<i>Kitzmiller</i> Plaintiffs' Attorney Uses Ridicule and Harsh Rhetoric against Legal Scholars Who Question Judge Jones - Evolution News & Views

Evolution News and Views (ENV) provides original reporting and analysis about the debate over intelligent design and evolution, including breaking news about scientific research.

Evolution News and Views
EVOLUTION NEWS & VIEWS
 

Kitzmiller Plaintiffs' Attorney Uses Ridicule and Harsh Rhetoric against Legal Scholars Who Question Judge Jones

Darwinist blogs are infamous for ridiculing those who question the party line until they change their mind, stop posting, or leave. But is this strategy employed by those higher in the Darwin-defense hierarchy? Richard B. Katskee, Assistant Legal Director at Americans United for Separation of Church and State and attorney for the plaintiffs in the Kitzmiller case, illustrates in his article in First Amendment Law Review how this Darwinist tactic of ridicule and name-calling goes all the way to the top.

Mr. Katskee attacks those who do not oppose ID as "succumbing to the basic deceit at the heart of intelligent design," saying they "have been deceived." He uses language to ridicule ID as uncool and evil, calling it a "Humpty-Dumptyesque linguistic project" which is "creationism in a cheap tuxedo" and "disingenuou[s]." Mr. Katskee engages in complex ridicule, asserting that "viewed from a sufficient distance, and with eyelids half closing in technospeak-induced slumber, even a cheap tuxedo can look almost elegant--at least to those of us without the training or discernment to distinguish cashmere from polyester blend." Keep in mind that Mr. Katskee didn't just say all this on some blog, but in a supposedly scholarly article in First Amendment Law Review. Mr. Katskee's strategy is clear: ridicule and attack those who show any inkling of support for ID or critique of Judge Jones and the Darwinist party line, so they will step back into line. Such attacks were used against Jay D. Wexler and Arnold H. Loewy, whose critiques of Judge Jones have been recently discussed. When Darwinists must attack those who disagree with them as being deceived or morally bankrupt, the true strength of Mr. Katskee's position is obvious.