Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Those poor ID advocates; they're just so picked on. They're just so tired of us big bad meanies (i.e. "Darwinists") exposing their deceit to the world - they're mad as hell and they're not gonna take it anymore! Well okay, they'll still take it, but they're gonna whine really loudly about it. Look at this post at the DI blog about comments made in a recent article by Richard Katskee of Americans United:
Mr. Katskee attacks those who do not oppose ID as "succumbing to the basic deceit at the heart of intelligent design," saying they "have been deceived." He uses language to ridicule ID as uncool and evil, calling it a "Humpty-Dumptyesque linguistic project" which is "creationism in a cheap tuxedo" and "disingenuou[s]." Mr. Katskee engages in complex ridicule, asserting that "viewed from a sufficient distance, and with eyelids half closing in technospeak-induced slumber, even a cheap tuxedo can look almost elegant--at least to those of us without the training or discernment to distinguish cashmere from polyester blend." Keep in mind that Mr. Katskee didn't just say all this on some blog, but in a supposedly scholarly article in First Amendment Law Review.
Mommy! Those mean old Darwinists are telling the truth about us again! Make them stop!
Comments
I don't have the impression that lawyers are so thin-skinned that a little rhetoric in a law review is going to upset one.
But let me point out that the article by Katskee is 50 pages, and it is a presentation of a point of view that is at least reasonable - even if one disagrees with its point.
For example, in one of the articles that Katskee is responding to, Loewy tells us that when he looked at "Pandas and People", it looked like science to him. Katskee agrees that it has the superficial traits of science writing, and it is not surprising that someone not familiar with real science could make that mistake. And that is one of the reasons why the judge in the Dover case was justified in informing his audience that that impression was mistaken.
The issue being raised in these three law review articles is whether the judge should have ruled on "is it science?" - whether ID is science. Katskee points out that the defense in this case (that is, the pro-ID side) made it an issue. It was, in effect, forced on the judge to make that ruling, in order to address the claims of the defendants. And Katskee must himself also talk about whether ID is science. Loewy, apparently, thinks that ID is science. Katskee doesn't.
Myself, I'm not a lawyer, but I liked the article.
I recommend anyone who is seriously interested in the topic to get to a law library and read the three articles in the issue - or, if need be, to order the issue (I understand that you can get it for $18 from its website http://falr.unc.edu/indexmain.html ) -
First Amendment Law Review
volume 5 number 2 (fall, 2006)
Arnold H. Loewy: The wisdom and constitutionality of teaching intelligent design in public schools; pages 82-89
Jay D. Wexler: Kitzmiller and the "is it science?" question; pages 90-111
Richard B. Katskee: Why it mattered to Dover that intelligent design isn't science;
pages 112-161
Posted by: TomS | March 20, 2007 10:26 AM
Mr. Katskee writes: ID is a "Humpty-Dumptyesque linguistic project" which is "creationism in a cheap tuxedo" - Bravo Mr. Katskee! Thank you Casey, for bringing this to our attention.
Posted by: J-Dog | March 20, 2007 10:38 AM
Yet another opportunity to point out that "design" systematically "creation" in "Pandas" drafts. Supporters of ID studiously ignore this point.
Posted by: Les lane | March 20, 2007 11:17 AM
it looked like science to him
What does science look like?
Apparently we must utilize the kind of educational tools that have been employed to show children what potential child abductors might not "look like."
What's next? "It feels like science to me." No, no, no.
Posted by: Kristine | March 20, 2007 11:20 AM
What does science look like? Well, to Loewy, when he read "Pandas and People":
"No reference to a deity ... The book consistently spoke in probabilistic terms ... referred to fossils whose age was estimated to be in the millions ..." (page 87)
And Katskee wrote about this appearance:
"... rife with charts and graphs ... language of statistics, biochemistry, and comparative zoology ...
But looks, as we all know, can be deceiving; and nowhere is that fact more apparent ... than where pseudoscience is at issue." (pages 140-141)
Posted by: TomS | March 20, 2007 11:56 AM
Luskin is rapidly turning into ID's worst enemy. Here's a hint, Casey. When you're running a campaign, and somebody mocks it, whatever you do, do not repeat the mockery. It's politics 101.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | March 20, 2007 12:50 PM
Apparently the same people who call "Darwinists" evil and compare them to Hitler take offense to being called charlatans. At least they really are charlatans.
Posted by: Stuart Coleman | March 20, 2007 2:07 PM
Ginger - Give the poor kid a break. If he stops repeating all the mockery, he's cut in half all the things he can write about! Then he might have to get a Real Job and actually do some Real Work.
Posted by: J-Dog | March 20, 2007 2:15 PM
From Peter Irons,
If you think Casey Luskin had a hissy-fit over Katskee's article in the First Amendment Law Review (which is excellent) wait until he goes after my article in the Montana Law Review, "Disaster in Dover: The Trials (and Tribulations) of Intelligent Design," which will be out in six-eight weeks. My article is a reponse to one by Luskin and his DI cohorts, John West and David DeWolf, entitled "Intelligent Design Will Survive Kitzmiller." Unlike Katskee, who focused on Judge Jones's opinion and the articles in the same issue of First Amendment Law Review by Jay Wexler of Boston U. law School and Arnold Loewy of Texas Tech law school, my reply to the DI article details their almost vicious ad hominem attacks on Judge Jones, the DI's connection to far-right groups and fundamentalist foundations, and the religious rhetoric of DI fellows. I can't post the dueling articles yet, but as a preview, the DI guys accuse me of "smearing" them. But you're right: Casey is a world-class whiner.
Posted by: peter irons | March 20, 2007 10:09 PM
I love the title of Luskin's post: those big evolutionist bullies, using "Ridicule and Harsh Rhetoric" against some poor defenceless legal scholars. It reminds me of Monty Python's Spanish Inquisition sketch (paraphrasing):
Ximinez: Hm! ID is made of harder stuff! Cardinal Fang! Fetch...the Harsh Rhetoric!
Fang [terrified]: The...Harsh Rhetoric?
Ximinez: So you think you are strong because you can survive the Ridicule. Well, we shall see. Biggles! Put her in the Harsh Rhetoric!
Ximinez [with a cruel leer]: Now -- you will stay in the Harsh Rhetoric until lunch time, with only a cup of coffee at eleven. [aside, to Biggles] Is that really all it is?
Posted by: Richard Wein | March 21, 2007 10:22 AM