Dispatches from the Creation Wars

News Flash: Cobb County Case Settled

A little birdie just called to tell me that the Cobb County evolution disclaimer case has been settled, and on very favorable terms for our side. Americans United is sending out a press release which says, in part:

In an agreement announced today, Cobb County school officials state that they will not order the placement of “any stickers, labels, stamps, inscriptions, or other warnings or disclaimers bearing language substantially similar to that used on the sticker that is the subject of this action.” School officials also agreed not to take other actions that would undermine the teaching of evolution in biology classes.

It should be noted that this happens one day before the one year anniversary of the ruling in Kitzmiller, and I don’t think that is coincidental here. When the appeals court remanded this case back to the district court, not only was the case reopened for a new trial but the judge also reopened discovery and decided to allow expert witnesses to testify. I strongly suspect that this was a big influence on making the defense settle the case. After watching how effectively we used expert testimony in the Dover case, they couldn’t like that prospect. It is perhaps also worth noting that this is what real lawyers do in lieu of putting out silly “studies” based on word counts.

Comments

  1. #1 Coin
    December 19, 2006

    Ed, you should consider putting up a post about this at Panda’s Thumb. I think it’s pretty significant news that this is finally over for good.

  2. #2 Halcyon
    December 19, 2006

    Do we get to post bets as to how sign the DI or other group has a post about how it’s a victory for Intelligent Deisgn?

  3. #3 Gerard Harbison
    December 19, 2006

    Quite a few creationists will be disappointed. They interpreted the Third Appeals Court decision remanding it back to the district court as a sign the Appeals Court wanted to overturn it, rather than a technical issue (which it was).

  4. #4 Gerard Harbison
    December 19, 2006

    Aaargh. Eleventh Circuit, not Third Circuit. Sorry!

  5. #5 Kevin W. Parker
    December 19, 2006

    Press release is online here.

  6. #6 Kevin W. Parker
    December 19, 2006

    Do we get to post bets as to how soon the DI or other group has a post about how it’s a victory for Intelligent Design?

    I vote for “Darwinists intimidate another school board into forbidding any criticism of evolution.”

  7. #7 doctorgoo
    December 19, 2006

    It should be noted that this happens one day before the one year anniversary of the ruling in Kitzmiller, and I don’t think that is coincidental here.

    Released the day before, so that it’s likely to be carried by all media outlets on the anniversary itself. Now this is the celebration I’m talking about!!

    http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2006/12/worldmag_joins_the_jones_sland.php#comment-292589

  8. #8 Mustafa Mond, FCD
    December 19, 2006

    Quite a few creationists will be disappointed. They interpreted the Third Appeals Court decision remanding it back to the district court as a sign the Appeals Court wanted to overturn it, rather than a technical issue (which it was).

    Given some of the injudicious statements by one of the appeals justices, I can understand their feelings of encouragement.

  9. #9 Mark
    December 19, 2006

    I, too, suspect that the prospect of a trial during which expert testimony is delivered was a strong incentive to drop the case. My conclusion is that the IDers recognize that they cannot prevail when they are constrained to tell the truth.

  10. #10 Rhampton
    December 19, 2006

    Meanwhile, the DI put out this amazing press release in response to an article that paints IDers in a bad light. Do they suspect that their readers will not click on the link or that they lack sufficient comprehension?

    Intelligent Design Research Lab Highlighted in New Scientist
    An article in the latest issue of New Scientist highlights the exciting work of scientists at the Biologic Institute, a new research lab conducting biological research and experiments from an intelligent design perspective. While writer Celeste Biever can’t suppress her visceral pro-Darwin bias from the story (which carries the dismissive title “Intelligent design: The God Lab”), Biever’s article is going to make it very difficult for Darwinists to continue to assert that scientists who support intelligent design aren’t conducting scientific research.

  11. #11 Coin
    December 19, 2006

    Biever’s article is going to make it very difficult for Darwinists to continue to assert that scientists who support intelligent design aren’t conducting scientific research.

    Hm, I wonder why they didn’t link to The attached editorial:

    Editorial: It’s still about religion

  12. #12 kehrsam
    December 19, 2006

    Rhampton: What the article doesn’t make clear is how any of Dr. Axe’s research is actually forwarding the ID thesis. So they’re looking at protein folding: Good, this is a particularly rewarding field at the moment, and I hope they do good work. But how is this going to forward the ID program?

    I don’t believe anyone has suggested that ID researchers cannot walk and chew gum at the same time. But, other than they are looking at some fields that are relatively new to biology given technological developments, why is THIS research expected to contradict the last 150 years of results?

  13. #13 Ron Tolle
    December 19, 2006

    “Do we get to post bets as to how sign the DI or other group has a post about how it’s a victory for Intelligent Deisgn?”

    I want to know if Bill Dembski’s going to be directing any more flash movies anytime soon. Ha ha, f**k them!

  14. #14 Ed Brayton
    December 19, 2006

    No one has ever claimed that ID advocates don’t do scientific research. Behe has many published papers that include original research. So does Axe. What they don’t have is any research that supports ID. And every article they’ve claimed in the past as supporting ID has turned out to do quite the opposite. And they will undoubtedly turn out more of the same research, which they will dishonestly claim supports ID. To my knowledge, Dembski has never attempted to defend his ridiculous claim that Axe’s paper on perturbation rates in an enzyme showed that “any slight modification” destroyed “the possibility of any function.” That was either a baldfaced lie, or Dembski is an ignoramus writing about something he doesn’t understand. I’ll let him pick which.

  15. #15 kehrsam
    December 19, 2006

    A superficially impressive ID video is currently making the rounds.

    http://www.kids4truth.com/watchmaker/watch.html

    It’s kind of cute, in a 17th Century kind of way.

  16. #16 doctorgoo
    December 20, 2006

    Here’s the Atlanta Journal-Constitution article this morning: http://www.ajc.com/services/content/metro/cobb/stories/2006/12/19/1220metstickers.html?cxtype=rss&cxsvc=7&cxcat=13

    My favorite line? Larry Taylor, one of the parents who lobbied the school board for stickers said “It’s terrorist organizations like the ACLU that are hijacking our country’s educational system by imposing their own secular agenda on the rest of us.”

    So now the ACLU is a terrorist organization?? Why did the school board ever listen to this guy in the first place?

  17. #17 John Hinkle
    December 20, 2006

    Hey, that 17th century watchmaker animation can be yours for the bargain price of only 5 dollars! (See the fine print after the animation runs).

    It’s not about God, or money for that matter.

The site is currently under maintenance and will be back shortly. New comments have been disabled during this time, please check back soon.