Creationists Fail in Texas.

[aggle-rithm]

Plaintiff is entirely unable to file a complaint which is not overly verbose, disjointed, incoherent, maundering, and full of irrelevant information.

Sounds like Kent Hovind's doctoral dissertation.

 

[steve s]

Your title is two words too long.

 

[fuelair]

I can't get my Head around exactly what research they do at the Institute for creation research.
I thought it was a done deal, signed and sealed in the Bible. Do they sit in a circle smiling knowingly at each other?

Circle jerking.

 

[learner]

Circle jerking.

 

[blobru]

Here is the text of the court's decision if anyone cares to read it. ...

Whoa. That is one hellacious legal ass-kicking. [My highlights]: First, the review panel's negative assessment, which ICRGS is protesting, is quoted at length [two excerpts]:

Dr. Skoog found ICRGS’s stated purpose of teaching students to be leaders in science education could not be met by the program because ICRGS rejects... “the underlying principle that science works by providing ‘explanation through natural law.’” - He... concluded the program “ignores established scientific evidence,” and “integrates selective scientific data that gives credence to [the framework of Biblical creationism], but ignores, or circumvents, a large body of scientific data that erodes and shatters the foundation of this framework.”
...
Dr. Stafford concluded [several ICRGS guidelines] constituted a rejection of the fundamental principles which guide what scientists do, because scientists must “remain open to all facts and all observations of natural phenomena in order to refine and improve their comprehensive explanations of how natural processes appear to work.” “Scientists seek to understand how the world works naturally...[and] do not rely on supernatural interventions to explain the observations found in nature[.]” Thus, he concluded the guiding principles of ICRGS are in “direct conflict” with the principles that guide what scientists do, and as a result ICRGS cannot accomplish its stated objective of preparing students “for leadership in science education.”

Halfway through the ruling, when the creationists try to argue religious persecution, the court nails them with what moronic hypocrisy that is:

In this case, ICRGS has failed to carry its burden to show the Board’s denial imposed a substantial burden on its free exercise of religion. First, ICRGS has not presented any evidence indicating it is substantially motivated by sincere religious belief in offering the Master of Science in Science Education degree. ... Because ICRGS alternates between arguing it is merely teaching science and arguing its program is compelled by its religious beliefs, the Court is at a loss to determine what portion of ICRGS’s behavior should be considered motivated by its religious beliefs.

Hoist by their own petard: classic! As a last gasp, the creationists protest the board's standards are too 'vague', which the court, predictably, has a field day with:

Finally, ICRGS seeks to invalidate Standard 12 (and thereby the Board’s decision) on the ground it is “too vague and/or arbitrary as a ‘gatekeeping’ standard that criminalizes free speech.” ... ICRGS cites no legal support for its argument whatsoever, but instead relies on rambling, repetitive assertions and a hodgepodge of legal terminology, most of which are irrelevant to its argument. Thus, before evaluating ICRGS’s vagueness claim, the Court is faced with the exasperating task of determining exactly what the claim is.
...
In this case, ICRGS has offered no actual evidence Standard 12 is unconstitutionally vague (though it pontificates extensively on the subject), and the Court can discern nothing in the language of the provision which raises a genuine question of material fact about the constitutionality of its provisions from a vagueness standpoint.
...
[ I]t is undisputed ICRGS never, during the entire process, indicated any confusion on the meaning of the applicable standards or how to show compliance with those standards. In sum, there is simply no credible argument Standard 12 is “so vague and indefinite as really to be no rule at all,” and thus the Court finds ICRGS’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of vagueness should be DENIED.

Because you might have missed it otherwise, dummies, here it is in capital letters... "DENIED"!

... I tried to look for the name of the judge, but I failed. It would be nice to learn who people can rely on for sound judgement and common sense when it comes to this topic in the courts.

Signed, Sam Sparks (United States District Judge)

 

[Mongrel]

Whoa. That is one hellacious legal ass-kicking. [My highlights]: First, the review panel's negative assessment, which ICRGS is protesting, is quoted at length [two excerpts]:



Halfway through the ruling, when the creationists try to argue religious persecution, the court nails them with what moronic hypocrisy that is:

Hoist by their own petard: classic! As a last gasp, the creationists protest the board's standards are too 'vague', which the court, predictably, has a field day with:



Because you might have missed it otherwise, dummies, here it is in capital letters... "DENIED"!


Signed, Sam Sparks (United States District Judge)

So the normal "Waahhhh! The real scientists are being mean to us!"

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I can't get my Head around exactly what research they do at the Institute for creation research.

Are you serious? They have a really tough job. Every few years they have to find a new irreducibly complex biological mechanism to bandy about as the poster child for IC. Why? Because as soon as they pick one, a bunch of biologists jump on it and produce quite reasonable explanations for how it evolved.

Past poster children: flagellum, cilium, ATP synthase, eye, blood clotting

Current poster child: complement system


~~ Paul

 

[schrodingasdawg]

Are you serious? They have a really tough job. Every few years they have to find a new irreducibly complex biological mechanism to bandy about as the poster child for IC. Why? Because as soon as they pick one, a bunch of biologists jump on it and produce quite reasonable explanations for how it evolved.

Past poster children: flagellum, cilium, ATP synthase, eye, blood clotting

Current poster child: complement system


~~ Paul

In other words, their job is to produce a longer and longer list of failures.

 

[KingMerv00]

Signed, Sam Sparks (United States District Judge)

I've read plenty of court opinions in my time and I will say Mr. Sparks must have been PISSED. Judges only slip snide remarks into their opinions if they are 5 seconds away from beating you to death with their gavel.

Or their last name is Scalia.

 

[Mojo]

Thus, before evaluating ICRGS’s vagueness claim, the Court is faced with the exasperating task of determining exactly what the claim is.

 

[Mojo]

Signed, Sam Sparks (United States District Judge)

A comment from the judge in an earlier case (according to his Wikipedia page):

"When the undersigned accepted the appointment from the President of the United States of the position now held, he was ready to face the daily practice of law in federal courts with presumably competent lawyers. No one warned the undersigned that in many instances his responsibility would be the same as a person who supervised kindergarten."

 

[blobru]

Judge Sparks does seem to have the right sense of humor to handle creationist lawsuits. Here's a ruling he handed down on what looks to have been a petition to ban civic pool maintenance because it threatened a species of salamander, written as a poem. {can call us "newt" for short}

His dry style reminds me a bit of a terrific poster we haven't heard from in a while, ceo_esq, who obviously, from his posts, was schooled in jurisprudence at a fairly high level.

 

[Xephyr]

Well, at least someone is awake to creationists' neverending attempts to enforce their dogmatic views on the rest of the populace.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Circle jerking.

I was going to say that, but I have too much class.

 

[Vic Vega]

Judge Sparks does seem to have the right sense of humor to handle creationist lawsuits. Here's a ruling he handed down on what looks to have been a petition to ban civic pool maintenance because it threatened a species of salamander, written as a poem. {can call us "newt" for short}

The judge isn't much of a poet, but I like his legal rulings.

 

[Vortigern99]

Judge Sparks does seem to have the right sense of humor to handle creationist lawsuits. Here's a ruling he handed down on what looks to have been a petition to ban civic pool maintenance because it threatened a species of salamander, written as a poem.

A couple of clarifications here. The Barton Springs salamander is unique to the area and endangered due to urban development. It needs to be protected, and Sparks was not debating or dismissing that idea. Sparks basically ruled that cleaning the (spring-fed) pool would not further endanger the salamander, which since his ruling twelve years ago, it has not.

 

[blobru]

The judge isn't much of a poet, but I like his legal rulings.

Yup. Don't scan too good, but it makes good sense.

A couple of clarifications here. The Barton Springs salamander is unique to the area and endangered due to urban development. It needs to be protected, and Sparks was not debating or dismissing that idea. Sparks basically ruled that cleaning the (spring-fed) pool would not further endanger the salamander, which since his ruling twelve years ago, it has not.

Thanks for the local insight, Vortigern. That was my sense from the poem --

... Both salamander and swimmer enjoy the springs that are cool.
And cleaning is necessary for both species in the pool. ...

-- so no problem for the newts; the last lines below being a swipe at the EPA in its extreme, which I assume would ban artificial cleaning, even where it made ecological sense --

The Endangered Species Act in its extreme makes no sense.
Only Congress can change it to make this problem past tense.

-- but as Vic says, the judge's poetic diction could use a little work.