For its part, the Discovery Institute has done its best to push back, desperately struggling to keep ID’s creationist core out of the public eye (“Is intelligent design the same as creationism? No.”). But late last year, cracks started to develop, and on Monday (as PZ Myers acknowledges), the Discovery Institute’s Michael Egnor finally let the truth slip. In a long screed railing against “Darwininsts” and their ilk, Egnor mentioned creationism six times – and “intelligent design” not at all. It’s official, folks, and straight from the DI’s mouth: intelligent design is creationism. Creationism’s Trojan horse is empty.

Why does it matter, you ask, that the Discovery Institute finally fessed up to its animating ideology? From a PR standpoint, it may not matter at all. But legally, it makes all the difference in the world. When a policy is challenged as an “establishment” of religion, the legal question to ask is whether the policy would appear religious to an “objective, reasonable observer.” This is what killed intelligent design in Kitzmiller (from an earlier article of mine):

The Lemon test, as applied by Judge Jones, asked whether an objective, reasonable observer would perceive that a religious message was conveyed by the teaching of intelligent design. Id. at 714-16. Judge Jones found in the affirmative. Id. at 714-730. However, the test is very record-sensitive. If the record does not disclose mentions of religion in the area and time surrounding the adoption of intelligent design as government policy, the Lemon test may result in the conclusion that religious motivations were not in play. Thus, the plaintiff’s job in a suit to enjoin the teaching of intelligent design is to find a “smoking gun,” where religion/creationism and ID are mentioned as inextricable.

By acknowledging its affinity with creationism, Michael Egnor ensures that any lawsuit the Discovery Institute touches will immediately turn to dust. With Egnor’s words on the record, the DI’s involvement becomes instant proof of a “religious motivation” to any challenged policy.

So long, Discovery Institute, and here’s a tip for next time: if you need intelligence and subtlety to make your message work, don’t count on fundamentalist Christians. [bpsdb]

This was the problem with M. Night Shyamalan’s “The Happening”: he created a universe where (for whatever reason), the laws of physics didn’t seem to apply, but used this universe to argue that, in the real world, science is similarly insufficient to explain natural phenomena. He turned a nice story (I suppose) into a vehicle for pitching the same mysticism joyfully used by creationists to tear down public respect for science. Not cool, man (and PZ Myers agrees!). It’s also the problem with C.S. Lewis’ famous Chronicles of Narnia – and what separates Lewis from his contemporaries like J.R.R. Tolkien, who openly spurned allegory: because the hand of the author is so present, crafting the religious allegory to guide the reader to Christianity, the storytelling suffers.

Sadly, there’s reason to fear that ABC’s hit show “Lost” – a personal favorite of mine – is about to similarly jump the tracks from an enjoyable mystery/horror/fantasy into the realm of proselytizing bad science… or religion.

Warning: remainder of post contains spoilers regarding the 18 Feb. 2009 episode of “Lost”:

An enduring theme of the “Lost” universe has been the conflict between science, rigorous materialism, and blind faith, exemplified by the clash between Jack Shephard, the natural leader and physician, and John Locke, the seemingly-delusional mystic obsessed with “The Island’s” bizarre properties, and determined to pursue them at any cost. The “Lost” creators have seen no reason to paint this theme subtly: the second season premiere, where Jack and Locke’s tensions first came to a head, was titled “Man of Science, Man of Faith.” Juuuust in case you missed the point.

Up until the end of season four, the show seemed rather ambivalent as to the question of which philosophy was objectively “best,” content simply to portray the differences between each philosophy in action. Each avatar had his own successes and failures: Jack, the man of science, holds the island’s ragtag inhabitants together and surmounts crisis after crisis. However, he’s also a drunk (by and by) with crippling emotional problems. Locke, on the other hand, seems to gain unique benefits from his connection to the island (surviving a bullet to the gut being one of them), but risks and sacrifices the lives of his friends whenever necessary, seemingly without second thought, to obtain that connection. By the opening of season five, it’s painfully obvious that they’re both doing something wrong. Maybe that’s the message: “science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”

Nope. If the last episode (“316″) is any indication, in the enduring conflict between science and religion, Team “Lost” has declared religion the winner in no uncertain terms.  The episode is rife with religious imagery and themes: primarily, it turns out that John Locke, now dead, died to allow Jack and the “Oceanic Six” one last chance to make it back to the Island – paradise. In a previous episode, the seemingly undying Richard Alpert had informed him of the need for this noble sacrifice. You see where this is going?

It gets worse. The characters meet up in a church, where Benjamin Linus, perennial liar & manipulator, actually takes the time to pray, exposing a vulnerable and spiritual side of his character deeply at odds with is day-to-day behavior. Taking a sabbatical from playing Machiavelli, Linus upbraids Jack for his lack of “faith” in the Island and, by extension, John Locke, likening Jack to the apostle Thomas, who doubted Jesus’ divinity, but eventually came to believe. Later, we read John Locke’s last message to Jack:

Jack, I wish you had believed me. – JL.

Uh oh. And then, the flight number they take to get back to the Island? 316. I wonder if that number’s significant…

John (!!!!) 3:16: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

I’m afraid it is. It’s all well and good to construct a fantasy universe where the rules don’t apply, and allegory is certainly the oldest tool in the author’s guidebook. Well, second oldest, I guess. But Linus’ lecture on the importance of faith, and the dangers of doubt, seems to stride across the thin line between describing and lecturing: the intended listener is no longer just the recalcitrant Jack, but the agnostic viewer. If Jack can believe, only after suffering for his lack of belief, why should we wait so long? Why not just believe, now?

If this was the goal – if the producers intended to cross the Tolkien/Lewis line – then “Lost,” a hitherto enjoyable show, may end up as a piece of missionary drama, enjoyable for what it is, but always paying the price for putting mission before story. I always knew it was a possibility. But now I’m more than a little worried. Should I be? At least now I have two reasons to watch “Lost”…

If I may be so bold, I know why they lost. Essentially, it was a perfect storm of Fail. Intelligent design creationists had to deal with a smart judge, a foolish defendant (Bill Buckingham) who never seemed to realize that the religious origins of ID were supposed to be secret, and a printing agency that made embarrassing typographical errors (“cdesign proponentists”!). Keeping this in mind, their rout seems downright reasonable.

But that doesn’t stop the Discovery Institute from reliving the defeat in painful detail. Today, we’ll examine one example, from a while back. In this remarkable article, Casey Luskin, of Discovery Institute infamy, argues that the Kitzmiller decision runs afoul of separation of powers. In his words:

During lawsuits alleging violations of the Establishment Clause in school curricula, courts are allowed to determine if the curriculum establishes religion, but that’s it….

Whether ID’s claims constitute good science or bad science would be a question for the legislative branch to address; addressing such matters is not the Court’s job, nor is it even the Court’s right.

Luskin imagines that Judge Jones’ conclusion that intelligent design was “bad science” was the pivotal element of the opinion, and that evaluations of the quality of academic material are for the legislature. In this argument, Luskin misunderstands both the Kitzmiller holding, and the essential nature of the judicial task in a democracy.

Clearly, whether or not intelligent design is “bad science” does not trigger any constitutional rights: legislatures can teach “bad science” if they want. So if Jones threw out ID just because it was bad science, he would, indeed, have potentially transgressed beyond the limitations of the judicial branch. But the pivotal allegation of the Kitzmiller plaintiffs – consequentially the key holding of Jones’ opinion – was not that ID was bad science, but that it was a thin pretext for religious indoctrination.

Further, Jones’ in-depth analysis of the “science” of intelligent design does not go beyond the permissible role of the judiciary. In the most elementary model of the separation of powers, the legislature is entrusted with policy enunciation, and the judiciary with the application of laws to facts (the “particularization” of abstract policy). In giving intelligent design a “hard look” to determine whether it violated the First Amendment, Jones merely curiously & zealously performed the judicial task of particularization: judges are required to make conclusions of law & fact to resolve discrete disputes, and this practice does not amount to policy enunciation.

The phrase “separation of powers” is not a talisman against judicial decisions that conservatives don’t like. It seems that Luskin practices law just like he practices science: by statement of a conclusion and invocation of “magic words,” without any thought to the meaning of the words invoked.

Pota-toe, pota-toh.

Intelligent design: why not?  This is the focus of the second of ADILI’s three book reports, as s/he argues against Martha McCarthy’s “Instruction About the Origin of Humanity: Legal Controversies Evolve” (203_WELR 453).  Specifically, ADILI takes issue with the argument that teaching ID in public schools might be too “controversial,” or otherwise inappropriate for high school students.  ADILI makes three central arguments worth rebutting.  ADILI argues that:

• Teaching ID is not confrontational: students are already “confronted” by sex ed, which is arguably more shocking.
• ID is not mere belief: McCarthy herself concedes that it can be critiqued scientifically.  If it can be critiqued scientifically, it can clearly be supported scientifically?
• Teaching ID does not improperly single out evolution for controversy: federal case law currently allows schools to single evolution out for criticism.

Each of these points is embarassingly wrong.  This shouldn’t take long: let’s go through them point by point.

Other Subjects are More Confrontational

First, the attempt to compare the “confrontational” nature of studying intelligent design to the “confrontational” nature of sexual education makes it sound like ID is only excludable because it’s “controversial.”  If that were the only issue, perhaps ADILI would have a point… but ID fails because it’s not science, not because it’s confrontational science.  The comparison to sex ed is just an inflammatory way to ponder how crazy those lib’ruls are, without any substance behind the comparison.

Further, science classrooms are precisely not the place to teach brave new scientific theories. In fact, the Discovery Institute’s all-consuming focus on the classroom, and utter neglect of any attempt to generate positive research before shoe-horning ID into the classroom, simply proves that ID is more about the culture wars than it is about science.  If ID were developed as a scientific theory – imagining for the moment that this development was possible – perhaps, then, it could be put in front of school children.  But high school is not the first place we go to test our crazy new ideas.

Scientific Critique Implies Scientific Support

ADILI argues that, if ID can be critiqued scientifically, as McCarthy allegedly concedes, then it can also be supported scientifically.  This reasoning does not follow.  I can claim that I have wings.  You can analyze my body and prove, scientifically, that I do not indeed have wings.  I cannot muster any similar “scientific” support.  Some arguments just suck, and wholly lack affirmative support.  Like, say, ID.  Further, since the scientific academy’s standards exclude, as untestable or unfalsifiable, those theories that lack any ground for debate, a theory may be critiqued precisely because it cannot be supported! ADILI, like the whole of the Discovery Institute, fails to understand science.  More importantly, though, McCarthy never once concedes that ID can be critiqued scientifically.  The part of McCarthy’s article which ADILI assumes makes the concession in fact simply quotes a third party hypothesizing whether ID should be subjected to scientific critique:

Concerns have been raised, however, that if the “controversy” is taught and ID is actually subjected to scientific critique, this may “be more confrontational to students’ beliefs than most high school teachers feel is appropriate.

Fail. You’re welcome to read McCarthy’s article yourself (it’s linked above) – I’m sure you’ll come to the same conclusion.

Federal Courts Allow Teachers to Single Out Evolution

See, this is actually embarassing.  ADILI argues that “singling out” evolution isn’t so bad, and that federal courts have previously allowed just that.  S/he cites two federal court cases for this proposition - Selman v. Cobb County Board of Education, 390 F. Supp. 2d 1286 (N.D. Ga. 2005) and Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education, 185 F.3d 337 (5th Cir. 1999).  Sadly, Selman actually says the precise opposite of ADILI’s conclusion, a fact that McCarthy’s article notes (page 456):

Noting that evolution was singled out for such critical analysis when other concepts were not, the court concluded that an informed, reasonable observer would know the stickers were intended to “convey an impermissible message of endorsement” of religion, indicating that the school board “agrees with the beliefs of Christian fundamentalists and creationists.” [FN30] The stickers were proposed only after the school district adopted new textbooks that covered evolution, whereas previous materials had largely ignored the subject.

Oops!  Read Selman yourself for the context: look at page 1309.  Then you’ll have gone one step further than ADILI obviously did.  Freiler also found that focusing on evolution, in the factual context and considering Christian groups’ historical opposition to evolution, was not acceptable.

This is actually a deeply embarassing failure to read one’s sources.  As Olorin said on the previous thread, “it miiiight just possibly be excusable not to check out scientific literature on this point, but for a LEGAL scholar not to check the LEGAL literature?? … As they say: ‘Priceless.’”  I couldn’t agree more.

Blurring the lies.

Despite the fact that the Discovery Institute seems wholly incapable of keeping its own fellows “on message,” DI still apparently pays its legal interns to try to convince the public of the legality, and scientific nature, of teaching intelligent design (ID). I have to say, when your own fellows admit that ID isn’t a scientific theory, your credibility becomes a problem… but moving on…

ADILI spends the ten paragraphs of his first post attempting to tear down a 34-page law review article, “Teaching Against the Controversy: Intelligent Design, Evolution, and the Public School Solution to the Origins Debate,” which argues that “recent demands to ‘teach the controversy’ of intelligent design are nothing more than variations on the balanced tactics ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Edwards.” Sadly, ADILI’s rebuttal amounts to little more than “no”: the entirety of his (her?) argument against the classification of ID as religion is,

Again, Mr. Shih’s arguments are misplaced. Design theory is not based upon religious views. Those who have fairly researched the theory will realize that it is actually a secular view that can be taught as a secular school subject alongside evolution without violating the Establishment Clause.

…and how’s that? Well, ADILI doesn’t bother to tell us (making an argument: ur doin it wrong). He makes a brief appeal to other DI documents – explaining how ID is scientific because it tests for “complex and specified information” – before concluding, “[t]he last time I checked, science is not about clinging to one view and ending the investigation.”

Yes. Science is about more than “clinging to one view and ending the investigation.” But that is precisely intelligent design’s problem. Intelligence design amounts to a negative inference – “golly, that’s so complicated, it must be designed” – and stops there, inquiring no further. The paper (nominally) being rebutted makes precisely that point, but elegantly and at length: ((PDF pages 4-5, legal citation 2007 Mich. St. L. Rev. 533, 542-43.))

In practice, design theorists never attempt to discover the identity of the intelligent designer. Its existence is inferred but never proven, and its methods of creation are never scrutinized. Instead of searching for the identity of the intelligent designer, design theorists are primarily concerned with formulating a reliable method of strengthening their inference of design…

[T]he argument in favor of design theory involves the combination of two basic lines of reasoning. The first line points to gaps in the current body of scientific knowledge as proof that the theory of evolution is incorrect. The second line states that if the theory of evolution is incorrect, design theory must be correct by default. Since the intelligent designer can never be directly observed through scientific methods, the viability of the argument in favor of design is completely dependent upon the scientific accuracy of the first argument and the logical soundness of the inference between the first and second propositions.

A damning indictment, and one that goes unanswered. Just like intelligent design, ADILI makes no attempt to grapple with the substance of the opposing argument. He simply looks at it, and says “no: my dogma tells me otherwise”…

And ends.

The University of California system – wisely sensing this problem – recently refused to give college credit for classes at “Christian” secondary schools that focused .  Unsurprisingly, they (the Association of Christian Schools International, and Calvary Chapel Christian Schools) sued, claiming violations of various first amendment freedoms.  This past week, they lost, to the chagrin of many.

Here’s why, and here’s what the judge got right. ((Read the opinion.))  As always, skip to the rant if you please.

[bpsdb]

The Law

Plaintiffs (ACSI and CCCS, respectively) claimed violations of their right to the free exercise of religion, a claim that had been tossed out on partial motion for summary judgment earlier this year. ((When you see “summary judgment,” read: “the loser either so misunderstood the law that they didn’t have a valid claim, or failed to provide any evidence.”))

The substance of the remaining claim – already colored by typical creationist deception, for which they justly suffered ((Before jumping into the substantive law, it’s fair to notice that, as typical of fundamentalists & creationists in lawsuits, this particular instance was rife with no small amount of procedural failures & deceit. While “Dispatches” chose to highlight the copious amount of Behe-bashing, almost as enjoyable is the degree to which it’s obvious the plaintiffs were clearly trying to game the system… and the degree to which they failed.  The ASCI tried to confuse the defendants (UC) by never specifying which classes they thought should have received credit.  So they lost their as-applied claims immediately.  They failed to give advance warning of the substance of their experts’ testimony.  So the experts were excluded.  Litigation fail.)) – revolved around the free speech clause.  Remember, that little clause isn’t just about censorship.  It’s about making sure the government doesn’t advocate a viewpoint above others. ((Exceptions like the “government speaks” doctrine notwithstanding.))

Of course, there’s viewpoints, and then there’s viewpoints.  Government may promulgate “content-neutral,” objective standards of excellence, and only give money to speech acts (art, etc.) that are “excellent,” so long as ideology doesn’t obviously play a role. ((Finley v. Nat’l Endowment for the Arts, 524 U.S. 569 (1998).  This case is actually almost “redeemed” by this opinion.  It has its origins in a thoroughly illiberal court, and a battle of the culture war that we lost: whether or not controversial art is “excellent” enough for government funding.  “Piss Christ” was not “excellent.”  Lucky for us, the Finley opinion’s focus on excellence prove useful at defending education agains the viewpoint of idiocy.))  Just so, the government can (rationally) promote a curriculum of excellence by its universities and force schools to meet those standards. While government discrimination against political viewpoints are strictly scrutinized, attempts to promulgate content-neutral standards of excellence are upheld so long as they’re rational… with deference to the faculty in academic matters. ((Regents of University of Michigan v. Ewing, 474 U.S. 214 (1985).))

Thus, the plaintiffs could argue viewpoint discrimination, or irrational content-neutral discrimination.  They would have argued the former – that the government (the University of California system) impermissibly disfavored the Christian “viewpoint” by punishing learnéd Christians ((The judge called this arguing “animus” – most of us, though, call it arguing for viewpoint discrimination.)) – …except they accidentally waived that argument (oops!), forcing them to fight the comparatively uphill battle of proving the University’s standards “irrational,” with the presumption going to the faculty.  This is especially problematic, because the Christian classes look more like a blog or a Ray Comfort book than a curriculum:

• English (“Christianity and Morality in American Literature”): lacking any full-length literature in the course syllabus, the class rather drew from “excerpts” and told students the proper conclusion to draw from the readings, “a combination [that] contradicts the emphasis on analytical and critical thinking.” ((Opinion, 12.))
• History (“Christianity’s Influence on America”): after first portraying the Bible as “inerrant” history – no questions asked! – faculty and expert witnesses concluded that “students will have little opportunity to exercise independent judgment, to sharpen their critical thinking skills, or to consider multiple perspectives of those who made our history.”  That’s right – the history class, oddly, omitted minorities & women.  Huh. ((Opinion, 14.))
• Government (“Special Providence: Christianity and the American Republic”) & World Religions: are we sensing a theme?  The classes comprised of little more than talking points, and in the former, “defendants could not confirm that the proposed text existed.” ((Opinion, 16.))  Oops!
• Science (“Biology: God’s Living Creation”): guess the objection here.  Yep.  That’s it.  Let’s jump right to the quote.  The course’s “problem is not…that the creationist view is taught…. but that the nature of science, the theory of evolution, and critical thinking are not taught adequately.” ((Opinion, 17-18.))  For creationist Christians, science is not a discipline: it’s a battlefield, where the only discipline is in the footsoldiers.  Brainwashing is not learning.

As you can imagine, where your courses intermittently lack textbooks, or amount to spoon feeding an ideology, it’s hard to argue that your school is being “irrationally” suppressed.  If your students aren’t learning to think for themselves, it’s reasonable for them to be passed over.

The Rant

Over the past eight years, we ought to have grown accustomed to seeing religion pled as a defense to ignorance.  Bush’s no-condom AIDS policy towards Africa, at best, failed to save lives – at worst, it endangered more.  Normally, such incompetence could hardly be tolerated.  But for Bush, it’s excused – nay, lauded! – because his failures rest on faith.

Excusing foolish policy choices because of their foundation in faith is one thing – putting students who objectively know less than others on equal footing with those who’ve studied real, full-length books (fancy that!), just because the former’s objections to the pursuit of knowledge flow from faith, is something else entirely.  To validate Calvary’s classes as appropriately preparatory would amount to affirmative actions to students whose stunted intellectual development is somehow “not their fault,” because their shallow faith demands that they remain ignorant.  If your religion requires you to reject knowledge, you can’t expect praise from the academy for thumbing your nose at it.

Fantastically, this opinion represents a resounding defeat of the idea that religiously motivated ignorance is a protected “viewpoint,” deserving of equal respect, the censorship of which is noxious to the first amendment.  And, based on the plaintiff’s flubs, the inevitable appeal is unlikely to overturn this result.  I for one can’t wait for the Ninth Circuit to laugh this one off.

You see, Andy made a boast on his user page, on Conservapedia, the “trusworthy encyclopedia.”  His exact words follow – “I’d be happy to debate any evolutionist and/or atheist and/or liberal, including PZ Myers. But beware: liberals often are not willing to debate conservatives, because often the liberals lose.”

Right. Liberals often lose.  Except in academia. And in the (pre-Roberts) Supreme Court. And anywh… well, you get the point. Andy only “wins” debates on Conservapedia by deleting the account of anyone who challenges him.  Determined to show Conservapedia for what it is – a vainglorious attempt by Schlafly to make creationists look smart by erasing all memory of those smarter than them – I doggedly pursued the chance to debate Andy.  This was a mistake.  Andy is a bad, bad man.  He brings out the worst in people, and setting foot in his territory, even with purest intentions, was a fool’s quest. I emerge victorious from my debate with Schlafly – a debate about debating, to prove that Andy’s the one who chickens out – only after having been forced to stoop to his level by the sheer force of his idiocy.  Mission accomplished, but I consider it a Pyrrhic victory.  As John tried to remind me in the comments to my first post on this subject, talking to this man is like slamming your head against a brick wall.  Victory, but at what cost?

Ow. My head.

Below the line, please find the juicy parts of our back-and-forth on his user_talk page, but I’ll close the above the line section with a reminder to normal people (lib’ruls, conservatives, all who don’t fall into the union of “jerks” and “creationists”). We’re better than people like Andy. I know it, you know it, and the American people know it. Since that fact is known – quae cum ita sint – the price of the proof is worth more than the reward.

[bpsdb]

These are trimmed to their relevant parts.  The full text appears at three points (1, 2, 3) on one page.

It began nicely.  I’m a polite person.  But I was determined to make the point.  In reply to his boast – “liberals are often not willing to debate conservatives” – I posted the following.  I imagined an on-site debate, or an on-blog or IRC debate, to play to the interested audience:

Andy, this is Ames. I accept your challenge. Where should we debate?

Andy’s reply was swift… and baffling.

Reply to Ames and others: I welcome debating liberals and look forward to it. But because I know how often liberals avoid and duck such debates, some assurances against cancellation would be needed. Perhaps a security deposit to guard against the liberal backing out?

Huh?  Andy was attempting to grandstand: PZ Myers, famed “evilutionist,” had been set to debate feel-good creationist fool, Ray Comfort, but the radio station that arranged the debate rescheduled them, so they weren’t on the air at the same time.  In Andy’s reality, third-party rescheduling counts as a loss for “evolutionists” – ergo, PZ was held to have “canceled,” and Andy wanted to make a point by insisting that I prove my spine.  Fine, I thought, I’ll play.  I really want to show this guy’s idiocy.  Still, watch my niceness.  Coupled with some snark.

Hi Andy, it’s Ames again,
I’m glad you intend to carry through on your promise of a debate. I’m excited. However, I frankly consider your request for a “down payment” to be ridiculous, and either an attempt at grandstanding, or a polite way of backing out without looking like a coward (since no-one will actually want to pay).

Just so, I won’t pay you money for the privilege to debate you. If you want to erect a financial barrier to allow you to duck the confrontation, please carry on. However, I’m willing to grant you multiple other assurances that I won’t back out of any debate….

Here’s what I imagine. Since an actual face-to-face is unlikely given lack of venue/money, I think we have two choices. You could unblock my user name & IP, for the limited purpose of debating you, and promise not to block me for debating you, unless I, say, use profanity or something. Or you could register at my site and I’ll create an open post thread, and we could debate in the comments section. I’d verify your IP address to make sure that no-one is posing as you, and I’d approve all of your comments unedited. Please let me know what you think is the best option. You can also e-mail me or comment on the blog. Thanks!

Ah.  I have him now.  Surely debate is inevitable!  Oh, poor, naive, sweet last-month’s Ames.  Poor kid.  He actually expected Andy to play nicely.  No.  Schlafly quickly redefined what he meant by “debate” – it couldn’t be just any free exchange of ideas.  It had to be face-to-face.  We’re in different states.  Albeit closely connected states (NJ & NY).  I call this another kind of lawyer’s trick – the erection of transaction costs, to defray a conflict which you’ll surely lose.  Anyways, on to Schlafly’s response:

We’ve already debated online many times and I doubt that is interesting to anyone. I thought you had a live debate in mind, with time limits, questions and answers, rebuttals, etc. Yes, that does cost a little money and I’m not interested in having another liberal turn tail and run away from it. Hence a security deposit is advisable, and I’m sure you can afford it.-

Notice the term shift.  Debate becomes “live debate.”  Which is much harder to do.  Notice the “I’m sure you can afford it” – a hint of The Ghost of Personal Attacks Yet to Come. Now, you all have no need to know my personal finances, but while I can afford my Simpsons DVDs, a few Starbucks, and the relevant middle-range NYC restaurants, I’m not at liberty to front hundreds to reserve a private venue.  So:

I can’t afford a “live debate” …. but, if you’re interested in a live venue, feel free to foot the bill yourself. Lord knows you have the money. If you’re actually going to put money into the debate, as in, by hiring a venue, I’d be happy to put down a deposit or otherwise contribute, keeping in mind my limited means. However, that seems like a lot of bother.

Now, we’ve never had a “real” debate, in the sense that you could end any debate we’ve ever been in by banning me. Which you… have done. Frequently. As I’ve said on my site, my record against you is unblemished by failure, since all of my debates with you ended with either you ignoring my response, or you blocking me to avoid my inevitable response. I think a real internet debate, as in, back-and-forth with a promise that neither user would block the other, would be a first, and would be interesting. That’s a minimal-cost, minimal-time investment way for you to prove that you’ll beat a liberal in any debate. The question, then, is – why not?

I figure I’ve got him.  For one, I’ve asked the crucial “why not?” question – if he backs down from the internet debate, he has to explain why, and I’ve firmly rebutted the “we’ve already done that” argument.  And, I’ve been reasonable.  I said I’d pay for a venue, partially.  So, we agree on the security deposit thing.  Fair’s fair, after all.  And, again, I really want this debate to happen! But, no reply. Then I get an idea. Andy routinely hosts “Conservapedia Conferences” in or around the NYC area.  I’ve always wanted to go – YouTube material! – but he, strategically, never publicizes complete details. But, obviously, that solves the venue issue!  I’m so creative and helpful.  He’ll have to appreciate the thought I’m putting into this.

Moving on, Andy, I had an idea. Perhaps the next time you give a “Conservapedia Conference,” here in the city, or somewhere reasonably on NJT/MetroNorth/LIRR access, I could be a guest speaker, and have you debate me afterwards. That way no-one’s paying for a new venue… Seems fair to me, and I’m obviously fine speaking to a hostile audience. It’s what us lawyers do :-). Also, I’m sure you’ll find me a kind soul in person. I hope you take this idea into consideration. As always, you know where to reach me.

Miscalculation.  He did not appreciate the thought.  It hits too closely to granting his request, to the extent reasonable, therefore forcing his hand.  And he sees I’m not giving up.  That’s Andy’s cue to shift into banning the enemy, or insulting him/her.

Better yet, Ames, you organize a crowd of 150 and invite me to speak to it and take questions. Once the crowd is confirmed, I’ll get over there ASAP. By the way, if you can’t afford a security deposit to guarantee your attendance at an event you’ve suggested I arrange, then how do you afford going to law school, or even going out to dinner?

Ouch.  I was angry.  Here I was trying to be polite – in proving his idiocy, fine, but I’m a firm believer in the necessity for decorum between enemies – and he’s calling me poor?  After an attempt to explain to Andy the finer points of how a “budget” works, I *partially* lose it.

I reiterate my suggestion of an internet debate, either on CP or on my blog, or perhaps on neutral ground (we could work that out). We’ve never had a debate that hasn’t ended in me getting blocked, so it would be a first. It would prove that liberals are more than happy to stand toe-to-toe with you, and that you’re not afraid to stand toe-to-toe with liberals, without a banhammer behind your back. I urge you to consider that option.

However, if you’re only willing to debate face to face and on my dime, then you might have to retract your statement that liberals are too cowardly to debate you, and change it to reflect that, rather, you’re too cheap to debate us.

Talking back to Schlafly is like prodding a sleepy animal.  It’ll put up with you to a point, but it’ll never give ground.  And when you cross that point, the animal reacts angrily and irrationally.  Time for intensely personal insult time.

Ames, frankly, you seem to want attention more than anything. You can “consider” whatever you like, but I’ve agreed to debate you as already outlined. If you won’t come up with an audience or a security deposit, then I suggest you try other proven ways of satisfying your human need for attention. Try marriage, for example, which has worked for billions of people. Godspeed.

HOLY. CRAP. First he sticks by his redefinition of “debate” and claims to have agreed to it – which he hasn’t, you’ll notice I’ve compromised a few times, but he’s never accepted the compromise positions – and then, he switches into personal insult mode, crediting my desire to bring him down a peg & vindicate the beliefs of sane society to a lack of attention, and telling me to get married.  To be perfectly candid, anyone who has a blog – like this one – wants “attention” for their political viewpoints. In blogging, as in politics, there is a certain degree of vanity. I’m honest enough to admit that. But the last person who ought to be able to criticize me for my need for political attention is Schlafly, the king of negative attention (the kind of attention you get in kindergarten for pulling a girl’s hair), who loves every slap the press takes at Conservapedia, simply because it’s an acknowledgment of his existence, and more fodder for his persecution complex.

Me?! Attention!!?!? AND WHERE THE #*(%^ DID ‘MARRIAGE’ COME FROM?  My response was quick, and was just as quickly deleted from his talk page.

Andy, the personal attack – “try marriage” – is really uncalled for. I’m in a very happy relationship, should it matter :-). But it’s obvious that marriage hasn’t satisfied your “human need for attention” – hence this blog [Conservapedia], and hence the craving for the negative attention it brings down on you on a daily basis.

As to the debate, it’s quite telling for you to make a challenge to the world, and then place the burden on me. Your challenge was that you’d debate any atheist (which I’m not) or liberal (which I am) who would have you. You can’t then back down from that challenge by erecting barriers and setting terms to prevent anyone from getting near you. It may not be the most obvious cop-out ever but let’s talk in terms we both understand: if this were a contract, your actions (and non-actions) would amount to constructive breach. You’re letting your bizarre demands & terms insulate you from review, thus violating the clear spirit of your “challenge.”

You were the challenger, I accepted on behalf of “liberals.” Since you’ve failed to live up to your end of the challenge, I consider myself – and liberalism – vindicated. Should you ever want to schedule a debate on reasonable terms, focused to the audience that cares, you have my site address, and my e-mail. Until then, I consider this… MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.

See you when you’re willing to live up to your challenges.

I hold to that judgment.  I considered the matter ended, in my favor.  Andy had proved that he wouldn’t let a debate happen.  I wash my hands.  But, after some inspiring words from some friends on RationalWiki, and pledges of payment to secure a venue (it’s the Debate Schlafly Telathon!), and some cool-down time, I replied once more, stating that, against my better judgment, we’d be able to put up more money together than I thought we’d have been able to, thus making a face-to-face, venued debate possible, just like he wanted.  Rock & roll.

No response.

So I won.  Andy’s the coward and the jerk that I – and you – already knew he was.  He weaseled out of a debate by upping the transaction costs and redefining his “challenge” to the point that I couldn’t meet it, and then ignoring me when I, in the end, could.  Mission indeed accomplished.

But in the process, I had to become myself a bit of a jerk.  While “making a point” is often quite valuable, in the context of an internet debate against the laughingstock of the sane, this point was not worth the price. I won’t be lowering myself to his depths again.  I hope that you, the readers, are the beneficiaries of my mistake, in that you do have a kind of fun story to read.

Actually, that’s not quite true. I’ve debated Schlafly numerous times, and my record is unblemished by defeat, as my block log on Conservapedia ought to prove. You see, being blocked on Conservapedia, especially if the block is accompanied by a snarky explanation, is the highest honor a liberal can receive, because it means you’ve hit too close to home, or too nearly debunked an element of their craziness. After all, they can’t keep around anyone who exposes the foolishness of Fearless Leader.

Accordingly, if Andy’s serious about his willingness to debate freely, I’ll be happy to debate him either here (comment back and forth on an open thread – I’ll verify his IP and approve, unedited, all of his comments) or on Conservapedia, on any issue of substance he chooses. Consider the glove thrown. Andy, I await your reply.

In other relevant news, Conservapedia’s letter to the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, objecting to biologist & PNAS author Lenski’s use of biology to disprove creationism, should as we speak be speeding through the tubes to its destination, the recycling bin of the publication’s letters department.

Update: Andy hasn’t responded, but another challenger has emerged.