I'm from Missouri

This site is named for the famous statement of US Congressman Willard Duncan Vandiver from Missouri : "I`m from Missouri -- you'll have to show me." This site is dedicated to skepticism of official dogma in all subjects. Just-so stories are not accepted here. This is a site where controversial subjects such as evolution theory and the Holocaust may be freely debated.

Name:
Location: Los Angeles, California, United States

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. My non-response to a particular comment should not be interpreted as agreement, approval, or inability to answer.

Sunday, December 02, 2007

Guidelines for monkey-trial defendants

It has been a long time since a school district has stepped up to the plate by making a monkey-trial test case. The last monkey trials involving public schools were Kitzmiller v. Dover, which was decided nearly two years ago, and Selman v. Cobb County, which was settled out of court when Cobb County took a dive nearly a year ago. Maybe the reason why things are so quiet is that schools boards have learned that they can easily get away with teaching criticisms of evolution by just teaching the criticisms in the name of teaching more about evolution -- e.g., by using the Discovery Institute's book "Exploring Evolution" -- and avoiding hot-button labels like "creation science," "intelligent design," and "teach the controversy." However, it now appears that the Polk County School Board in Florida may be ready to step up to the plate.

Here are my recommendations for school boards that want to make a monkey-trial test case:
.
(1) Adopt an evolution disclaimer. Other possibilities are: (i) adopting a curriculum that does not require evolution education (however, a local school district would have to require evolution education if the state science standards require it); and (ii) adopting science textbooks that downplay or ignore evolution. Ironically, the Kitzmiller v. Dover and Selman v. Cobb County decisions were against the evolution disclaimers of school boards that had adopted strongly pro-Darwinist biology textbooks -- some payback. I do think that evolution should be taught, but we badly need a court victory, and maybe one way to get it is by eliminating evolution from the official curriculum entirely. This idea of excluding something by not supporting it rather than by banning it is not new -- a previous example is Senator Stephen Douglas's "Freeport Doctrine." Reassure voters that leaving evolution education out of the official curriculum is just a temporary measure to create a test case. However, if you do adopt an evolution disclaimer, be sure that there is something to disclaim, i.e., evolution education as a major part of the official curriculum.

(2) Do not mention anything overtly religious in the evolution disclaimer. Do not mention intelligent design. Cobb County's evolution disclaimer would be a good choice.

(3) Urge the judge to use the endorsement test's "political insider/outsider" principle to rule that the evolution disclaimer serves the purpose of reducing Darwinism's offense to fundies and thus making them feel less like political "outsiders."

(4) Discourage the judge from using the disfavored, abominable Lemon test -- it is a sucking kiss of death. Federal courts are not required to use the Lemon test!

(5) Avoid a "Monday morning" battle of expert scientific witnesses. Do not hear expert scientific testimony before adopting the evolution dlsclaimer or other evolution education rule. Cite Edwards v. Aguillard, where the courts refused to hear such testimony. If the judge insists on hearing such testimony, bail out immediately!

(6) Don't worry about costs -- it's not your money. And remember that the same principle applies to lawsuits that applies to yachts -- "if you have to ask the price, you can't afford it." Blame the plaintiffs and their legal representatives for the costs of the lawsuit.

(7) If you bail out early, try using the Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health & Human Resources, 532 U.S. 598 (2001) precedent to avoid paying attorney fees to the plaintiffs.

(8) Disparage monkey trial precedents. Kitzmiller v. Dover is easy -- for example, you can point out that (i) the ID-as-science section of the opinion was ghostwritten by the ACLU and that (ii) the judge said in a commencement speech that his decision was based on his notion that the Founders believed that organized religions are not "true" religions. Point out that Selman v. Cobb County (not a true precedent because it was settled out of court after being vacated and remanded) and Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish came close to being overturned.

(9) Use courtroom drama. Print the Kitzmiller opinion on a roll of toilet paper and present it in the courtroom.

(10) Added 9-21-08 -- Argue that criticisms of evolution encourage critical thinking and that this is a secular purpose that is not a sham.

(11) Use this blog as a reference. This blog has dozens of articles about monkey trials and related matters.
.

Labels:

17 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is satire, right?

Sunday, December 02, 2007 11:42:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice in the Urbanness said...

> (10) Use this blog as a reference. This blog has dozens of articles about monkey trials and related matters. <

I am sure that anyone using this blog as a reference will be laughed out of court, as you have always been.

Sunday, December 02, 2007 11:42:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Anonymous said...

>>>>> This is satire, right? <<<<<

There is very little satire. It is mostly serious.

Monday, December 03, 2007 12:00:00 AM  
Anonymous Hector said...

> It is mostly serious. <

Can anyone read Larry's posts here and doubt that he has descended from the apes?

Monday, December 03, 2007 10:05:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice in the Urbanness said...

> (1) Adopt an evolution disclaimer. <

That has already been shown as too transparent.

> (2) Do not mention anything overtly religious in the evolution disclaimer. <

It isn't necessary. Others will point how religion is at the core of the anti-evolutionists.


> (3) Urge the judge ... <

The judge will make his own decisions.

> (4) Discourage the judge from...<

The judge will make his own decisions.

> (5) Avoid a "Monday morning" battle of expert scientific witnesses. <

The opposition will bring in experts.

> (6) Don't worry about costs -- it's not your money. <

Why is it that those who claim to be religious have the least scruples?

> (7) If you bail out early <

Be prepared to pay the plaitiffs' legal fees, as well you should.

> (8) Disparage monkey trial precedents. <

To further discredit yourself.

> you can point out that (i) the ID-as-science section of the opinion was ghostwritten by the ACLU <

Larry never learns, does he?

> the judge said ... <

Not what he said. Only Larry's misinterpretation.

> came close to being overturned. <

Are we playing horseshoes?

> (9) Use courtroom drama. <

And be prepared to be laughed out of court (as Larry always is).

> Print the Kitzmiller opinion on a roll of toilet paper and present it in the courtroom. <

And be fined for contempt.

>(10) Use this blog as a reference. <

Delusional, isn't he?

Monday, December 03, 2007 2:59:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

(10) Use this blog as a reference. This blog has dozens of articles about monkey trials and related matters.

Larry's goal ever since being laughed off Wikipedia for trying to use his blog as a source in his campaign promoting Cheryl Yecke has been to establish this blog as a credible source. Fat chance.

We should be so lucky that all creationists follow Larry's recommendations when planning to misuse the courts and squander another community's education resources in their doomed-to-fail end runs around the First Amendment. OBEY LARRY.

Monday, December 03, 2007 3:06:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

When will you learn that ANYTHING the Discovery Institute churns out is considered pro-creationism garbage? The courts have already determined this, and any new trial will just dig up the same old lies and deceptions that the Discovery Institute is known for.

If the fundies press the issue, I predict that the Polk county education budget will be a few million $$$ lighter, and the education board will 4 new members.

Monday, December 03, 2007 3:14:00 PM  
Blogger Jim Sherwood said...

I think I'm getting a telepathic message on this one. Maybe it's from Peter Irons, the ACLU's favorite "Darwin-only" lawyer?

Said Peter the Lawyer, "I'll sue
All dissident school boards in view!
For the kids have no notion
Of Darwinist devotion:
They see there's no sign that it's true.

"Since thinkers are losing belief
In Darwin, I'll sneak like a thief
To rob the taxpayers,
(Those Darwin-naysayers),
With my suits! And give 'em some grief.

"I'm sure that I'll totally ruin
Those goddamn citizens I'm suin':
If they think they can question
Some Darwinist suggestion,
Their freedom of thought's their undoin',

"For I hold in my hands a writ:
'UN-DARWIN SCIENTISTS, GIT!'
It's signed by Judge Jones,
Our Caesar, whose throne's
Almighty. He's ruler. That's it!"

Monday, December 03, 2007 3:58:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Nice limericks, Jim. To make them easy to find later, I copied them under the "Outhouse wall for outhouse poets" post with the post label "Limericks & other poetry."

Monday, December 03, 2007 4:27:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>>> Print the Kitzmiller opinion on a roll of toilet paper and present it in the courtroom. <

And be fined for contempt. <<<<<<

Wrong. This is known as "zealous advocacy."

It is certainly no worse than the presentation of a stack of scientific literature to Michael Behe as an exhibit in the Dover trial. Rule 803 (18) of the Federal Rules of Evidence says that learned treatises may be read into evidence but may not be received as exhibits.

Monday, December 03, 2007 7:36:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice in the Urbanness said...

> Wrong. This is known as "zealous advocacy." <

You have been quite lucky. Your antics have only had you laughed out of court rather than being cited for contempt.

> It is certainly no worse than the presentation of a stack of scientific literature to Michael Behe as an exhibit in the Dover trial. <

It certainly is but you are so sick that you can't see the difference.

> Rule 803 (18) of the Federal Rules of Evidence says that learned treatises may be read into evidence but may not be received as exhibits. <

Perhaps that is why they weren't received, or even offered, as exhibits? Oh, I forgot. You know nothing about law. Look up "exhibit" in a law dictionary. (I have one but you will have to check the Internet or your local library.)

Monday, December 03, 2007 8:59:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>> Perhaps that is why they weren't received, or even offered, as exhibits? <<<<<<

You stupid crock of shit, the stack of literature was introduced in the courtroom as a numbered exhibit.

Monday, December 03, 2007 9:27:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice in the Urbanness said...

> You stupid crock of shit <

You pathetic abominable cretin,
What was the exhibit number?

Do you actually think anyone would want to use this blog as a reference when you keep up these antics?

Tuesday, December 04, 2007 3:49:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>> What was the exhibit number? <<<<<<

Why didn't you ask that in the first place, dunghill, instead of flatly saying that the stack of publications was not offered as an exhibit? And saying that I know nothing about law?

It was Plaintiffs' Exhibit 743, as stated here.

Tuesday, December 04, 2007 4:40:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice in the Urbanness said...

> saying that I know nothing about law? <

You have proven that.

> It was Paintiffs' Exhibit 743, as stated here. <

The stack, not the contents. Try again.

Tuesday, December 04, 2007 8:40:00 PM  
Anonymous Hector said...

I think that where Larry is getting lost this time is purpose. He cites:

> Rule 803 (18) of the Federal Rules of Evidence says that learned treatises may be read into evidence but may not be received as exhibits. <

The point of this rule is that someone may not bring in a treatise as evidence and act as if the contents are now known to the court. On the other hand, if someone kills another by bashing him over the head with a book, that book may be brought in as evidence without reading in the contents.

It would seem that this should be obvious but most things go over Larry's head.

Wednesday, December 05, 2007 11:13:00 AM  
Anonymous Emanuel Goldstein said...

KEY GUIDELINE:

Do NOT rely on the Discovery Institute.

If you see them coming your ways, lock the door and pull the blinds.

They will offer to provide all kinds of help, and BAIL on you when a serious problem arised.

They did it to my pals in DOVER.

Be warned.

Thursday, December 06, 2007 5:16:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home