Nick Matzke posted Entry 1762 on December 14, 2005 01:36 PM.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/1757
Over on the NCSE Kitzmiller website, I have finally gotten a chance to OCR and upload Barbara Forrest’s supplementary expert report in the Kitzmiller case. This document was originally filed under seal, but became public when introduced into evidence in open court. See the experts folder for all expert reports.
This is important because Forrest’s supplemental report was the first analysis of the Pandas drafts and their significance – which will, I suspect, be large, since the drafts prove beyond any doubt that “intelligent design” really is just a legal fiction to cover creationism just like scientists have been saying for 16 years, and furthermore it is specifically the very same kind of vague, evasive creationism that Dean Kenyon tried to sell the Supreme Court in 1986, but that the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional anyway in Edwards v. Aguillard. In other words, the Supreme Court has already decided issue, unless a mere word switcheroo makes a legal difference. But we shall see next week.
In other news, I have also posted a few more amicus briefs (one which Steve Fuller does not support!), TalkOrigins Kitzmiller page now has an HTML version of the Plaintiffs’ Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and we have some discussion at Derivative Work and from Ed Brayton, who by the way is selling out.
Commenters are responsible for the content of comments. The opinions expressed in articles, linked materials, and comments are not necessarily those of PandasThumb.org. See our full disclaimer.