Wheat-dogg’s world
• • • • •

On the recommendations of other science bloggers, I ordered the book, The Devil in Dover: An Insider’s Story of Dogma v. Darwin in Small-Town America, by Lauri Lebo. It arrived Tuesday, and wantonly setting aside more pressing tasks, I put some jazz on and starting reading the book.

Since I already had some familiarity with the court case it narrates, the 224 pages went by quickly, and I finished it in an afternoon. [Yes, I do read fast. It’s how I survived four years at Princeton.] For a readable account of the Kitzmiller v. Dover case of 2005, I can recommend none better. Only the PBS Nova episode on the same case matches it for clarity and, yes, drama.

Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al., was a watershed lawsuit involving the teaching of intelligent design in the ninth grade biology classes of the Dover, Penn., Area School District. A conservative, religiously biased school board sought to weaken the teaching of evolution in the schools by requiring teachers (all of whom refused, as it turned out) to read a four-paragraph cautionary statement about the theory of evolution, specifically mentioning Intelligent Design as another explanation for the origin of life.

Lebo’s narrative clearly lays out the religious motivations of the board members, who before hammering out the four paragraphs, had discussed in open meeting the need to bring creationism into the science curriculum. (Those same members later stated, under oath, that they had never used the creationism and accused the two reporters covering the board meetings of fabricating the statements. During the trial, however, it became clear the reporters were in fact correct.)

Welcome to The Tangled Bank 108 and to the little-known but still fascinating Wheat-dogg’s World. I hope that after you peruse the fine entries in this edition of The Tangled Bank you’ll stroll around and check out things here in my neck of the Worldwide Woods.

Today we have science bloggers musing on some of the greater profundities of the universe as well on more concrete issues closer to home. Some of these posts ask more questions than they answer, but heck that’s what science is all about, hey?

I’m the resident physics teacher, so we’re going to start the ball rolling with our lone physical-science submission, from Yoo Chul Chung at Yoo’s Ramblings. (Sorry, life scientists, a little physics never hurt anyone!) After reading the July issue of Scientific American, Yoo contemplates the meaning of hypothetical “building blocks” that can organize themselves to create the space-time we know and love. These “space-time quanta” curiously exist in two dimensions at the quantum level, but exhibit four dimensions at larger scales. Further, causality is integral to this system, closing any fancy relativistic loopholes to would-be time travelers hoping to jump through a wormhole to watch history unfold in real time. There goes about half the world’s Star Trek plotlines …

While Yoo ponders whether the universe is made of building blocks, the Evolved Rationalist considers whether William Dembski is clever enough to even play with blocks. In Dembski: The failure that keeps on failing, our author glosses on Bill’s seeming immunity to rational, logical thought as Bill gripes about the lack of theology in Kenneth Miller’s biology textbooks. Yes, dear friends, you read that right. Check out the Evolved Rationalist and see what we mean.

John Freshwater will burn crosses on students’ arms no more (see picture released by school officials to the AP, at right), at least in Mount Vernon, Ohio. He has been sacked.

On Friday, the Mount Vernon school board reviewed a 15-page investigative report on Freshwater’s actions in the classroom, and voted to dismiss the science teacher of 21 years.

Freshwater had been accused, among other things, of using a Tesla coil to burn a cross in a student’s arm, proselytizing students, teaching creationism contrary to school policy, and refusing to remove a Bible from his desk.

He and school officials still face legal action. The family of the student whose arm was burned filed a civil complaint in US District Court in Columbus last week, naming Freshwater and school officials as defendants. The law suit alleges Freshwater’s religious activities in the classroom violated the civil rights of the student, known only as John Doe.

The complaint also alleges school officials failed to reprimand Freshwater sufficiently after the arm-burning incident, and permitted him to proselytize students in class in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Freshwater, a fundamentalist Christian by all appearances, became a poster child for the so-called “war on Christianity” earlier this year when he refused to remove his copy of the Bible from his desk. Christian students in the school held rallies for his support, and a local right-wing Christianist radio commentator championed Freshwater as yet another victim of the secular war on religion. (See this story at WorldNetDaily, which quotes said commentator.)

The Tangled Bank is a collection of the best science-blog posts as judged by the science bloggers themselves. Basically, you write something that you think is good, we publish it.

Having been included in previous editions of the Tangled Bank, I volunteered to host it at some point in the future. That time has come: Tangled Bank #108 will be here June 25.

For submission rules, visit the link provided above.

The saga of John Freshwater, part XII …

While Freshwater’s superiors at the Mount Vernon schools dither, the family of one of his students have resorted to the all-American method of getting to the root of things — they’re suing him and the school district.

The suit claims that Freshwater violated the student’s civil rights by allegedly burning a cross into his arm with a Tesla coil and and that his superiors were negligent in not disciplining Freshwater.

The school district hired an outsider to investigate the allegations against Freshwater, an otherwise popular seventh-grade science teacher. That report is due Friday, at which time the school board will make some decision about Freshwater’s future, supposedly.

Freshwater made a name for himself earlier last year by refusing to remove his Bible from his desk. Christians loved his “Christ’s warrior” decision, but civil libertarians demurred. It then came out that Freshwater was a bit of a religious nut, proselytizing students, teaching creationism, and on at least one instance, burning a cross on a student’s arm with a Tesla coil.

That apparently woke up his superiors from their overly cautious slumber. They put an observer in his classroom while the independent investigators did their thing, and delayed any disciplinary action until the investigators filed their report.

Anyway, the lawsuit was filed in US District Court in Columbus earlier his week. I don’t have a copy of the complaint, but Ed Brayton over at ScienceBlogs does. He is as aghast at this whole mess as I am. How any teacher could be allowed to get away with this kind of malarkey defies all logic.

Not to me, really, but to my site’s visibility. Two years ago I wrote a post debunking the so-called “water gas”/HHO/Brown’s gas technology of running your car on water. Then, starting in January this year I have had several visitors commenting positively and negatively on the post. I suspect it has something to do with gasoline prices rising above $4 and diesel prices inching toward $5 a gallon.

I won’t go over the whole “water gas” scheme here, but the gist of my argument is that it (1) is unsafe and (2) not a cure-all. I won’t even get into the whole “oil company conspiracy” thing, since paranoid people cannot be made un-paranoid no matter how much you try to reason with them.

Rather than do the sensible thing and DRIVE LESS, PEOPLE!!, many US drivers are looking for a magic bullet to maintain their wasteful use of fuel to putter around town. We are so damn spoiled here. Despite our rising fuel costs, we still pay less than Europeans have to years. Detroit (and to some extent Japan) encouraged us to buy big-ass cars and SUVs (fancy trucks, in my book) that get crappy fuel mileage, which suckered US car buyers into these land yachts that now suck their wallets dry at the gas pump.

So now I guess they’re looking up ways to pay less at the pump on the ‘Net, and have stumbled upon the water gas guys, and my post. Good luck, suckers!

John Lennon’s heirs have lost their copyright infringement case against the makers of the film, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. A federal judge ruled today that the movie can legally use a snippet of Lennon’s song, “Imagine,” without express permission from the copyright holders.

The decision clears the way for Expelled’s creators and marketers to distribute the film in Canada in time for a June 6 opening, and to market DVDs in the fall. The film needs the added revenue boost; it’s bombing in the US.

On April 22, Yoko Ono Lennon, her husband’s two sons, and his publisher, EMI Blackwood, filed a copyright infringement suit in US District Court in Manhattan, claiming that Premise Media — the film’s creator — had used a part of “Imagine” without their permission. The heirs asked for an immediate suspension of showing the film anywhere, recall of all existing copies and at least $75,000 in damages.

Premise Media, meanwhile, contended its use of the song was within the “fair use” doctrine of US copyright law. The Fair Use Project of the Stanford Law School then announced it would defend Premise and the other defendants in court.

Judge Sidney Stein ruled in favor of Premise Media, saying the use of “Imagine” in the film was legal.

Opening April 18 in 1,052 theaters nationwide, Expelled’s theater count has shrunk to a mere 83 theaters, and its daily gross receipts have sunk below $20,000. It will soon probably drop out of first-run theaters altogether.

It’s easy. Take out any words suggesting a Divine Creator and replace them with words “intelligent agency” or “intelligent designer.” Then insist the new version is in a fact a science textbook that should be used in schools.

Too bad the ID crowd’s feeble attempt at subterfuge failed. Some fine detective work at the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) revealed the genealogy of the new ID text, Of Pandas and People, as the center prepared briefs for the 2005 Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District legal case.

This YouTube video explains it all.

From the Associated Press:

NEW YORK (AP) — A judge has promised a fast decision in a lawsuit brought by Yoko Ono to get the song Imagine taken out of a movie challenging the concept of Darwinian evolution.

A lawyer for the movie’s distributors has warned that the litigation could wreck the movie’s political message by preventing it from impacting viewers in the lead-up to the U.S. presidential campaign.

The movie, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, features Ben Stein challenging Darwinian theories and suggesting life could have originated through intelligent design. About 20 to 30 seconds of the song are played in the movie.

Ono has accused the movie’s producers of infringing the song’s copyrights by using it without her permission, giving the impression that the Lennon family had authorized it.

US District Judge Sidney Stein’s ruling will settle whether the producers of the film can release it to Canadian theaters and to DVD as planned. The Canadian premiere is scheduled for June 6, according to Premise Media’s attorney Anthony Falzone. DVD rights have to be finalized by the end of this month for an October release, he said.

As for the political impact of the film, this decision will have little effect. The movie is a dog. It has been losing audiences and theaters steadily since it opened April 18, despite all the publicity — good or bad — about it. If the producers of this film think it has any political impact, they’re dreaming.

A New York state judge heard Premise Media’s arguments yesterday against a preliminary injunction barring Premise Media and its associates from distributing Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed further. There’s no word yet on the judge’s decision, which could mean he is carefully mulling the matter over.

The suit is only part of the movie’s legal woes, stemming from its use of a short clip of John Lennon’s song, “Imagine.” The producers failed to obtain permission to use the song, and Lennon’s heirs and publisher are crying foul.

Lennon’s widow, Yoko Ono Lennon, his two sons, and EMI Blackwood filed a copyright infringement suit April 22 in US District Court in Manhattan demanding at least $75,000 in damages, a complete recall of the existing version of the movie, now playing in about 200 theaters, and an injunction against further distribution of the movie.

EMI Blackwood and Capitol Records followed that suit up with another in state court, demanding a preliminary injunction against further distribution of the movie.

There were hearings yesterday in both the federal and state cases. In the state case, Judge Richard Lowe stayed a temporary restraining order issued April 30 barring further distribution of the movie until he rules on the preliminary injunction issue. There’s no word yet on the federal case, brought by Yoko and Lennon’s sons.