http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10217105/
From the article…“they object to the teaching of evolution as scientific fact”
Do stupid people keep getting stupider?
Aaacckkk!
They are not getting dumber. They are getting more dangerous. By starting nuisance suits they are mounting yet another type of assault on logic and reason in favor of superstition and faith.
Jim
When will these stupid fuckers understand the meaning of the word “theory”?
Has anyone ever tried to teach the “Fact of Evolution”?
NO!
I find it astounding and more than a little troubling that the militarily and economically most powerful nation in the world is still debating evolution.
I dunno- maybe it’s a good thing. Like Tom Cruise bringing so much attention to his ‘church’. Maybe shining a light on these ideas will make them less mysterious.
Still.
Actually, I’m pretty cool with this lawsuit, although it should really just be called a publicity ploy for their little group. The Caldwells will get their asses handed to them. And they’re in federal court – yay! State court judges can sometimes be a crapshoot, but federal court judges will throw you in jail if you’re five minutes late to court. They have little truck with bullshit theories.
Looking over their press release, it appears that their primary objection is that the Cal website has statements from various religions (note the plural – religionsssssss) endorsing evolutionary theory. Apparently good ole Larry was absent that day in First Amendment class.
I call a 12(b)(6) dismissal on the second go-around of motions if not the first, with costs to Cal and relatively cheap national publicity for the Caldwells.
Please help me understand what you are saying.
I am reading this as the Caldwells will lose but the U of Cal-Berkley will still be out legal fees. My WAG is the Caldwells are happy to do this, knowing they will lose, but every nuisance suite drains money from the U and might make others more gun shy about web site supporting the Theory of Evolution.
I would think this is a deliberate and harmful strategy and it scares me a little. Unless the court makes the Caldwells pay U of Cal-Berkley’s legal fees, the Caldwells win.
Jim
I don’t think that they know they will lose, but I pretty much agree with the rest. If these nuisance suits keep popping up (and there are enough nutjobs without hobbies to do it), it’s going to encourage the loonies and sway the ignorant.
I believe jrfranchi means, by “costs to Cal”, that the university will seek the payment of their legal fees from the plaintiffs, and that the judge will likely order such payment in the process of granting Cal’s motion to dismiss the suit as frivolous.
Would the U.S. Code or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow the imposing of sanctions over and above legal fees on the plaintiffs and/or their lawyers for filing a frivolous suit?
I hope you are correct, but I will wait for one of our Legal Eagles to comment. I am out of my league on legal issues.
Harborwolf, don’t underestimate the enemies of reason. They are clever enough to plan a strategy of “nuisance suites” to help their side. They probably have a “Faith Network” supporting what they are doing with Money and Prayer. Their beliefs are unscientific, but this does not mean stupid or not clever.
I work with a very nice person who does not recognize evolution. There is no possible meeting point for us on this issue. She is not dumb, but somehow lacks the ability to use her logic for these issues and most issues where God comes into play. I know she has raised funds to stop abortion and was part of the “Faith Network” that spread the word to vote for Bush over Kerry, because Kerry would allow Gay Marriage and he was anti-God. She just operates in a way completely different from what I consider rational thought but yet is very nice and fairly smart.
My point with that rambling little piece about my co-worker is don’t underestimate them. They may seem stupid on the surface on these issues, but actually be quite clever in pursuing their agendas.
Jim
So let me get this straight. Teaching evolution as fact is somehow endorsing religion? Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa??? 
And who are the Caldwells to decide what scientific fact is? I always thought we should leave that to scientists, you know, as a group.
Here are tidbits from the Murky news article.
They say they are not IDers - they are not that smart. They seem true blue cretinists. He’s a lawyer. Could he get disbarred for this shit? (Probably not, but I can hope.)
They object to the Berkeley site linking to doctrinal statements from relgious groups demonstrating there is no conflict between many religions and evolution as somehow endorsing some religions over others. I can imagine that they find it very dangerous for the site to disprove their belief that evolution is somehow atheistic.
The lawyer scum has sued his local district before, since they did not allow him to hand out crap against science.
I’m sure the real reason they are suing is to try to stop this educational tool. Don’t understimate them. These fuckers are more dangerous to the future of the US than any number of terrorists.
And people wonder why we’re falling behind in science education.
Be afraid. Be very, very, afraid. Remember, our President is one of those nutjobs who doesn’t believe in evolution.
From what I understand, from the Caldwells’ press release, their challenge to Cal’s website is grounded in the First Amendment, which (among other things) prohibits government from establishing a religion. The Cal website, which explains to teachers how to teach evolution, allegedly contains a section in which different religious leaders, representing various religions, are quoted to explain that evolution is not inconsistent with religion.
On the face of it, this doesn’t pass (to use the technical legal term 
) the smell test. In other words, unless I’m missing something, this is a baseless suit. Yes, it will cost Cal money in legal fees to fight this. (Note that Cal likely has a legal department, so what it does is cost Cal legal fees in the sense that some attorneys in their legal department must divert attention to this issue instead of spending their time on other matters. Or some of the Boalt law school professors and students could take this on pro bono.)
That cost to Cal is likely to be minimal, in the grand scheme. The benefit is another court judgment making plain that this type of activity does not violate the First Amendment. That’s beneficial in a couple ways: it creates a clear legal environment in which other public entities (like high schools) know that activities like this are constitutionally okay.
The other thing this does is mark Larry Caldwell as a tool. To the extent he’s not already marked as a tool, that is. I haven’t seen the complaint, so I don’t know how “artfully” he’s written it – I don’t know what he actually says, nor how he intends to get around the law. But lawyers in federal court are held to the strict standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 11. (State courts usually have similar rules, but they’re not called “Rule 11.”) One of the things that a lawyer certifies, by signing a document (like a complaint) and filing it with the court is that:
If the court finds that a lawyer has violated Rule 11 (and the court doesn’t have to wait for another party to point it out; the court can do this on its own), the court can sanction the lawyer that violated that rule. The sanction can take many forms, but monetary is the most common, and particularly a monetary sanction that is the same amount as the other party’s attorneys fees.
Normally a party in the US must pay its own legal fees (that’s one of the reasons that the US has comparatively more lawsuits than in the UK, where the winning party is able to recover its legal fees in addition to whatever else the judgment gives it). But Rule 11 has significant teeth, and federal judges, as I’ve said before, aren’t afraid to use it.
I’m not particularly disturbed by this lawsuit. It strikes me as a publicity ploy (i.e., a way to raise money for his pet project) more than an actual legal maneuver. If anyone can find a copy of the complaint, I may change my opinion based on what’s actually in there. But this is sound and fury, signifying nothing. At least in my opinion.
For more, I found this weblog, which I think explains the law relatively well.
I think you may be confused. Evolution is a fact. Natural selection is a theory.
Well, technically it isn’t a “fact”, but a theory much like gravity. It may as well be fact for all the evidence behind it.
Nah, evolution is a fact in the same way that gravity is a fact.
There are theories which try to explain them both, but observation is enough to confirm their existence.
Saying that evolution (or gravity) is only a theory is like saying that the sun is only a theory. It’s possible to argue that a heliocentric theory is more or less probable than a geocentric one, but few people deny the existence of the sun or pretend that gravitation is just a bunch of smoke and mirrors made up by godless eggheads.
Thank you for clarifying that. I was aware that the US rule is for each party to bear its own costs of litigation in most cases, but was unsure whether there were exceptions to that rule in extraordinary circumstances.
The tragic thing is it cost the Caldwells or whomever about $20 to file a lawsuit. It will take Cal much more to refute, and if you haven’t seen lawyer’s fees lately, it’s a doggone atrocity. (No offense to lawyers here on the board.)
My husband owns his company, and the number of ludicrous lawsuits filed against him on any given day ensure at least $10,000 of work for simple refutation. That is not taking into account if the case actually makes it to court. It just isn’t right. Lawsuits are filed all to frivolously these days. Litigious society and all. The only person I would consider suing is the check to see if it’s the pit bitch/cunt/asswipe/dingleberry/freak/slut.whore who stole my identity and now I have to be the one to prove who I am to over 50 companies. If they can nail this person (which hubby says they won’t; identity theft being low on the totem pole of actively pursued crimes, despite the evidence I’ve collected), then I am suing her ass for $20,000 in damages, and $50,000 for personal distress. Yeah, it’s not much but it’s the damn principle of the thing. I even called her and told her I was on to her and she’s STILL trying to open accounts with MY information!!!
So, there are necesssary lawsuits, and unnecessary ones. The former, above, seems frivolous. The latter - and maybe it’s just because it’s me, but I am SOOO against being a litigious person - is necessary. But only if they catch her.
Bummer.
Inky