anti-evolutionists.
An interesting admission that ID advocates are anti-evolution. They keep trying to tell us that they’re not anti-evolution. In fact, how many times has DaveScot himself said that comment descent – which is the theory of evolution – is true and that ID only challenges the idea that it was purposeless and unguided? These guys just cannot keep their story straight on that one. The talking points keep getting mixed up with reality.