A clarification about the pending Gonzalez lawsuit, for Bad Astronomy

Phil over at Bad Astronomy has it a bit backwards, but hey it's not his fault. He didn't have to sit through that nightmare of a press conference.

I still stick by my own conclusion too, that by trying to say that Gonzalez's religious freedom has been curtailed, they are admitting ID is religion and not science, which they vehemently denied with the Dover case. I think if this comes to court, that'll be a fun issue to grill them about.

From the press conference, the DI is clearly trying to distance religion from ID. The subject never really came up until a reporter asked about it. Even a handout in the DI information packet gives instructions on how to properly define ID, which includes notions like separating it from creationism and religious concepts like "higher power". They've already had their day in court at Dover (and lost) because ID was (correctly) tied to religion. They don't want to go back there. Another flub of a court case will cement Intelligent Design as a legal failure.

No, this time around they'll likely try to claim a hostile work environment. They can't risk having ID identified with religion and not science yet again. Which is unfortunate, because as Phil said, it would be really frakkin' fun....

More like this

Doug Patton, a freelance writer for mensnewsdaily.com and gopusa.com, has written a column on evolution that is so abysmal that it might well qualify him as the Idiot of the Month if I didn't already have one. Perhaps I should wait a day and give him December's award. I especially like this passage…
Australia has taken an interesting step forward: they're going to allow instruction in humanism in their schools, apparently in place of traditional religion classes. Victorian state primary school students will soon have an alternative -- religious education lessons taught by people who do not…
There's a fascinating exchange of views in the student newspaper at SMU, where the recent "Darwin vs. Design" dog and pony show was held. Leading up to the event, the Discovery Institute shills were busy trying to lay the groundwork. In particular, there was aneditorial that tried to distance ID…
Ed. note: This is a guest post on the ACLU lawsuit filed against the school board in Dover, Pennsylvania by Dan Ray. Dan is an attorney and the director of the Paralegal Studies Program at Eastern Michigan University. He studied in law school under the esteemed Jack Balkin of the Yale Law School.…

It's gonna be hard to distance ID from religion, when it actually is all about religion...

I think ID has already been cemented as a legal failure. That's why you're seeing more use of the 'we don't want to teach ID, we want critical analysis' language. Its already been shown that ID cannot be uncoupled from its creationist roots. That IDers continually deny it doesn't change a thing. I could claim over and over that I don't have brown eyes, but the facts of the thing will always refute me.

Was it really a hostile workplace environment? Of course scientists are going to be hostile to non-scientific tripe presented as science. If they want to refute that, then they'll have to get into a judge looking at whether ID is science. Which I believe they opposed at Dover.

Dave S @ #2: ...they'll have to get into a judge looking at whether ID is science. Which I believe they opposed at Dover.

Actually, before Dover they were all for it. It wasn't until after Dover that they started saying judges can't determine whether something is science and shouldn't try and anyway no one ever asked for that.

Please join me in pointing and laughing.