on Montana Law Review

I just came across an on-line copy of the Montana Law Review published by the Montana School of Journalism (winter 2007) edition and I'm steaming. The lead articles proclaimed "Intelligent Design Will Survive" by three members of the Creationist-founded Discovery Institute and it attacked the just in the Dover, Pennsylvania, court case in which the judge threw out ID as a viable scientific endeavor. The three centered their attack on things they claim the judge omitted but should have been left in. One of their major arguments was that the judge should have not ignored the scientific "peer reviewed" papers of Discovery institute "scientists" most of which were reviewed by and published in the Institute's own publications. Not what I would call a proper peer review at all. They also proclaimed that the judge didn't need to rule on whether ID was science; all he had to do was to find that the attempt to teach it in the Dover schools was not constitutional. But as Peter Irons said in his rebuttal, he had to find ID not scientific but religious in order to make it illegal to teach it in science classes. Let's face it, the ID advocates have never been able to put forth any creditable evidence that they are scientific. The vast majority of the scientific community has rejected it. ID proponents suggest that there has to have been a designer in creating the universe and humans because there is too much that looks like design and something that's designed always has to have a designer. They point to the idea of a Boeing 737 arising out of a junkyard struck by a windstorm. But they forget to mention that a Boeing 737 is not capable of reproducing others like it which living creatures can do.

But to get back to my gripe: Why does the Montana Law Review accept for publication articles like these? To compound it, the edition also includes an article by the lawyer who once ran for governor in Montana, Rob Natelson. Since he's an instructor for these students, I'll bet his article is not selected on its merits.

On Bush's Global Warming plan

Let's see, now. Baby Bush nixed the Kyoto Treaty. Then he refused to go along with the German prime minister's efforts and now he wants to become the leader of a battle against something he didn't believe in a week Ago? Are we doing to have another surge this time, a storm surge? But it'll probably be something like the Clean Skies Act, all smoke, or the Save the Forest's Act, something without a cutting edge.