Wesley R. Elsberry posted Entry 1482 on December 20, 2005 10:00 AM.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/1478

PT Media Advisory Panel, ready to give commentary on the news.

NCSE KvD resources

ACLU KvD resources

AU KvD resources

York Daily Record resources

York Dispatch Timeline


“Waterloo in Dover” gear. Outfit yourself for the trial. (Links to Wesley’s CafePress site. Proceeds go where Wesley thinks they will do the most good.)

2005/12/20: PLAINTIFFS PREVAIL! Judge Jones passed down a 139 page ruling which finds for the plaintiffs. Jones found the DASD policy violated both purpose and effect prongs of the Lemon test, asserts that “intelligent design” is not science, and that the policy also violates the Pennsylvania state constitution. The PDF is linked from the NCSE KvD site.

Judge John E. Jones wrote:

The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.

Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs’ scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.

To be sure, Darwin’s theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.

The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.

With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.

Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.

To preserve the separation of church and state mandated by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Art. I, § 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, we will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID. We will also issue a declaratory judgment that Plaintiffs’ rights under the Constitutions of the United States and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have been violated by Defendants’ actions.

Defendants’ actions in violation of Plaintiffs’ civil rights as guaranteed to them by the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 subject Defendants to liability with respect to injunctive and declaratory relief, but also for nominal damages and the reasonable value of Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ services and costs incurred in vindicating Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. A declaratory judgment is hereby issued in favor of Plaintiffs pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 such that
Defendants’ ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and Art. I, § 3 of
the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
2. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 65, Defendants are permanently enjoined
from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area
School District.
3. Because Plaintiffs seek nominal damages, Plaintiffs shall file with the
Court and serve on Defendants, their claim for damages and a verified
statement of any fees and/or costs to which they claim entitlement.
Defendants shall have the right to object to any such fees and costs to
the extent provided in the applicable statutes and court rules.

s/John E. Jones III
John E. Jones III
United States District Judge

2005/11/04: (Warning: approximate quotes ahead.) At close, Pat Gillen remarked to Judge Jones, “Your honor, by my reckoning we have been here 40 days. That seems an auspicious number.” Jones replied, “So it seems, but it was not designed!” At which point the courtroom burst out in applause. Jones let that go on for about 15 seconds, then adjourned the court. And that finished off the testimonial, in-court phase of this case.

During that last day, the cross-examination of Scott Minnich continued. Stephen Harvey explored a number of issues with Minnich, such as whether the “tests” that Minnich and Behe have proposed were actually being performed by anyone (they aren’t), whether there could be multiple designers (there could be), and whether there might be an … evil … designer (yes, there could be). On that last, though, Harvey did not, at any time, hold his pinky up to the corner of his mouth.

Following lunch, the lawyers plotted out the remainder of the issues, such as the schedule for briefs (two weeks for initial, one week for revisions/responses). Judge Jones mentioned that it was his intention to provide a ruling on this case this year, meaning that the lawyers would be held to a tight schedule.

Exhibits… there were a number of exhibits entered into the record, including several things produced by Barbara Forrest that were not directly referred to in testimony. Among those items, one will find (once they go online) that in a draft of OPAP, there was an incomplete erasure of the word “creationist”, with an insertion of “design proponents” into it, meaning that students might have had the opportunity to learn the position of “cdesign proponentsists” on these matters. This verbal intermediate fossil was uncovered through the patient digging of Dr. Forrest.

Program

Kitzmiller et alia: Plaintiffs in the case, parents of children in the school district

DASD: Dover Area School District, the defendants in the case, including the school board and the school administrators

TMLC: Thomas More Legal Center, counsel for the defense, doing this job pro bono for the DASD

ACLU: American Civil Liberties Union, cooperating counsel for the plaintiffs (Blog)

AU: Americans United for Separation of Church and State, cooperating counsel for the plaintiffs

DASD: Dover Area School District, defendants in KvD

FTE: Foundation for Thought and Ethics, publishers of the textbook, Of Pandas and People, that is being used by the DASD

Judge John E. Jones: Judge for KvD

NCSE: National Center for Science Education, consultants for the plaintiffs

OPAP93: Of Pandas and People, “intelligent design” supplemental text published by FTE and used in DASD “intelligent design” policy

Pepper Hamilton LLP: Law firm representing the plaintiffs

U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania: court where KvD is being tried

2005/11/03: Testimony of Mike Baksa finished up. The defense put on Robert Linker, a Dover biology teacher who watched one of the ID videos. He said that it was the first time that he had seen “gaps in evolution” presented and found it “neat”. But he still thinks that ID is religious, not science, and doesn’t belong in the classroom. Later, Scott Minnich started testifying about… tada… the bacterial flagellum. ID is science, isn’t religion, and all that. Somewhere in there, they tried to slip in the Meyer 2004b paper and referred to a newspaper article, which garnered a ‘hearsay’ objection. Judge Jones and Robert Muise had some back and forth concerning whether the reference was a public record. Jones sharply told Muise, “Don’t insult my intelligence.” The objection was sustained. Steve Harvey got in fifteen minutes of cross-examination, where he showed a 1994 Creation Research Society Quarterly article about… tada… the bacterial flagellum. After going over the contents a bit, Minnich agreed that the same argument as he is making now was made then.

Update on Gentry: Robert Gentry was in the courtroom in the morning, and noticed me sitting with the plaintiffs. At a break, he told me that he was retracting his permission for me to provide his papers on my website. Along the way, he made a rather insulting insinuation that I would alter his materials in some way. Now, back at that press conference, Gentry complained that scientists did not want people to see his papers. I made a good faith offer to host them. I hosted “scientific creationism” files on my BBS back in the old days of direct dial-up, and I certainly did not alter those. I’m a scientist, and I definitely want to rebut the notion that I’m somehow engaged in keeping people from seeing the arguments made by antievolutionists. Far from it. I think antievolution materials make the case for keeping non-science out of science classrooms quite well.

2005/11/02: I arrived in Harrisburg, PA today. I got to listen to the testimony of Alan Bonsell, Sheila Harkins, and Mike Baksa. I’m not the only person who showed up in Harrisburg, PA today: Robert V. Gentry, final defense witness of the McLean v. Arkansas case, set up a press conference in the capitol rotunda to talk about the talk that he gave elsewhere this evening. He says his polonium halo work proves a young earth. He also said that scientists were censoring him and would not allow him to distribute his papers. After the press conference broke up, I offered to host his papers on the AE site. He said I could get them from his website… which I will do when I get some more moments all together.

2005/10/28: The last week of the trial approaches. This phase of KvD should wind up by November 4th.

2005/10/27: Former school board member William Buckingham testified today and promptly contradicted his sworn deposition. MSNBC has the details on his testimony and Ed Brayton shows how it conflicts with his sworn deposition. Buckingham seems to have a magical memory as well. Statements he couldn’t recall making during his deposition, he suddenly remembers making and even remembers his precise state of mind when he made them.

In his deposition earlier this year, Buckingham said he did not know the source of the $850 donation to buy 60 copies of the book “Of Pandas and People” - an intelligent design textbook Dover students were referred to as part of the curriculum policy change.

Then Harvey produced a cancelled check from Buckingham for $850 to a Dover school administrator clearly marked for the purchase of the textbook and Buckingham confirmed it came from his church.

“You lied to me in your deposition didn’t you Mr. Buckingham?” Harvey said.

“How so?” replied Buckingham.

“When I asked if you knew where the money came from,” Harvey said.

“I did not take a collection,” he said.

(The State (South Carolina))

2005/10/26: Today, William Buckingham is set to testify. This is the highly controversial school board member who justified the ID policy by speaking about “someone” who “died on a cross 2000 years ago” and the need to “stand up for Him.”

2005/10/25: Warren Nord withdrew as a defense witness. That leaves, who, just Scott Minnich remaining on the defense roster as an expert witness. (William Dembski, John Angus Campbell, Stephen Meyer, Dick Carpenter, and Warren Nord have withdrawn; Michael Behe and Steven Fuller have testified; and Scott Minnich is their only expert left who might yet testify.)

2005/10/25: Two major developments in the case. First, the judge has struck a brief filed by the Discovery Institute because it was an attempt to get the expert testimony of Stephen Meyer and William Dembski into the record without having to be cross examined in court. Both of them pulled out as witnesses before the trial began. Second, the defense called Steven Fuller to the witness stand yesterday and he proceeded to help our side immensely. He actually testified that ID should be taught in schools despite the fact that it was still on the “fringe” of science and did not have testable theories developed, because that would help them recruit young people to work on their ideas. He proposed a sort of “affirmative action” program for fringe ideas in science. Ed Brayton has more here.

2005/10/24: Yes, Dick Carpenter was withdrawn as an expert witness, so on Friday, the court got to listen to Richard Nilsen failing to remember much at all. The defense said that Carpenter’s testimony was no longer needed, according to the ACLU blog. On Monday, the defense brought in Steve Fuller, to give the postmodernist version of why “intelligent design” should be taught in the classrooms of Dover, Pennsylvania. Did you hear about the mafioso who studied French deconstructionist philosophy? He goes around making people offers that they can’t understand. Well, Fuller at least was comprehensible when he told the court that what science needed was “affirmative action for fringe ideas”. Vic Walczak queried, “But is the ninth grade science classroom the right place to apply that affirmative action?” I’ve been told that Fuller’s cross-examination was helpful to the plaintiffs’ case on several issues concerning the status of “intelligent design” in the scientific community.

Oh, yes, Fuller also made the inexplicable claim that no evolutionary biologist had been awarded the Nobel Prize. While the Nobel Prize doesn’t have an explicit evolutionary biology topic under which it makes awards, there have been several awards under the “Physiology or Medicine” topic that concern findings that touch upon evolutionary biology, going back to Thomas Hunt Morgan, forward through Muller, then Watson and Crick, and most recently Hartwell, Hunt, and Nurse. On the Nobel site you will learn that Nurse’s research establishes that cyclin dependent kinase is conserved during evolution. When one turns to the Crafoord Prize in the Biosciences, an award also administered by the Swedish Academy of Sciences, one finds such people as Daniel H. Janzen, Edward O. Wilson, William D. Hamilton, John Maynard Smith, Ernst Mayr, George C. Williams, and Carl Woese have won that prize. Judging a whole scientific field by the idiosyncracies of one social institution seems anomalous behavior for a social scientist, and especially one who casts himself as a champion of pluralism.

2005/10/21: The York Daily Record reports:

The defense decided to continue with Dover Area Supt. Richard Nilsen’s testimony this morning rather than call expert witness Dick Carpenter, an assistant professor of leadership, research and foundations at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs.

So, is Carpenter just slipping back in the schedule (they’d need to put him up somewhere over the weekend), or has Carpenter bailed after noting Behe’s cross-examination?

2005/10/19: “Is there a distinction to be made between science and science fiction?” Eric Rothschild asked Michael Behe. “Yes,” responded Behe. “I have no further questions,” said Rothschild. And with those words (or ones quite similar – we’ll get precision with the transcript release), Eric Rothschild laid to rest the remains of Behe’s scientific credibility. Preceding that, there was a day full of cross examination, in which one would learn that Behe wasn’t as familiar with the scientific literature on the immune system as one might hope for someone billed as an “expert”, that rigorous peer review in “intelligent design” can be obtained in a ten-minute telephone interview – without the reviewer even having to see the manuscript, that the blood-clotting system can be reduced to a “core” of four parts – except that when one does so the result is claimed to be lethal, and much more. Why did the cross-examination of Behe sound so much like the lawyers were reading from the TalkDesign web site? Well, at least part of that would be due to the advice that the plaintiffs’ lawyers received from NCSE Public Information Director Nicholas Matzke, aka “Nic Tamzek” from the early TalkDesign days and regular PT contributor. By almost all accounts*, the TalkDesign material on various issues concerning Behe’s “irreducible complexity” was put to good use. Expect a more complete eulogy for Behe’s scientific career – and a post-mortem, as it were, of the terminal handling it received on Tuesday and Wednesday – to be posted here later, after we have the transcripts in hand.

What has to be considered for the future is whether the on-the-stand demolition of Behe will influence the remainder of the slate of TMLC experts. They had a pretty high withdrawal rate pre-trial, and now that the preparation of the plaintiffs’ legal team has been shown, vividly, will all the rest of TMLC’s scheduled experts actually show up for a big helping of what Behe had?

* As one might expect, the DI thinks Behe weathered cross-examination without any trouble whatsoever, but when one’s reports are apparently filed from Cloud Cuckoo Land, I think that we are permitted to “consider the source”.

2005/10/18: A Philadelphia Inquirer article reports on cross-examination of Michael Behe. Eric Rothschild is apparently taking the time to have Behe address the inconsistencies within “intelligent design” advocacy. This could take a while to get through:

Behe also said intelligent design does not maintain that life began abruptly, and does not specify God as the unidentified designer.

But plaintiffs’ attorney Eric Rothschild produced documents, including Behe’s own writings, that suggested otherwise.

2005/10/16: A quick checkup on the last few days of the trial. First, the second part of Barbara Forrest’s testimony is now available for download. The plaintiff’s attorneys wrapped up their case with their last two witnesses testifying. Brian Alters, an expert in science education, broke down the school board’s mandated statement phrase by phrase and showed why it undermines quality science education. Then Kevin Padian, a paleontologist, essentially gave a seminar on why we know evolution to be true and why many of the scientific claims in Of Pandas and People are false (reports here and here). The defense will begin calling witnesses on Monday.

The defense needs to defeat the plaintiffs’ arguments concerning both the purpose and the effect of the “intelligent design” policy. For the second, they are most likely to try to convince Judge Jones that “intelligent design”, and specifically the policy adopted by the DASD, are scientific in character, and thus have a place in the science curriculum regardless of any secondary effect they might have in the way of having implications for religious belief. We heard at the outset the apparent defense strategy concerning dealing with “purpose”: paint the outspoken religious statements of school board members as not having any appreciable effect upon the board’s deliberations in adopting the “intelligent design” policy. It is difficult to imagine Judge Jones buying that given what has been presented by the plaintiffs so far, but it should be entertaining to see the defense give it a go.

It is expected that the defense will call Discovery Institute Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture Senior Fellow and Lehigh University professor Michael J. Behe on Monday. Behe will testify as to the scientific character of “intelligent design” and try to address the testimony of the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses, especially that of Miller, Padian, and Alters. Behe has already given an expert report, a rebuttal report, and a deposition, so the plaintiffs should have a good idea of what is up.

2005/10/12: Not much to report lately. The trial took two days off and resumes today with Dover science department chair Bertha Spahr finishing her testimony. Two more plaintiffs witnesses to go this week, then the defendants begin their case. The York Dispatch has an interesting article on the question of whether the Supreme Court would take this case if it gets appealed that far and what the possible outcome might be.

2005/10/10: PT contributor Burt Humburg is profiled and interviewed in this story in the York Daily Record. Burt seems to always be wherever there’s a breakout of anti-evolution activity (first Kansas, then Minnesota, now Pennsylvania) and frankly we’re beginning to wonder if he’s really a spy from the Dark Side sent to get us drunk and loose lipped. We’d noticed that he does like to buy endless rounds of Protostome Pilsners (“Protostome Pilsner - in one end, out the same end”) for everyone else while he sips his white wine spritzers.

2005/10/07: The transcript of the direct examination of Barbara Forrest is now available from this page (and OCR’d etext on AE). The cross examination portion should be available shortly. The defense spent hours trying to discredit her to the judge and failed, finally being admonished for continually trying to bring up irrelevant things like the positions of groups she belongs to on totally unrelated subjects. The defense was absolutely desperate to throw mud at her and they failed.

2005/10/06: Yesterday brought perhaps the most contentious day of testimony yet, as Dr. Barbara Forrest took the stand for the plaintiffs. She testified on the history and development of the intelligent design movement and showed that the entire movement began primarily as a strategic response to the courts ruling “creation science” out of public schools. There are multiple reports on her testimony available online. The ACLU-PA blog has two reports, here and here. The York Daily Record has one report on Forrest’s testimony and another on the defense’s frantic attempts to attack her testimony. The defense attorneys spent all morning objecting to her testimony but were repeatedly overruled by Judge Jones, then they tried to make an issue out of Forrest’s own views on religion, which are clearly not relevant in court, and were overruled again.

Ed Brayton has an analysis of that strategy and points out that it contradicts what the DI has been saying in their attempts to undermine her testimony. The DI went so far as to issue a press release attacking Forrest yet again, which can only mean that they recognize how damaging her testimony, particularly the examination of the book Of Pandas and People showing that the book simply replaced “creation” with “intelligent design” during the writing process, is to their side. This is desperation in action, folks.

2005/10/04: The latest NCSE Podcast, discussing the testimony of Georgetown theology professor John Haught, is available here.

A group of scientists has filed a brief asking the court not to rule on the question of what is and is not legitimate science because they fear it will violate academic freedom and inhibit future research. This is the standard line coming from the Discovery Institute and Ed Brayton debunks it here.

2005/10/01: The York Daily Record has a brief report on the testimony of Georgetown theology professor John Haught. Ed Brayton argues that TMLC attorney Richard Thompson inadvertantly showed by his questioning exactly why ID is not falsifiable.

2005/09/29: The court has now made the transcripts of day 1 of the trial available. You can download them in PDF format from the NCSE website - AM session and PM session.

2005/09/30: PT: Why didn’t they tell us?, where Nick Matzke covers some more of the evidence that “intelligent design” is just another label for the same old creationism.

2005/09/30: News roundup: The York Dispatch: Meetings were like revivals, York Daily Record: Mural at issue, The Patriot-News: Dover board members pushed creationism, witnesses testify, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: Ex-official: Board broke with curriculum policy, The Philadelphia Inquirer: Intelligent design a religious notion, scientist testifies.

2005/09/29: NCSE Podcasts for 2005/09/29.

2005/09/29: The court has now made the transcripts of day 1 of the trial available. You can download them in PDF format from the NCSE website - AM session and PM session.

2005/09/28: On Thursday, the primary witness was Carol Brown, a former member of the Dover school board for 10 years until she resigned in protest of the new intelligent design policy. She testified to the repeated statements of Bill Buckingham, chair of the curriculum committee, and Alan Bonsell, chair of the school board, that they were seeking equal time for creationism in science classrooms. She detailed a year’s worth of proselytizing by members of the school board, their outspoken opposition to the separation of church and state, and much more. She testified that the search for an ID textbook began because several members of the board objected to the biology textbook (Ken Miller’s textbook, Biology) on the grounds that it did not give equal time to creationism or mention God. This follows on the heels of almost identical testimony from other former board members and teachers, including Bryan Rehm and Barrie Callahan.

On 2005/09/28, the expert witness Robert Pennock of Michigan State University testified for the plaintiffs. He delineated the difference between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism, produced evidence showing that the ID advocates recognize that their arguments cannot work within a framework of methodological naturalism, and defended the role of methodological naturalism in the practice of science during the cross-examination. (See the post concerning a quote of Nancy Pearcey’s that Pennock referred to in his testimony and check out the NCSE Podcast about Pennock’s testimony.)

Meanwhile, the Discovery Institute is going spare over the imminent demise of its ‘wedge strategy’ concerning “intelligent design”, offering up a press release wherein they offer the explanation that whatever the plaintiffs discuss inside the courtroom, it isn’t the real, true, honest-to-God, no-foolin’, double-dog-dare-ya “intelligent design”. Pathetic. Perhaps the committee charged with finding the next label for antievolutionists to apply to the same old tired antievolution arguments is having some difficulty. Nick Matzke covers some more of the evidence that “intelligent design” is just another label for the same old creationism.

2005/09/27: The plaintiffs brought in three fact witnesses, plaintiffs Tammy Kitzmiller and Aralene “Barrie” Callahan, and Brian Rehm, a Dover science teacher. Kitzmiller testified to the choice her daughter had to make about staying or opting out of listening to the DASD “intelligent design” statement, where staying could be confusing concerning science, and leaving would expose her to possible ridicule and peer pressure. Callahan, a former school board member, testified to the school board’s insistence that ‘equal time’ be given to creationism when evolution was taught. Rehm testified to being pressured by the school board to downplay or not teach evolution in classes. (NCSE Podcast available.)

2005/09/27: NCSE Podcast about KvD opening day, about fifteen minutes of commentary on KvD and events of the opening day. More NCSE Podcasts on opening day and Ken Miller’s testimony.

The KvD trial got underway yesterday with opening statements from plaintiffs and defense, and Dr. Kenneth Miller of Brown University testifying as an expert for the plaintiffs.

Eric Rothschild’s opening statement for the plaintiffs charged that “intelligent design” is simply an adaptation of creationism, and a concept without any legitimate scientific standing. He also strongly commended evolutionary biology as a well-established scientific field of study.

Pat Gillen, arguing for the defense, claimed that “intelligent design” is science, not religion, and that the DASD didn’t pay much attention to Bill Buckingham, former school board member and fulminator for creationism there. This goes against news reports at the time, such as the one reporting Yingling’s resignation as a result of pressure she felt to support the curriculum change.

Yingling voted for the measure, but later said she did it only because she was called “un-Christian” and pressured to vote with the majority.

(York Dispatch)

Gillen also claimed that the DASD policy was a modest one, which rather goes against the content of a TMLC press release of 2005/01/18 that states, “a revolution in evolution is underway”.

Reports I’ve gotten from attendees have said that Ken Miller was “magnificent” and “a fabulous witness”. In other words, Ken was having another ordinary day for him. Miller paid particular attention to Of Pandas and People, pointing out its deficiencies in terms of accurate reporting of biology and its clear creationist wellspring of arguments.

2005/09/27: Satire from Swift Reports: New Law Says Science Teachers Must Recite “Footprints in the Sand”

2005/09/27: PT: Blogging the Dover Trial, where Ed Brayton points out blogs of the ACLU of Pennsylvania and Jonathan Witt blogging for the DI. Ed also explains why ID advocates continue to be confused over the concept of “falsifiability”.

2005/09/27: News Roundup: Stuck at Court, with no Circus in Sight, York Daily Record, Defense: It Isn’t About Religion, York Daily Record, Dover’s Test Begins, York Daily Record, Institute: Both Sides Wrong, York Daily Record, Media Views on Dover, York Daily Record

2005/09/26: News roundup: NCSE’s Executive Director Dr. Eugenie Scott interviewed on Lou Dobbs, CNN (9:30 PM EDT, 6:30 PM PDT). Washington Post, York Dispatch, L.A. Times, WGAL, Collective Bellaciao, France, CivilRights.org, Orlando Sentinel, York Daily Record, York Daily Record, Family News in Focus, NC News and Observer, Minneapolis Star Tribune.

2005/09/26: Trial begins: opening arguments from both sides, then plaintiffs call Prof. Ken Miller of Brown University. Miller gives direct testimony, and part of the cross-examination by the defense.

2005/09/25: News roundup: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, York Daily Record, New York Times, LA Times, Independent UK, MSNBC, New Scientist, People’s Daily Online.

2005/09/24: PT: Of Pandas and People: Creation Relabeled, reports on the oral testimony taken earlier that shows that “creation” and “intelligent design” share the same definition, going from a draft of Of Pandas and People to the published version.

2005/09/23: As of September 13, 2005, the Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District case was headed for trial in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania starting on September 26, 2005. Judge John E. Jones III denied the Thomas More Law Center motion for summary judgment in an order delivered on September 13, clearing the way for the full trial. This post will provide a convenient place for links to articles and commentary on the Kitzmiller v. DASD proceedings. Not since the 1981 McLean v. Arkansas trial has there been a legal case of this size and complexity on the subject, with a slate of expert witnesses on each side scheduled to give testimony.

Back in 2004, the Dover school board held a series of meetings in which they discussed putting creationism into the science classes. Former board member Bill Buckingham was reported to have said, “Two thousand years ago, someone died on a cross. Can’t someone take a stand for him?” Later, Buckingham vehemently denied making that statement in discussion of the science curricula. The school board first approved the acceptance of nearly sixty copies of the “intelligent design” textbook, Of Pandas and People (OPAP), for the school library. They then also adopted an “intelligent design policy”, that was to inform the students in ninth-grade science classes about “intelligent design” and the availability of OPAP in the library. Following this, several parents sued the DASD over the “intelligent design policy”. After several months of discovery, depositions, and other legal paperwork, the suit is now ready for trial.

2005/09/13: Judge Jones denies TMLC motion for summary judgement.

2005/08/11: PT: Sandefur on defense motion for summary judgment

2005/08/10: PT: Revelations in Dover

2005/08/06: PT: Design on Trial, reviews the state of play concerning KvD and OPAP93.

2005/07/16: PT: Creationist Credibility, reports on the FTE motion to intervene in KvD.

2005/06/25: PT: Dembski threatens to sue Dover defense, reports on Dembski delivering a $20K+ bill to TMLC for his services, which they are no longing using.

2005/06/20: PT: Conflicting Explanations for Withdrawal of Dover Experts?, reports on the start of differing explanations for the withdrawal of three DI Fellows as experts by TMLC.

2005/06/19: PT: ID Experts Withdraw from Dover Trial, reports on TMLC withdrawing three Discovery Institute Fellows as experts in the case because they insisted on having separate legal representation for themselves.

2005/03/28: PT: Dover, PA Experts Revealed

2005/03/20: PT: Dover Dithers Over Donations, reports on donations of science books to Dover school library and the DASD resistance to accepting those books.

2005/03/13: PT: New news from Dover, reports that the Rutherford Institute motion to intervene in KvD was denied, and that Of Pandas and People 1993 edition would not have been recommended to the Dover school board by its own publisher.

2005/01/28: PT: Dover science teachers take a stand, reporting on science teachers refusing to deliver the administration’s prepared speech on “intelligent design” to 9th grade science classes.

2005/01/12: PT: This just in: Plaintiffs give up in Dover, comments on hilariously false religious reporting that confused the plaintiffs not having filed a motion to stop the DASD from implementing its “intelligent design” policy with their having dropped the KvD lawsuit.

2005/01/07: PT: Another twist on the Dover story, reports on the Dover science teachers’ letter to the administration stating their intention to opt out of reading the “intelligent design” policy statement to children in science classes.

2005/01/06: PT: More PA scientists speak out against ID, reports on scientists at the University of Pennsylvania taking issue with the DASD “intelligent design” policy.

2004/12/21: PT: More Dover reports on the DASD and the likelihood that the Thomas More Law Center would represent them in the lawsuit.

2004/12/15: PT: Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District, reports on the filing of the lawsuit against DASD.

2004/12/11: PT: Doverian doings, reports on area responses to the DASD policy and criticism of OPAP93.

2004/12/07: PT: Analysis of Dover Biology Curriculum, looks at claims made by the DASD “intelligent design” policy.

2004/12/07: Panda-monium: NCSE Resources Page on Pandas, points to the NCSE resources page on OPAP.

2004/12/06: PT: Dover School Board Done to a Crispy Crunch, links to an op-ed by Paul Gross and Barbara Forrest concerning the Dover school board’s “intelligent design” policy.

2004/12/05: PT: Science Teachers Balk at Dover Decision.

2004/11/23: PT: Dover School District Wades Into Troubled Waters, reports on the DASD adoption of its “intelligent design” policy and how that will very likely lead to a lawsuit.

2004/11/12: PT: Dover creationism update, reports on the legal liability that DASD will be taking on by adoption of its “intelligent design” policy.

Comments in this thread are for pointers to KvD resources only; all others will be deleted at the PT administration discretion and convenience. Please utilize the After the Bar Closes forum area for wider-ranging comments.

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.

Comment #49336

Posted by Bayesian Bouffant, FCD on September 23, 2005 5:35 PM (e)

The DI posturing continues:

Dr. John West of the Discovery Institute, which sponsors research on intelligent design, said the case displayed the ACLU’s “Orwellian” effort to stifle scientific discourse and objected to the issue being decided in court.

“It’s a disturbing prospect that the outcome of this lawsuit could be that the court will try to tell scientists what is legitimate scientific inquiry and what is not,” West said. “That is a flagrant assault on free speech.”

Huh? This trial isn’t about what research can be done, it’s about what should be taught in the public school science classes.

Comment #49379

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on September 23, 2005 8:53 PM (e)

I’m going to remind people that comments in this thread *must* be pointers to resources about KvD, and general commentary should be routed to this thread. I’ll give people a little time to re-post comments made so far there before I delete them here.

Comment #49383

Posted by Steven Laskoske on September 23, 2005 9:53 PM (e)

I think if you want some info on resources about KvD, one of the sources to consider is one of the local sources. The York Daily Record has a whole section devoted to the Dover case.

Of special interest are some of the recent arguements regarding attempts to question reporters from both the The York Daily Record and the York Dispatch.

Speaking now of the latter publication, the York Dispatch has a decent timeline leading up to the trial.

Comment #49396

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on September 23, 2005 10:56 PM (e)

Steven Laskoske,

Yes, your comment is the sort that has a home in this thread. I’ve updated the top sidebar with that information. Thanks.

Comment #49397

Posted by Steven Laskoske on September 23, 2005 11:06 PM (e)

Thank you. Living in nearby Lancaster, PA, I’ve been interested in this case. Since York is so close to Dover, the York papers are an invaluable resource.

Comment #49415

Posted by Michael Hopkins on September 24, 2005 7:11 AM (e)

The Court’s Kitzmiller v. Dover School District own web site

Comment #49419

Posted by Pete Dunkelberg on September 24, 2005 7:52 AM (e)

Is the book really THAT THAT THAT bad?

Or is it only this bad?

Comment #49540

Posted by Bayesian Bouffant, FCD on September 25, 2005 11:51 AM (e)

Interesting the way this is being reported on CNN: on CNN:

A new battle over teaching about man’s origins in U.S. schools goes to court for the first time next week, pitting Christian conservatives against educators and scientists in a trial viewed as the biggest test of the issue since the late 1980s….

So much for the ‘ID is not about religion’ angle.

Comment #49592

Posted by Michael Hopkins on September 25, 2005 9:24 PM (e)

Wikipedia entry for Dover case

Comment #49602

Posted by Inch-colm on September 25, 2005 11:30 PM (e)

Did you see this piece in the Washington Post?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/25/AR2005092501177.html

Comment #49617

Posted by Michael Hopkins on September 26, 2005 7:23 AM (e)

NPR story from this morning. The audio will appear sometime around 10 A.M. Eastern.

Comment #49685

Posted by steve on September 26, 2005 2:38 PM (e)

This thread is about resources for news in Dover? For lies and distortions about Dover, there’s always http://uncommondescent.com/

Comment #49702

Posted by maurile on September 26, 2005 4:32 PM (e)

Ken Miller was the first witness called by the plaintiffs. The Discovery Institute’s blog has a summary of Miller’s testimony by Jonathan Witt: link.

Comment #49711

Posted by SEF on September 26, 2005 5:17 PM (e)

The Grauniad is nicely scathing about the trial (in their education section). I think they’ve generally been good about reporting on the UK creationists too. I doubt they’ll be in a position to uncover much which the US sources don’t already have though.

Comment #49764

Posted by steve on September 26, 2005 9:41 PM (e)

new MSNBC story:

HARRISBURG, Pa. - A school district is undermining science education by raising false doubts about evolution and offering “intelligent design” as an alternative explanation for life’s origins, a biologist testified at the start of a landmark trial.

“It’s the first movement to try to drive a wedge between students and the scientific process,” said Brown University’s Kenneth Miller, the first witness called Monday by lawyers for eight families suing the Dover Area School District.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9492208/

Comment #49786

Posted by RBH on September 27, 2005 12:58 AM (e)

The Pennsylvania ACLU is blogging the trial.

(Hat tip to Splat on Infidels)

Comment #49826

Posted by Bayesian Bouffant, FCD on September 27, 2005 9:51 AM (e)

The Pennsylvania ACLU is blogging the trial.

Do you have contacts there? That link says Miller is speaking at Lehigh on 8 Oct 2005. The correct date is 12 Oct.

Comment #49887

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on September 27, 2005 6:02 PM (e)

DI is whining about Dover already:

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/09-27-2005/0004132403&EDATE=

An excerpt:

“Most of Dr. Miller’s testimony today against intelligent design
was
simply based upon a misrepresentation of the scientific theory of
intelligent
design,” said scientist Casey Luskin, program officer for public
policy and
legal affairs with Discovery Institute’s Center for Science &
Culture.

Wow, you mean Discovery Institute NOW has a scientific theory of intelligent design, after telling us for years that it DOESN’T ????? Can I see it, please?

Or, is Luskin just lying to us. Again.

“Dr. Miller’s testimony is disturbing because it demands that the
Court
rule on the nature of science and the validity of scientific
theories – matters which should be left to scientific experts and
not be
decided by courts,” added Luskin.

That’s pretty funny, since (1) it is the IDers who are currently trying to change the definition of ‘science’, in Kansas, (2) the “validity of the scientific theory of ID” has ALREADY been decided by “scientific experts” — they think it’s full of crap, and (3) it is the ID/creationists, and ONLY the ID/creationists, who are attempting to pass laws forcing their religious opinions into public school classrooms and textbooks.

Comment #49906

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on September 27, 2005 7:57 PM (e)

More whining from DI:

http://ydr.com/story/doverbiology/86982/

Excerpt:

Luskin said Miller inaccurately characterized intelligent design as a concept that focuses on what evolution doesn’t explain. Luskin said intelligent design stands on its own as an explanation of life and the origins of species.

Hey, everyone, lookie!!!!! Luskin says he has a scientific theory of ID, one that explains life and the origin of species!!!!!!

Can one of the DI luminaries here explain to us all, please, what this scientific theory of ID is, and how it explains life and the origin of species?

(sound of crickets chirping)

What, according to this scientific theory of ID, did the designer do, specifically?

What mechanisms did the designer use to do whatever the heck this scientific theory of ID postulates that it did?

Where can we see any of the mechanisms postulated by this scientific theory of ID in action doing … well … anything?

And how can we test any of this using the scientific method?

Hello? Paul? Sal? Bill? Davey?

Anyone?

Hello?

(sound of more crickets chirping)

Yep, that’s what I thought. DI is just lying to us. Again.

Comment #49928

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on September 27, 2005 11:38 PM (e)

Dover biology disclaimer.

Comment #49971

Posted by bill on September 28, 2005 11:17 AM (e)

Here you go, Lenny. Luskin explains “intelligent design” in this DI press release:

Monsters from the ID

Comment #50009

Posted by Bayesian Bouffant, FCD on September 28, 2005 3:30 PM (e)

Why wont the IDers just admit that they are really rooting for the Grand Old Designer?

Because of Edwards v. Aguillard. It is already illegal to teach “creation science” in a public school.

Comment #50020

Posted by Tim Broderick on September 28, 2005 5:02 PM (e)

That “big tent theory” mentioned today (9/28) in the trial may refer back to this from a 2001 National Post article:

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:3Ce7qDHkrXcJ:www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php%3Fcommand%3Dview%26program%3DCSCStories%26id%3D630+%22big+tent+theory%22+evolution&hl=en&client=safari

“That this theory could be immensely appealing to many people, there can be no doubt. Which is why, given the Bush presidency, and the fact that members of the Bush team were, last spring, extensively briefed on intelligent design, the battle has been joined in the popular press. Make no mistake, despite that East coast sheep’s clothing, Bush is a big middle, red-state robust Methodist with evangelical leanings, who knows that any group with authority to tell a culture’s creation story functions as a kind of priesthood. Intelligent design, because it travels light, is a big tent theory, which has begun to collect around itself such disparate groups as young earth creationists, Hare Krishna, Muslims and Jewish intellectual editors who write for Commentary.

Just how big tent, is not hidden by Dr. Meyer and his colleagues at the Discovery Institute. Intelligent design is nestled in that branch of the Discovery Institute called the Center for Renewal of Science and Culture, which claims that the materialism of the last 100 years has denied objective moral standards, claiming that right and wrong evolved to suit societal needs and personal preferences, that materialism undermined belief in personal responsibility, devised utopian political schemes, and advocated coercive government programs that promised heaven on earth, but produced oppression and genocide.”

So they’re going to try and show ID is a big tent theory that everyone can compromise around?

Comment #50039

Posted by RBH on September 28, 2005 6:47 PM (e)

Tim Broderick wrote

That “big tent theory” mentioned today (9/28) in the trial may refer back to this from a 2001 National Post article:

The “big tent” approach specifically applied to ID Creationism was articulated by Philip Johnson. See this review by Nancy Pearcey, a Discovery Institute hanger-on.

RBH

Comment #50046

Posted by Michael Hopkins on September 28, 2005 8:14 PM (e)

Reporters avoid contempt charges

Comment #50054

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on September 28, 2005 9:05 PM (e)

Please help out with comment maintenance here by entering discussion comments directly into the AE BB thread for them. Repeatedly entering commentary instead of resources in this thread may get you banned! Enough said.

Comment #50183

Posted by Michael Hopkins on September 29, 2005 5:26 PM (e)

Petition for relevant scientists to be presented to the judge of the Dover trial.

Comment #50295

Posted by Collin on September 30, 2005 11:21 AM (e)

I don’t know if you have seen this yet.

“If Charles Darwin could have attended a meeting in Dover on Thursday, he would have been shocked by the disrespect shown his theory, according to his great-great-grandson Matthew Chapman.
Chapman was among about 150 people, including about 20 members of the media, who came to Dover Fire Station (6) for a presentation involving a video of “More Reasons Why Evolution is Stupid.”…

http://ydr.com/story/doverbiology/87577/

The amusing thing is not the article, but the UFO in the background of the photo, lol.

Comment #50334

Posted by Fly Guy on September 30, 2005 2:26 PM (e)

Dr. Dembski is already starting the post-mortem on the Dover trial at Uncommon Descent (http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/371). I don’t think that he likes how well the Dover school board president Mr. Bill Buckingham connected the dots between creationism and ID.

Comment #50335

Posted by Gerard Harbison on September 30, 2005 2:36 PM (e)

Wesley: I hope this is relevant. Surprisingly, I haven’t seen it discussed elsewhere. This:

http://ydr.com/story/doverbiology/87576/

describes how a janitor in the Dover high school burned a mural depicting evolution because it offended him, with the full approval of two of the school board members.

First murals, then books, and eventually witches.

Comment #50338

Posted by pondscum on September 30, 2005 2:42 PM (e)

Here is a link to the latest column from Mike Argento. Argento may be to the Panda Trial, what H. L. Mencken was to the Monkey Trial.

http://ydr.com/story/doverbiology/87612/

Comment #50382

Posted by Pete Dunkelberg on September 30, 2005 6:16 PM (e)

Have you noticed Yorkblog? Try The Buckingham school: No civil liberties allowed.

Comment #50389

Posted by Eric Murphy on September 30, 2005 6:51 PM (e)

I was looking at the DI’s website, evolutionnews.org, where they report that Eugenie Scott makes “false claims” that there have been no peer-reviewed science articles that support ID. Of course, they’re referring to Stephen Meyer’s paper in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. Do they really want to go there? I wanted to trackback to Alan Gishlick, Nick Matzke, and Wesley R. Elsberry’s paper “Meyer’s Hopeless Monster” at http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Meyer.cfm, but of course there’s no way to post a comment on the evolutionnews site.

I wonder why they didn’t mention Behe and Snoke’s paper in Protein Science? Is it because it’s been so thoroughly dismantled by Musgrave et. al.? Or because B&S’s paper actually makes clear (once you use realistic assumptions) that biological novelty can, in fact, evolve without the need for an intelligent designer?

Comment #50420

Posted by kay on September 30, 2005 9:55 PM (e)

HOLD THE TRIAL!

http://science.slashdot.org/science/05/10/01/0140200.shtml?tid=14

They’re evolving. Finally. :) Moot point now.

Comment #50433

Posted by Mona on September 30, 2005 11:13 PM (e)

For trial transcripts of testimony, go here: http://www.aclupa.org/legal/legaldocket/intelligentdesigncase/dovertrialtranscripts.htm

Comment #50444

Posted by Norman Doering on October 1, 2005 2:33 AM (e)

I found these websites if anyone is interested in the view from the other side:

Thomas More Law Cente
http://www.thomasmore.org/

The Foundation for Thought and Ethics
http://www.fteonline.com/

Comment #50478

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on October 1, 2005 10:53 AM (e)

Norman,

It must have been tough finding those resources, since you’d have had to read the “Program” sidebar to get them here. In other words, this page has linked to “the other side” all week long.

Comment #50483

Posted by Esteban Escalera on October 1, 2005 12:25 PM (e)

Link: Darwinism

wrote:

This article is about Darwinism as a philosophical concept; see evolution for the page on biological evolution; modern evolutionary synthesis for neo-Darwinism; and also evolution (disambiguation).

It seems that darwinism and evolution aren’t synonymous. IDs are attacking darwinism or evolution theory?

Comment #50545

Posted by Harry Eaton on October 1, 2005 10:34 PM (e)

There’s a good column on sfgate.com worth a read.

Comment #50620

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on October 2, 2005 1:32 PM (e)

“Design scientists have noted that any time we know the cause behind something full of information, intelligent design played a causal role.

The ID folks are really pushing this line of “reasoning”, as it were. They’ve never responded to my dissection of their “uniform experience” or “marker of intelligent agency” argument. And the facts go opposite their desired conclusion: whenever people have attributed some biological feature to non-natural causation in the past, and we’ve learned more about that feature, a natural cause has become the accepted explanation for that feature. In other words, our “uniform experience” is that in every case where the DI’s “logic” has been used in the way they suggest, it has been wrong. One would think that would give them pause. But apparently, like the weird kid on the playground, they are too caught up in the fantasy they’ve constructed to note any intrusion of reality into that world.

Comment #50627

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on October 2, 2005 3:19 PM (e)

I go over the reasons why the “marker of intelligent agency” argument is unsound in the video. My Powerpoint file is linked from this post.

Comment #50909

Posted by Gerard Harbison on October 4, 2005 10:38 AM (e)

The Discovery Institute claims today that 85 ‘scientists’ have signed an amicus brief in the Dover trial in support of the contention “that protecting the freedom to pursue scientific evidence for intelligent design stimulates the advance of scientific knowledge.” Looks like the usual suspects (Skell, Carlson).

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2907&program=News&callingPage=discoMainPage

Maybe time to get an amicus brief from 500 scientists called Steve?

Comment #50964

Posted by Logicman on October 4, 2005 9:19 PM (e)

This is a very funny article concerning the Dover trial:

http://ydr.com/story/doverbiology/87427/

Comment #50965

Posted by vhutchison on October 4, 2005 9:50 PM (e)

Isn’t it very unlikely that the judge would at this time entertain an amicus brief?

There is an online petition at

http://shovelbums.org

that has 10,765 signatures of scientists against ID with a description of how the list will be checked and used - mainly for media purposes.

Comment #51029

Posted by whatever on October 5, 2005 9:52 AM (e)

From the MSNBC article
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9492208/

“‘This case is about free inquiry in education, not about a religious agenda,’ said Patrick Gillen of the Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor, Mich., in his opening statement. The center, which lobbies for what it sees as the religious freedom of Christians, is defending the school district.”

Since when does free inquiry rule out discussion about the origin of life, which the Dover statement explicitly rules out? Why is discussion about the origin of life blocked in Dover schools, if not for religious sensitivity?

Comment #51059

Posted by Bayesian Bouffant, FCD on October 5, 2005 11:48 AM (e)

The claim that teaching religious doctrine as scientific fact is “free inquiry in education” is something Orwell must be chuckling over in his grave.

Should be easy enough to verify, with the proper test equipment.

Comment #51130

Posted by Bayesian Bouffant, FCD on October 5, 2005 3:24 PM (e)

YDR reports on Dan Snook, substitute teacher

Tuesday, October 4, 2005
Dan Snook said he has taught as a substitute in several York County school districts during the past 20 to 25 years, and he doesn’t believe reading a statement about intelligent design in biology class is a big deal….
“Evolution is also a religion, with its own set of assumptions and world views,” he wrote in June 2004 in the York Daily Record/Sunday News. “Didn’t Hitler, Mussolini, Chairman Mao and others use Darwin’s ideas and his ‘survival of the fittest’ to conquer, enslave those peoples who they deemed ‘inferior’? Evolution was their religion….
His specialty is biology, Snook said, though he will teach other courses. He said he received a Bachelor of Science in biology and a Master of Education, both from Shippensburg University….
He’s been substitute teaching in Dover for about 15 years, and exclusively for that district for about two years….

Comment #51139

Posted by RBH on October 5, 2005 4:20 PM (e)

From today’s York Daily Record:

Over the objections of the Dover Area School District’s attorney, U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III allowed Barbara Forrest, a Southeastern Louisiana University philosophy professor, to testify in court this morning in Harrisburg.

Much of her testimony focused on early drafts of the pro-intelligent design textbook “Of Pandas and People.”

Using exhibits plaintiffs’ attorneys had subpoenaed from Panda’s publisher Foundation for Thought and Ethics, Forrest showed how references to “creation science” in earlier drafts were changed to “intelligent design” after the U.S. Supreme Court had struck down the teachings of creation science in 1987.

That was exceedingly important to get into the trial record, and why the DI and More Law Center tried so hard to discredit her. Way to go, Barbara!

RBH

Comment #51162

Posted by tytlal on October 5, 2005 5:43 PM (e)

Oops!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9601689/

Now stay out of science class!

Comment #51163

Posted by tytlal on October 5, 2005 5:43 PM (e)

Oops!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9601689/

Now stay out of science class!

Comment #51333

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 6, 2005 6:01 PM (e)

Discovery Institute’s whining about Dr Barbara:

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/10-05-2005/0004160863&EDATE=

SEATTLE, Oct. 5 /PRNewswire/ – Today, Southeastern Louisiana University philosophy professor Barbara Forrest testified in the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial that it is her opinion that intelligent design and creationism are essentially one in the same.
“I hope that the media will critically analyze Forrest’s testimony and get our response to her allegations,” said John West. “I would warn them to take what she says not with just a grain of salt, but with a shaker-full.”
“The ACLU’s entire case is built on misrepresenting what intelligent design is, and mischaracterizing it as creationism so we’re not surprised they called Forrest as a witness,” West added.
According to West, creationism is focused on defending a literal reading of the Genesis account, usually including the creation of the earth by the Biblical God a few thousand years ago. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text.
Instead, intelligent design theory attempts to empirically detect whether the apparent design in nature observed by biologists is genuine design (the product of an organizing intelligence) or is simply the product of chance and mechanical natural laws.
“The effort to detect design in nature is being adopted by a growing number of biologists, biochemists, physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers of science at colleges and universities around the world,” said West. “Scientists engaged in design research include biochemist Michael Behe of Lehigh University and microbiologist Scott Minnich at the University of Idaho, both of whom will testify for the defense, and astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez at Iowa State University.”

Comment #51603

Posted by kay on October 8, 2005 7:39 PM (e)

http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/10/afa/72005f.asp [LAWSUIT]

I want a cookie. ^_^

Comment #51673

Posted by bill on October 9, 2005 5:57 PM (e)

The expert witness reports are at the NCSE website. Check out item three.

NCSE Kitzmiller site

Comment #51737

Posted by Bruce Thompson GQ on October 10, 2005 12:46 PM (e)

Via the Red State Rabble
Professor Steve Steve is misidentified in an Associated Press report photograph
in USA TODAY, by Martha Raffaele. He is identified only as a panda puppet, possibly in reference to the book Of Pandas and People.

Delta Pi Gamma (Scientia et Fermentum)

Comment #51792

Posted by shenda on October 10, 2005 6:51 PM (e)

On Panda’s and ID at Huffington Post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nicholas-von-hoffman/pandas_b_8548.html

Comment #51901

Posted by WJC on October 11, 2005 11:21 AM (e)

Why was Dembski withdrawn as an expert for the defense?

Comment #51909

Posted by Steviepinhead on October 11, 2005 12:38 PM (e)

There are some earlier threads here which go into considerable detail. This is just my overall impressionistic response:

Originally, Dembski’s withdrawal was excused on the basis that the Thomas More Law Center folks running the defense would not allow Dembski to have separate counsel (from the overall defense counsel) for his deposition.

It now looks like none of the originally-listed DI defense “experts” will be testifying. The DI spin on this is that they agree that ID is not yet sufficiently “ripe” for presentation at the (pre-college) class level, and that the Dover case was, um, evolving in a direction that threatened to inject a, ahem, particular designer into the mix…

My take: the DI sensed that this case was heading to the dumpster, and they made a strategic decision to bail. Since then, they have been working as hard as they can to distance themselves and their, um, “theory” from the looming disaster, while still perching on the sidelines and trying their darndest to diss any of the testimony currently running in plaintiffs’ favor.

Comment #51914

Posted by kay on October 11, 2005 1:16 PM (e)

problem is that as business, the DI and all the other more or less creationist outfits can make a good living just preaching (and selling stuff) to the choir.

Therefore, I propose a change of tactic – SEND THE FAST FOOD NINJAS!

Comment #51921

Posted by Henry J on October 11, 2005 1:49 PM (e)

What’s a fast food Ninja? Is it teenaged? Turtle shaped? What?

Comment #51923

Posted by RBH on October 11, 2005 2:04 PM (e)

Steviepinhead wrote

It now looks like none of the originally-listed DI defense “experts” will be testifying. The DI spin on this is that they agree that ID is not yet sufficiently “ripe” for presentation at the (pre-college) class level, and that the Dover case was, um, evolving in a direction that threatened to inject a, ahem, particular designer into the mix…

AFAIK, Behe and Minnich are still scheduled to testify for the defense. Campbell, Dembski and Meyer are out, though.

RBH

Comment #51927

Posted by Steviepinhead on October 11, 2005 2:18 PM (e)

[boinking sound of Steviepinhead banging his pointy little head against the nearest wall]:

RBH is, of course, correct. Not all of the DI-affiliated experts listed by the defense have been withdrawn.

So much for impressionism! And I posted that little quickie after I had reviewed the witness list that bill helpfully linked us to in comment #51673 above. Sigh.

Comment #51944

Posted by Shawn on October 11, 2005 3:31 PM (e)

Check This Out!

Seminar at Lehigh Univ.

Prof. Miller is giving a talk at Prof. Behe’s department, and it’s tomorrow. They say its open to the public, so please, spread the word. I’m in CO, but I would love for someone to give me a heads-up on what happens at the talk. So if you are local and care; go! Then tell me what happened. Like does Prof. Behe show up? What questions are asked? Etc. Thanks!

Comment #51962

Posted by improvius on October 11, 2005 5:30 PM (e)

kay wrote:

problem is that as business, the DI and all the other more or less creationist outfits can make a good living just preaching (and selling stuff) to the choir.

No doubt. If I were a less scrupulous person, I’d throw some junk together and follow in Dr. Hovind’s footsteps:

http://www.drdino.com/

You’ll never go poor telling people what they want to hear.

Comment #52038

Posted by Tailspin on October 12, 2005 9:04 AM (e)

The London Times on 10/05 published an article entitled Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible.

The Catholic bishops of England, Wales and Scotland are warning their five million worshippers, as well as any others drawn to the study of scripture, that they should not expect “total accuracy” from the Bible.

“We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision,” they say in The Gift of Scripture.

The document is timely, coming as it does amid the rise of the religious Right, in particular in the US.

Some Christians want a literal interpretation of the story of creation, as told in Genesis, taught alongside Darwin’s theory of evolution in schools, believing “intelligent design” to be an equally plausible theory of how the world began.

But the first 11 chapters of Genesis, in which two different and at times conflicting stories of creation are told, are among those that this country’s Catholic bishops insist cannot be “historical”. At most, they say, they may contain “historical traces”.

The document shows how far the Catholic Church has come since the 17th century, when Galileo was condemned as a heretic for flouting a near-universal belief in the divine inspiration of the Bible by advocating the Copernican view of the solar system. Only a century ago, Pope Pius X condemned Modernist Catholic scholars who adapted historical-critical methods of analysing ancient literature to the Bible.”

Comment #52073

Posted by Flint on October 12, 2005 1:28 PM (e)

The new YDR article dwells on an aspect of the case which is genuinely important: what the Constitution says depends on who’s reading it. And Thompson’s comments that once Roberts and O’Connor’s replacement are seated, he has a 5-4 victory in favor of teaching one particular religious doctrine as scientific fact, is right on the money.

Scalia, the intellectual leader of the religioso, for the life of him can’t see any religious motivation when it’s his religion being inserted. His comment that the ‘subjective motivations’ of policy makers are invisible somehow doesn’t seem to apply when he does NOT like their motivations. THEN it’s clearly wrong. Clarence Thomas’s head is by now permanently shoved up Scalia’s butt. Roberts has in the past argued strongly for school prayer for his (oops, I mean the One True) religion.

All of this could easily mean our once-world-leading educational system retreats to the 18th century for at least a generation, while delirious people dance in the streets of the red states for decades to come.

South Korea seems to be doing some interesting work, though.

Comment #52188

Posted by Ben Katz on October 13, 2005 1:56 PM (e)

Is it right to teach Intelligent Desin in school? Easy:

1. We can’t teach it in school because most of its supporters actually believe the bible!

Additionally,
2. There’s another topic we can’t teach because most of its supporters actually believe the koran!

Additionally,
3. There’s another topic we can’t teach because most of its supporters actually are ATHEIST.

Hmm, we got a problem. In the interest of being fair, you either teach NOTHING, or else teach ALL the main theories.

Comment #52190

Posted by Aureola Nominee, FCD on October 13, 2005 2:02 PM (e)

Hmmm, Mr. Katz…

WHICH “main theories” might you be referring to, I wonder?

You seem to imply that this “Intelligent Design” stuff is a theory; a “main” theory, no less.

Please tell us its main points, what research it’s conducting, how it can be falsified… you know, run of the mill stuff for sacientific theories.

We’re all ears.

Comment #52192

Posted by kay on October 13, 2005 2:08 PM (e)

http://science.slashdot.org/science/05/10/13/1640200.shtml?tid=103&tid=219&tid=14

hey kitties, did you see this? “Top Advisory Panel Warns Erosion of U.S. Science”.

can someone with permission post it as an article? :)

Comment #52196

Posted by CJ O'Brien on October 13, 2005 2:42 PM (e)

“In the interest of being fair…”
Science isn’t interested in being fair.

Comment #52197

Posted by Bayesian Bouffant, FCD on October 13, 2005 2:43 PM (e)

Ben Katz wrote:

Hmm, we got a problem. In the interest of being fair, you either teach NOTHING, or else teach ALL the main theories.

You seem to be forgetting that pesky little thing called ‘evidence’. Science is unfair; when you get around to running experiments, some ideas don’t hold up and are discarded. Other ideas are not amenable to experimentation and so are not science.

Comment #52203

Posted by Bayesian Bouffant, FCD on October 13, 2005 3:40 PM (e)

http://science.slashdot.org/science/05/10/13/164…
hey kitties, did you see this? “Top Advisory Panel Warns Erosion of U.S. Science”.
can someone with permission post it as an article? :)

Here’s an open version at the Washington Post


America’s lead in scientific fields was the key to prosperity in the 20th century, the panel said. The country remains in the lead for now – but the gap with other countries is narrowing, panel members said, as rising powers such as India and China copy the U.S. strategy, turning out large numbers of college graduates with scientific backgrounds.

Without bold action in Washington, the panel said, the nation will find itself losing not just low-wage industries such as garment manufacturing but high-skill jobs, such as computer design and pharmaceutical manufacturing, that have been a cornerstone of recent prosperity….

Comment #52228

Posted by Michael Hopkins on October 13, 2005 6:37 PM (e)

New transcript: continuation of Forrest testimony

HTML copies of the trial transcripts from talkorigins.org.

Comment #52262

Posted by Joe on October 14, 2005 5:06 AM (e)

In addition to what others have said….

3. There’s another topic we can’t teach because most of its supporters actually are ATHEIST.”

Actually, you should probably replace the world “atheist” with “scientist”.

And since the majority of scientists are theists, your argument doesn’t really hold water.

The argument that evolution is an atheist construct is just not true. It is taught in school simply because it is the only explanation for the diversity of life on this planet.

See…

Christian Clergy that support evolution(up to 8,712) - http://www.uwosh.edu/colleges/cols/religion_science_collaboration.htm

Project Steve(up to 644) - http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3541_project_steve_2_16_2003.asp

If evolution is an atheistic construct, then they are doing a damn good job of tricking the clergy and scientists into beleiving it!

By the by, I haven’t followed that clergy list long, but it’s went up about 1,000 names since I first went to it less then 2 monthes ago.

You are right about one thing, we should be suspicious of these patterns if they present themselves. Say, how many atheist Intellegent Design proponents are there….

Comment #52266

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 14, 2005 7:05 AM (e)

3. There’s another topic we can’t teach because most of its supporters actually are ATHEIST.

And here we see what ID is really all about.

It’s religious apologetics. Nothing more, nothing less, nothing else.

Comment #52282

Posted by Bayesian Bouffant, FCD on October 14, 2005 11:40 AM (e)

Say, how many atheist Intellegent Design proponents are there….

Approximately the same as the number of Raelians.

Comment #52329

Posted by RBH on October 14, 2005 10:54 PM (e)

Valentine Pontifex noted on Infidels that the Discovery Institute is being very selective about what trial transcripts they’re posting. They seem to have the cross-examination of Robert Pennock and Kenneth Miller available, but none of the transcripts of their direct testimony. Wonder why that is? Why would the Discovery Institute, a self-proclaimed “non-partisan public policy think tank”, publish just one side of the expert testimony for the plaintiffs? Hmmmmmmm. I can’t imagine. You reckon someone should ask Bill Gates, since he reportedly supplies a good-sized chunk of the DI President’s salary?

RBH

Comment #52341

Posted by Big Talk Theory on October 15, 2005 11:36 AM (e)

I seem to be reading the same old “evolution vs creation” commentary that goes on everywhere.

Why are these two topics always set against each other? The “XOR” proposition leads to endless sophistry. Perhaps an “AND” proposal would be the more sophic razor.

Creation is a biogenesis, seeking to explain the origin of life.
Evolution is science, seeking to explain the phenomena of life.

Like the Big Bang, Evolution does not and cannot explain the cause of the phenomena. Both acknowledge (and prove) the limits of scientific thinking.

The Big Talk theory of the Origin of Life parallels the Big Bang Theory, but seeks to integrate the origin with the phenomena. The biogenesis and the science.

Please see

http://www.geocities.com/bigtalktheory

for details.

Comment #52343

Posted by jeffw on October 15, 2005 12:25 PM (e)

big talk theory wrote:

There are no examples of FSC giving rise to sequences of higher complexity (FSC).

Sounds like dembski’s conservation of information garbage and all that big front loader crap. Life is an example of complexity giving rise to greater complexity. And it’s not too hard to write a computer program that does the same.

Comment #52358

Posted by Andy on October 16, 2005 2:28 AM (e)

Check http://aclupa.blogspot.com/ , they’ve got a good summary of Kevin Padian testifying.

Comment #52365

Posted by Michael Hopkins on October 16, 2005 9:55 AM (e)

A correction to RBH’s comment 52329.

Yes, the DI is being very selective in what it puts up: Ken Miller cross with no direct testimony. And most witnesses are not none at all. However as for Robert Pennock, they have both the direct testimony and the cross (as well as redirect and recross).

The DI Pennock transcript appears to be the complete Day 3, AM session that is one of the transcripts not yet up on the sites of the good guys.

This transcript, like Day 6 AM, is another which Armstrong was the court reporter for. That means the PDF looks beautiful, but the file is large and one can’t copy and paste usable text from it.

Comment #52472

Posted by John on October 18, 2005 12:48 PM (e)

Slate has a weeklong series of dispatches from the trial.

Comment #52609

Posted by FitzRoy on October 19, 2005 10:55 AM (e)

“Doesn’t it sound like he knows what he’s talking about?” said the Rev. Ed Rowand, a board member and church pastor.

and

Behe “acknowledged that under his definition of a scientific theory, astrology would fit as neatly as intelligent design.”

Lots of us can’t wait for a transcript of Behe’s cross-examination. In the meantime, the above excerpts were taken directly from reporting on the New York Times website: http://tinyurl.com/78hs5

Comment #52745

Posted by Jit Gill on October 19, 2005 7:40 PM (e)

I never thought I would say this, but my hat is off to The Christian Science Monitor for their resent article. Link below.. They said :

“That doubt is common to many Americans, 80 percent of whom believe in God and 42 percent of whom, according to a July Pew poll, believe in the creationist idea that “living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time.”
But the Dover school board’s argument that intelligent design is science, not religion, is found wanting. The statement for students seems to fault evolution for being a “theory.” Yet a theory involves considerable evidence toward an accepted principle. As an explanation for biological life, evolution is gathering ever more evidence. Intelligent design is still a hypothesis, and vulnerable by its lack of evidence”.

I am very impressed with this article, it’s a must read, and I would hope more Christians will read it.
Shadowram
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1020/p08s02-comv.html

Comment #52890

Posted by Gary Hurd on October 20, 2005 2:56 PM (e)

OH BOY! New transcripts are up on the ACLU site.

Comment #52999

Posted by Jit Gill on October 20, 2005 10:49 PM (e)

Well I will give you a few articles about the poll results. There are many and most Americans believe that ID should be thought in Science class. How did we fail the common American. Not sure, maybe because we thought we lived in the year 2005 and I for one thought that Evolution was a given, and the best support for the Origin of Species we have right now in the Scientific Community. Who knew that faith could overcome Science, and in turn be the laughing stock of the rest of the world. Read on. Do you not think it odd that the lower you educational level or income is the more likely you are to believe in ID?

http://www.livescience.com/othernews/ap_050901_evo_polls.html

http://www.etaiwannews.com/showPage.php?setupFile=showcontent.xml&menu_item_id=10&did=d_1129519844_10056_7f3144d01eab0713_20&area=taiwan&area_code=ww000

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2005-10-10-evolution-debate-centerpiece_x.htm?POE=TECISVA

If you need more Poll data ..look it up

Shadowram

Comment #53100

Posted by Jit Gill on October 21, 2005 5:57 PM (e)

Some of you might have already seen these Videos, but I thought I’d repost the links. This is the famous presentation by Professor Behe and Professor Miller. This is the one that Professor Miller turns a mousetrap into other things. Professor Miller is a genius. Professor Behe on the other hand seems to just want to do his presentation and get the hell out of there before ANYONE can question him. These 2 videos are hilarious.

First Behe’s Presentation
http://www.counterbalance.net/perspevo/presmb-frame.html

Now Professor Miller’s Presentation and rebuttal to Behe’s presentation

http://www.counterbalance.net/perspevo/preskm-frame.html

I hope they might play this in court..

Shadowram

Comment #53176

Posted by Bob O'H on October 22, 2005 10:13 AM (e)

A pdf of day 12’s morning transcripts are up at the Pennsylvania ACLU site, you can get them from here. As they say “It’s surprisingly entertaining.”

Bob

Comment #53201

Posted by Peggy on October 22, 2005 4:09 PM (e)

The October 21st edition of NPR’s Science Friday has coverage of the trial.
http://www.sciencefriday.com/pages/2005/Oct/hour1_102105.html

It has a bit about an administrator from a different school district who wanted to learn more about intelligent design, so came to hear Behe’s testimony. He apparently came away convinced that ID was a good thing to teach in the classroom! (It’s not clear if he attended the day Behe said his definition of “theory” would include astrology).

Comment #53241

Posted by Michael Hopkins on October 22, 2005 9:27 PM (e)

The most complete list of availiable transcripts that I know of.

This list links to transcripts from the ACLU, NCSE, Talk.Origins Archive, and the Discovery Institute.

Being part of the Wikipedia, anyone can edit the document to link to more copies as they appear. Or help expand the table of contents.

Comment #53318

Posted by Pete Dunkelberg on October 23, 2005 3:27 PM (e)

Don’t forget the York Daily Record.

It looks like the reporters who tattled on Buckingham (remember Buckingham? The school board’s leading creationist until he flew the coop) will testify next week, perhaps sooner than scheduled since creationist witnesses are off visiting Buckingham in the witness protection program.

Notes on Behe/Doolittle

Comment #53327

Posted by Pete Dunkelberg on October 23, 2005 4:05 PM (e)

Missing Links? The Boston Globe has a four part article and asks for your input.

Comment #53414

Posted by Sir_Toejam on October 23, 2005 11:05 PM (e)

in the continuing drive to laud at least decent press coverage of the issues surrounding the politicization of evolutionary theory, here’s a decent article attempting to address specific claims of creationists, and outlining the overwhelming majority of scientific opinion on the ID scam.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2005/10/23/missing_links/

If you find the author’s words useful, I suggest you write the paper with compliments to Peter Dizikes.

Comment #53526

Posted by Alan on October 24, 2005 2:49 PM (e)

Dr K. John Morrow has responded to an email enquiry concerning his review of Behe’s DBB here.

Comment #53535

Posted by Pete on October 24, 2005 3:19 PM (e)

i have always understood that the piltdown man was in fact a hoax perpetrated by creationists to discredit darwinists. am i wrong?

Yes
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC001.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/piltdown.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_piltdown.html

Comment #53553

Posted by improvius on October 24, 2005 4:33 PM (e)

Has everyone seen this Thomas Moore vs. Discovery Institute tidbit yet? It’s brilliant.

Also,

A lot of “news” items are assigned seemingly random future dates. Anyone know why?

They can see into the future. Didn’t you read Behe’s testimony?

Comment #53573

Posted by Steve S on October 24, 2005 5:47 PM (e)

Sure RBH http://home.entouch.net/dmd/moreandmore.htm

Comment #53594

Posted by Michael Hopkins on October 24, 2005 7:18 PM (e)

New transcript:

Day 12 PM

Do note that this file is damaged as parts are unreadable. Now we know what the ACLU was referring to when it said it got damaged PDFs as its explanation for the missing PDFs. If someone knows how to fix this kind of problem, you have the chance to be a hero. I think the problem is a faulty embedding of fonts.

BTW, this file is in NCSE webspace. This entry tries to link to it but the link is broken. The file was saved as 2005_1018_day12_pm.pdf instead of 2005_1019_day12_pm.pdf.

Comment #53603

Posted by Steve S on October 24, 2005 7:58 PM (e)

w/r/t Dover,

‘New recruits’ said needed for intelligent design
Witness says introducing theory in schools could make it more mainstream

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9805776/

Comment #53640

Posted by DrFrank on October 25, 2005 5:09 AM (e)

From http://ydr.com/story/doverbiology/91142/

Evolutionary theory is a monolith of ideas that excludes other concepts from competing on a level playing field, Steve Fuller testified this morning
Yes, it’s so unfair to expect other arbitrary hypotheses to produce evidence, isn’t it?

Fuller said the concept’s chief supporters “can’t spontaneously generate a following” unless they get it in the schools first.
Odd that, I don’t remember any other successful scientific theory having to be forced into schools politically in order to gain a following.

Fuller is a sociology professor from the University of Warwick in England.
Damn, I thought we Brits were relatively free from this crap. I personally apologise on behalf of the UK.

Comment #53667

Posted by Alexey Merz on October 25, 2005 10:37 AM (e)

The Nobel Prize has, unambiguiously, been given for evolutionary biology: the 1969 Prize in Physiology or Medicine. Luria, Delbruck, and Hershey showed unambiguously in 1948 that mutations arise spontaneously in a population prior to selection, not in response to it. In other words, the 1969 Nobel was awarded for an experiment that addressed the very core of the modern synthesis.

Comment #53696

Posted by K.E. on October 25, 2005 1:29 PM (e)

Strange bedfellows indeed pseudo-science and postmodernism
But there is a method to the madness

Snip from:

“Pseudoscience and Postmodernism: Antagonists or Fellow-Travelers?”
Alan Sokal
Professor of Physics, New York University

“advocates of pseudo-science -at least the most sophisticated of them -sometimes fall back on postmodernist arguments when the reliability or credibility of their evidence is challenged “

on this page

http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/index.html#impostures

Comment #53730

Posted by Gerard Harbison on October 25, 2005 3:31 PM (e)

I thought Mike Argento was flagging a bit last week, but his latest column is back to mid-season form. Classic line: “Fuller said intelligent design “needed to be mainstreamed,” which I guess is a polite way of saying that in its current embryological state, it rides the short bus of science”

http://ydr.com/story/doverbiology/91282/

Comment #53753

Posted by improvius on October 25, 2005 4:37 PM (e)

I know it’s a repost, but this article on the Discovery Institute and Thomas More Law Center having a go at each other is a must-read regarding the witnesses dropping out.

Comment #53807

Posted by RBH on October 25, 2005 8:40 PM (e)

Warren Nord is the guy who thinks religion should inform the teaching of (among other things) economics. He told the Kansas Kangaroo hearings

One might expect that within an economics text or Economic Standard there would be some reference to religious foundation of thinking for economics. Of course, that’s not the case. In 4,000 pages of ten economics texts which I reviewed, if you add up all the references to religion, they total two pages, and none of the references are pertaining to any period later in time than the Protestant Reformation. So religion has no role to play at all in economics texts, nor does it in the Economics Standards, which only made one reference to religion in 45 pages, and that was an example of a nonprofit institution.

Comment #53911

Posted by Shadowram on October 26, 2005 1:27 PM (e)

Primate fossils shed new light on human evolution.
Just goes to show we have not found everything yet. But the pieces still fall into place

http://www.newkerala.com/news.php?action=fullnews&id=41973

Comment #53960

Posted by SEF on October 26, 2005 7:00 PM (e)

This is Barbara Forrest’s commentary + a later note:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/barbara_forrest/wedge.html

It surfaced anonymously and was posted on the Internet in March 1999;

Since publication of this study, Stephen Meyer has admitted that the document is genuine.

I didn’t see the start but I think I saw
http://www.public.asu.edu/~jmlynch/idt/wedge.html
before
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/wedge.html

Comment #54072

Posted by Cynthia Yockey on October 27, 2005 1:59 PM (e)

Tracy, thanks for your comment. Let me try again with the link to Dr. Yockey’s new Web site: www.hubertpyockey.com. There he gives a simplified explanation of why Behe and Intelligent Design are wrong.

I am the Webmaster and soon will be adding pages elucidating many aspects of his work. For example, there will be a page with copies of his papers as soon as I have permission from the original journals. I’ll also be adding an FAQ–and the first question will be, “Whose side are you on?.” (Answer: evolution.)

There also will be a glossary to ensure that readers of the site understand the scientific definitions of the terms used. One of the slickest tricks the IDers have pulled off is to hijack the vocabulary of science and redefine it. You can win any game if your first move is to change all the rules to favor your side. In politics, getting seduced by this tactic is called “accepting the premise of the question.” Dr. Yockey’s approach demolishes the IDers false premises. For example, on his Web site, Dr. Yockey summarizes points from his new book (Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life) showing why biology is not “irreducibly complex.”

Comment #54082

Posted by Alan on October 27, 2005 2:27 PM (e)

@ Ms Yockey.

Your link doesn’t seem to work, but I can find your father’s webisite here: http://www.hubertpyockey.com/

Comment #54091

Posted by Jason Spaceman on October 27, 2005 2:51 PM (e)

The defense took another beating today…

Former school board member ‘misspoke’ in advocating creationism

By MARTHA RAFFAELE
The Associated Press

HARRISBURG, Pa. - A former school board member who denied advocating that creationism be taught alongside evolution in high-school biology classes changed his story Thursday after lawyers in a federal courtroom played a TV news clip that recorded him making such a comment.

William Buckingham explained the discrepancy by saying that he “misspoke.”

Buckingham’s testimony came in the fifth week of testimony in a lawsuit filed by eight families who are challenging the Dover Area School District’s policy that students hear a statement about intelligent design in biology classes. Critics say intelligent design is a repackaging of the biblical view of creation and thus violates the constitutional separation of church and state.

Comment #54101

Posted by Shadowram on October 27, 2005 3:32 PM (e)

I think this article sums up Behe’s testimony nicely. Very Funny but true.
http://www.slate.com/id/2128755/

Shadowram

Comment #54125

Posted by Michael Hopkins on October 27, 2005 5:18 PM (e)

Lets put in a link Yockey site that actually works: http://www.hubertpyockey.com/

When giving a URL, it best to keep the “http://” with it since without browsers think the link is relative and hense will give broken link to a nonexistant Panda’s Thumb page.

2005/10/26: Today, William Buckingham is set to testify. This is the highly controversial school board member who justified the ID policy by speaking about “someone” who “died on a cross 2000 years ago” and the need to “stand up for Him.” I can’t imagine why he was called by the defense and not the plaintiffs, and I’m curious to see how this testimony goes.

According to the court’s web site, Buckingham is a plaintiff witness:

Thursday October 27 2005 - Plaintiff Witnesses Bill Buckingham, Joe Moldonado, and Heidi Bernard-Bubb.

There was a prior agreement between council and the court to go out of order here. I think (don’t quote me please) that this set of witness was not quite ready and thus rather than delay the trial the parties agreed to that the defense be allowed to start presenting its witnesses. Again that is my understanding that might not be correct. Of course the defense would not want Buckingham to be called, all the defense has made Buckingham a bit of a scapegoat.

Before clicking post I googled for “hostile witness” and dover and picked up Former school board member denies references to ‘creationism’

William Buckingham, who was called by plaintiffs’ attorneys this morning as a hostile witness, said he and other board members referred only to “intelligent design” when they spoke of the need for the introduction of other scientific theories to balance evolution in high school biology classes

Comment #54168

Posted by Michael Hopkins on October 27, 2005 11:20 PM (e)

bill wrote:

Buckingham truly screwed the pooch today. Why the defense put him on the stand is an exercise in “intelligent design.”

It was an “intelligent design” all right. The intelligent designers in this case was the American Civil Liberties Union, Americans United, and Pepper Hamilton LLP. It was the plaintiffs that called Buckingham, not the defense. By agreement of the court and the parties, the plaintiffs called some of their witnesses out of turn.

The “anonymous” donor to the district of 60 copies of Pandas was Buckingham’s church.

I was going to ask for a cite, but Google works for me:

AP story:

Buckingham testified that during a Sunday service at the church he attended, he stood up and told members of the congregation they could donate money to purchase the books if they wished. Harvey noted that in a January pretrial deposition taken by the plaintiffs’ lawyers, Buckingham never mentioned his fund-raising request and said he didn’t know who donated the books.

“You lied to me at your deposition,” Harvey said.

“How so?” Buckingham asked.

“By not telling me you knew a collection was taken at your church,” Harvey said.

“I did not take a collection,” Buckingham replied.

Buckingham Deposition in January (PDF):

Q: Do you know where that came from, who donated them?

A: No, I don’t.

Q: You have no idea?

A: I have thoughts, but I don’t know.

Q. What are your thoughts?

A: I think it could have a tie to Alan Bonsell who was board president at that time.

Q: Why do you think–I know you’re not saying it was, but why do you think it might have ties to Mr. Bonsell?

A: Because he was the president of the board at that time, and I just deduced from that that.

(From page 57-58 of transcript; page 17 of PDF file; since it is a scan, I had to print out the page and type it. So there might be typos.)

Now I believe witness are not just supposed to give the truth, but they have to give the “whole truth.” In other words intentionally misleading answers are not allowed.

If Buckingham solicited donations from his church then he has failed to tell the whole truth. He was required to tell Mr. Harvey what he knew about the donation of the books.

But there is certainly something even more damaging that how honest Mr. Buckingham is. The books came from a fundamentalist church. I sure hope no one is expecting us to believe that a church is devoid of religious motivation!

Standard disclaimer: I am not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV.

Comment #54209

Posted by Bayesian Bouffant, FCD on October 28, 2005 9:03 AM (e)

The tough part of being a lawyer - not that Thompson deserves anything better

Outside court, defense attorney Richard Thompson said he believed Buckingham was trying to give specific answers to specific questions.

He attributed the discrepancy between the testimony and the deposition to Buckingham’s treatment in December 2004 for an addiction to the painkiller OxyContin. Harvey deposed Buckingham in January.

Buckingham knows he wrote the check to Donald Bonsell and he must have forgotten that during his testimony, Thompson said.

“I don’t think it was damaging at all,” Thompson said of Buckingham’s comments on donations.

Comment #54220

Posted by DrFrank on October 28, 2005 10:33 AM (e)

Nice to see that Gary Mac has refused to give in to name-calling and is instead still providing lucid and detailed arguments promoting ID. Oh wait.

Gary reminds me a little of Homo floresiensis: not big, and not clever. Infantile insults really do just make you look like a joke, I’m afraid, and people certainly aren’t laughing with you.

Right, I’ve got to get back to pimping the propaganda machine *toddles off*

Comment #54221

Posted by Bayesian Bouffant, FCD on October 28, 2005 10:49 AM (e)

I’m sure going to stay away from OxyContin. Apparently it turns your memory into Swiss cheese.

Maybe when Buckingham gets convicted of perjury, they could have him do community service by going around to schools and presenting himself as an example of the perils of drug abuse.

Comment #54222

Posted by Big kahuna on October 28, 2005 10:53 AM (e)

GOD IS DEAD! GOD IS DEAD! Thus Spake Behe.

Comment #54227

Posted by Flint on October 28, 2005 1:03 PM (e)

The last transcripts the Pa. ACLU has posted are now 9 full days old. Are these procedings no longer being recorded?

Comment #54236

Posted by ega on October 28, 2005 3:24 PM (e)

Has is struck you how dishonest these Christians are?

Don’t these people have some sort of ethical code they are supposed to follow?

Comment #54237

Posted by ega on October 28, 2005 3:24 PM (e)

Has is struck you how dishonest these Christians are?

Don’t these people have some sort of ethical code they are supposed to follow?

Comment #54251

Posted by JillK. on October 28, 2005 6:29 PM (e)

Thank you for summarizing the trial so succinctly and so well!

As for Intelligent Design: How could a useless pouch which can easily become lethally infected be part of any intelligent design? I refer, of course, to the appendix.

Comment #54253

Posted by JW Tan on October 28, 2005 6:42 PM (e)

I enjoy reading TPT, and find your coverage of Kitzmiller v DASD the best around. Having read about William Buckingham, I find it hard to see how he reconciles lying with Christian behaviour.

Comment #54254

Posted by Steve S on October 28, 2005 6:53 PM (e)

man, Dover is the gift that just keeps. On. Giving.

From MSNBC today:

HARRISBURG, Pa. - A school board member who voted to include “intelligent design” in a high-school biology curriculum testified Friday that she never independently researched the concept and relied on the opinions of two fellow board members to make her decision.

Heather Geesey, a Dover Area School Board member, said she came to believe intelligent design was a scientific theory based on the recommendations of Alan Bonsell and William Buckingham — both members of the board’s curriculum committee.

“They said it was a scientific thing,” said Geesey…

Comment #54255

Posted by Steve S on October 28, 2005 7:27 PM (e)

now, be fair, we can’t be sure Buckingham is lying. He could have just been whacked out of his mind on Oxycontin, which he’s admitted being addicted to.

Comment #54256

Posted by Sir_Toejam on October 28, 2005 7:28 PM (e)

this obviously makes it quite clear that we all need to pay a lot closer attention to the qualifications of people who run for school boards.

Comment #54257

Posted by Sir_Toejam on October 28, 2005 7:30 PM (e)

Isn’t oxycontin the drug Rush Limbaugh is addicted to?

Comment #54258

Posted by Steve S on October 28, 2005 7:30 PM (e)

They failed with Irreducible Complexity, they failed with Complex Specified Information, Heddle failed with his Specificity jibber jabber.

I want to suggest the next Darwin-destroying ID theory: The Squinting Algorithm.

How do you tell something’s designed? Look at it and squint. If it looks designed, it is. QED.

Comment #54259

Posted by Steve S on October 28, 2005 7:32 PM (e)

Comment #54257

Posted by Sir_Toejam on October 28, 2005 07:30 PM (e) (s)

Isn’t oxycontin the drug Rush Limbaugh is addicted to?

Yes.

Comment #54260

Posted by Sir_Toejam on October 28, 2005 7:37 PM (e)

hmm. maybe the whole ID thing is just an oxycontin hallucination?

Comment #54310

Posted by godarwin on October 29, 2005 2:45 PM (e)

I haven’t seen this pointed out, but maybe that’s because it is so obvious.

When Buckingham said:

“I had it in my mind to make sure not to talk about creationism. I had it on my mind.”

…isn’t that saying, quite plainly, that when he (and the DASD) talk about intelligent design, what they really mean is creationism? That’s the case right there.

And does anyone but me find it ironic that Buckingham’s Freudian slip, potentially the camel that broke the straw man’s back, was captured by a FOX channel’s news camera? Video clip: http://ydr.com/mmedia/multi/528/

Comment #54311

Posted by Sir_Toejam on October 29, 2005 3:50 PM (e)

by jove i think you’re on to something there. however, how does one “prove” a freudian slip?

sure, it sounds like he was coached on the exact terms to use/avoid using, one would still have to prove this to actually be the case for it to be useful in court.

Comment #54314

Posted by moakley on October 29, 2005 4:11 PM (e)

“Oxycontin hallucination?”

Yeah, but it makes the pain of reality go away.

Comment #54315

Posted by Sir_Toejam on October 29, 2005 4:24 PM (e)

exactly :p

Comment #54320

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 29, 2005 5:44 PM (e)

When Buckingham said:

“I had it in my mind to make sure not to talk about creationism. I had it on my mind.”

…isn’t that saying, quite plainly, that when he (and the DASD) talk about intelligent design, what they really mean is creationism? That’s the case right there.

Oh heck, it gets better than that:

http://ydr.com/story/doverbiology/92176/

Even though Geesey chose that word, in reference to efforts that
month to find a new biology textbook, she testified in U.S. Middle
District Court on Friday that her letter wasn�t meant to convey the
board was considering teaching creationism.

Rather, Geesey told the court, board members had been talking about
intelligent design.

But gee, I thought ID didn’t have a blooming thing to do with
creationism. Nothing at all. Not even close. If so, why on earth
would Geesey (or anyone else) be able to confuse the two. I can
understand saying “Pepsi” when you really meant to say “Coke”, since,
after all, there isn’t much difference between them. But saying
“creationism” when you really meant to say “intelligent design” is
sort of like saying “Pepsi” when you really meant to say “bricks”.
The two have nothing to do with each other. How can you possibly
confuse them?

Unless, of course …. …. ……

Ahhh, but Geesey herself is kind enough to show us what she is doing, in the letter to the editor that she herself wrote and sent to the local newspaper:

Our country was founded on Christian beliefs and principles…. You can teach creationism without its being Christianity. It can be presented as a higher power.

Gee, maybe she didn’t mean to say THAT, either …. .

Game over.

Comment #54322

Posted by Ermine on October 29, 2005 6:04 PM (e)

Oxycontin? Bah!

Due to a nerve injury, I’ve been taking oxycontin (and for the last year or two Oxycodone, a faster-acting variant) for 5 years now. Why is this the first time I’ve ever hear anyone claim that it affected one’s memory?

I believe he’s just using Oxycontin as a convenient excuse - but a good ‘christian’ wouldn’t do that, would he???

‘It wasn’t me, it was da booze!’

Uh-huh. Sure.

Comment #54332

Posted by the pro from dover on October 29, 2005 7:00 PM (e)

if anyone is interested I have a theory which I call “oxycontinental drift”. The parting of the red sea was the first step of intelligently designed sea floor spreading. Unfortunately that had the unintended consequence if pusshing Israel right into the middle east! D’oh!!!

Comment #54334

Posted by Sir_Toejam on October 29, 2005 7:12 PM (e)

oxycontinental drift…

that’s a gud un.

Comment #54338

Posted by Greg H on October 29, 2005 7:54 PM (e)

It is amusing and appalling at the same time that we (the people) are the ones choosing these…hmm..what’s the word I’m looking for…”people” to represent us at all levels of government. I read an article today on the CNN website (Science section) about whether American society is becoming more hostile towards science in general. No. Just the parts that contradict the “Truth.”

Pardon me, I know I’m ranting here, but it burns me up that we have essentially an entire governmental structure that has usurped the American government and turned it into their own platform for remaking the world in their own image.

Back to our regularly scheduled discussion, already in progress…

William Buckingham, poster child for selective amnesia, should be the killing blow for this whole thing, but unfortunately, I dare say things won’t be that simple.

Comment #54342

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 29, 2005 8:38 PM (e)

It is amusing and appalling at the same time that we (the people) are the ones choosing these…hmm..what’s the word I’m looking for…”people” to represent us at all levels of government.

We are, after all, a nation of brainless dolts.

In a democracy, we get exactly the sort of government that we deserve. (shrug)

Comment #54365

Posted by Alexey Merz on October 29, 2005 10:31 PM (e)

Well, now. This is just astonishing. Now we know. Thomas More’s Thompson – actively representing the defendants in this trial – planted the seed of the idea to use Pandas in Mr. Buckingham’s addlepated mind. From the Day 16 a.m. testimony of Buckingham, Plaintiff’s council Rothschild questioning (starting on p. 107, line 14):

Q: Let’s talk a bout that companion text. The text was Of Pandas and People, right?
A: Yes.

Q: It’s the book we looked at earlier?
A: True.

Q: And you actually learned about Pandas and People from the Thomas More Law Center, isn’t that right?
A: Yes.

Q: And the person you learned about it from was Mr. Thompson?
A: Yes.

Q: And in fact Mr. Thompson was the one who recommended Pandas to you?
A: He didn’t recommend it. He told me there was a book there. I asked him if he knew of any books anywhere that dealt with an alternative scientific theory, and he mentioned the book to me. He didn’t recommend it at all.

Q: Well, he was the first one to tell you about it, isn’t that right?
A: Yes, he did.

[… jumping to page 109, line 6]
Q: And the board didn’t talk to anyone else outside of the board or the science teachers about Pandas such as professional educators or scientists, isn’t that right?
A: Not to my knowledge.

To the lawyers in the crowd: isn’t it inappropriate for a lawyer who was clearly in on the action up to his eyeballs to be also acting as council for his fellow actors?

Comment #54367

Posted by Alexey Merz on October 29, 2005 10:36 PM (e)

I should add that a pile of new transcripts are available:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District_trial_documents#Transcripts_of_the_trial

Comment #54376

Posted by Alexey Merz on October 30, 2005 12:19 AM (e)

Correction for comment 54365: the attorney leading questioning for the plaintiffs in the passage I quote above is Mr. Harvey, not Mr. Rothschild.

Comment #54379

Posted by Just_a_layman on October 30, 2005 1:32 AM (e)

We interrupt this blogging to present to you a whine from someone who doesn’t know science, but does know pdf generation and graphics.

I just spent a frustrating couple of hours trying to read the transcripts. Could someone please pass on to those creating the pdf’s these couple of tips concerning pdf generation? Thx.

A note about the font issues in the pdfs:
Ever since the great Macromedia/Adobe fight in 2000-2001(? I am not quite sure about the time line-it was a few years ago) some fonts are copyright protected and cannot be embedded, due to extraction issues with Acrobat.

That means that any pdf created in Acrobat 6.0 or later has to have fonts subset not embedded.

If you try to embed a protected font, you get the generic MSTT31c29100 or T13 T14 fonts listed in your document fonts. Those are not real fonts, that’s acrobat trying to substitute the nearest generic font it can find. It doesn’t do that very well.

Use open type or true type fonts such as arial, Tacoma etc. Type 3 is a post script font which requires a screen and a printer font to work. If you only have half the font (the screen part) your pdf will not “print” to pdf correctly, also looking very much like the “damaged” file from Buckingham’s testimony.

(The pdf will look fine on the creator’s screen but when viewed on other machines, it will throw out the generic damaged file or font missing error MSG)

Thank you for listening to this whine.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled blogging.

Comment #54408

Posted by Michael Hopkins on October 30, 2005 12:44 PM (e)

I put up some improvements to the TalkOrigins Dover Panda Trial page. There are new HTML transcript to six sessions. The table of contents now links to copies of off-site copies of transcripts with no HTML versions yet. These are by the court reporter who can’t make proper PDFs. The offsite sources include the DI, NCSE, and ACLU. I also note the missing transcripts and days which had no morning session so it is clear what still needs to be done.

Just_a_layman, You know PDF generation? Sounds great. Do you know how to fix the problems with faulty PDF’s?

Anyone knows if there is a way to, say, simply strip/change the font information from those PDF? Would this fix the problem?

Comment #54415

Posted by Sir_Toejam on October 30, 2005 2:06 PM (e)

i bet it would. So long as the files are supported by acrobat 5, i could check them out and see if changing the fonts to more standard ones would fix the problem.

my email is attached to my handle.

Comment #54416

Posted by Sir_Toejam on October 30, 2005 2:09 PM (e)

er, nevermind. i see they don’t don’t link email addys here any more.

here tis:

fisheyephotos@hotmail.com

Comment #54417

Posted by Sir_Toejam on October 30, 2005 2:11 PM (e)

thinking further tho, i wonder if any private person fixes the transcripts whether that would invalidate their “authenticity”?

Hell, anyone could change the wording.

Comment #54419

Posted by Sir_Toejam on October 30, 2005 2:14 PM (e)

Ever since the great Macromedia/Adobe fight in 2000-2001

hmm. that’s interesting, since Adobe now owns Macromedia.

perhaps they haven’t gotten around to fixing that specific issue yet?

Comment #54422

Posted by Just_a_layman on October 30, 2005 7:38 PM (e)

I tried fixing the pdfs on my system. It didn’t work :(

I’m 90% sure it’s because a “broken” postscript font was used, where the creator has the screen font but not the printer font. (Which shows fine in applications such as word or publisher, but will be rejected in real publishing applications such as Quark, Indesign, Illustrator and Photoshop)

The term printer font is mildly misleading, because one can still print that document out in word, publisher etc and have it print out fine. Printer in this case means printing to a post script device such as Acrobat Distiller or a commercial printing postscript RIP.

As far as the embedding issue goes, Adobe isn’t going to fix it.

The whole brouhaha was that in the older versions of acrobat (pre 6.0-not sure if the 5.5 patch messed with the embedding or not), if the font was embedded, one could extract the font from the document, and have the font without paying for it. (Major copyright violations and commercial infringement). That’s when Macromedia put in the protection code into fonts, which allows one to subset (meaning it only embeds the characters used, not all the keyboard characters) fonts for viewing and printing. Adobe also tweaked something in Acrobat, but it’s been so long, I forget what. It was a big deal at the time though.

When I was a kid, I was either going to be an archaeologist or a professional artist when I grew up. Life laughed at me and stuck me in printing, where I get to fix other people’s messed up files for a living.

I got revenge by starting my own graphics company.
So yes, I know pdf generation. :)

Comment #54451

Posted by Michael Hopkins on October 31, 2005 1:58 AM (e)

A bit of just how much money Dover Area Schools have to spend:

Dover students suffer through cuts (York Daily Record letter to the editor, October 30)

The York Sunday News editorial wondered why Dover government students were not witnesses to the school’s legal woes. Unfortunately, field trips have become rare at Dover. If trips have been cut, certainly a trip to witness Dover’s historic stumble through the legal system would not be an option.

But Dover students have lost more than field trips. This fall a calculus course and journalism classes were dropped from the curriculum. Ironically, at a time when science and its coverage in the media are at the forefront.

Or how about Jeffrey A. Brown testimony at Dover Trial:

She said, read the book. I said, fine, I plan to read it, but why are you so in favor of buying this book? She said, just read the book. And I told her at that point, I said, I can’t support buying a book that is not required by the state, because we had just, to get our budget passed, we had just cut our library funding in half.

We had – we were discussing and later passed a motion whereby volunteers for the district would be required to pay $10.00 a head toward the costs of defraying the costs of the background checks that were required, due by law.

I said, you can’t stand there and cut library books in half and make people pay $10.00 a head to work for the district for free, and then buy a textbook that you don’t even need. I said, if we do this, we’re likely to get sued. Initially my argument was, misuse of tax payer funds.

Oh yes, the teachers are demanding a big pay increase. The School Board’s proposal (PDF) while much smaller than what the teachers want is still 4% increase a year for three years plus 1% merit pay increase per year.

And the board is supposed be able to handle paying the ACLU’s legal fees if they lose the court battle?

Comment #54462

Posted by Fernmonkey on October 31, 2005 5:24 AM (e)

Surely the school board would have some sort of insurance against being sued though?

I really am horrified at the fact that the board was plaiing to buy Of Pandas and People after slashing the budget for actual required textbooks.

Comment #54477

Posted by Michael Hopkins on October 31, 2005 9:16 AM (e)

Fernmonkey wrote:

Surely the school board would have some sort of insurance against being sued though?

I really am horrified at the fact that the board was plaiing to buy Of Pandas and People after slashing the budget for actual required textbooks.

I am not an expert and so might be wrong, but I think insurance for for the schools would be for being sued for accidents and other things and the like. Stuff that would be called torts if I got my terminology right. I rather doubt there is much insurance for being sued over attorney’s fees in constitutional matters. I mean would you have insured Dover? And I can’t imagine any district wanting such insurance unless they planned to go out of their way to invoke legal fight. (Question for lawyers: do school usually carry insurance for being sued at all, or is insurance much like what I buy for my car: insurance against damages which I might cause if am at fault in some future accident. It not really insurance against a lawsuit though a lawsuit might determine that there is a liability which the insurance company might have to pay for.)

Comment #54483

Posted by improvius on October 31, 2005 10:30 AM (e)

Due to a nerve injury, I’ve been taking oxycontin (and for the last year or two Oxycodone, a faster-acting variant) for 5 years now. Why is this the first time I’ve ever heard anyone claim that it affected one’s memory?

Maybe they’ve been telling you that every day for the past 5 years, and you just don’t remember.

Comment #54503

Posted by RBH on October 31, 2005 3:06 PM (e)

I don’t know about school boards, but my company carries “acts and omissions” insurance to cover our board members.

RBH

Comment #54530

Posted by Greg on October 31, 2005 7:56 PM (e)

Not sure if this is linked to elsewhere, but there was a classic parody of IDers on ABC Australia’s science show this week. The sketch is about 45 minutes in (before it is an excellent discussion of Fred Hoyle and an article about how unintelliegently designed humans are - the whole show is well worth a listen). Check it out (29th October show): http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ss/

The print version of the unintelliegent design article is here: http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/the-great-designer-mythology/2005/10/16/1129401142311.html

Comment #54531

Posted by Greg on October 31, 2005 8:00 PM (e)

Some are so badly designed that they can’t spell ‘intelligent’.

Comment #54559

Posted by Thomas Phinney on November 1, 2005 12:25 AM (e)

Just_a_Layman’s comments on font embedding in PDF are somewhat confused, to say the least. Much of it is simply wrong.

just_a_layman wrote:

Ever since the great Macromedia/Adobe fight in 2000-2001(? I am not quite sure about the time line-it was a few years ago) some fonts are copyright protected and cannot be embedded, due to extraction issues with Acrobat.

Digital outline fonts have always had copyright protection in the United States. If you mean “copy protection” then you are confused. Few digital fonts in general use today have copy protection (defined as some scheme that makes it physically difficult to duplicate the fonts). However, since the early 1990s TrueType fonts (and their descendant OpenType fonts) have had “embedding bits” in the form of the fsType field.

Basically, this allows the font creator to specify whether they want to allow their fonts to be embedded, and if so which of several levels of embedding they would like to permit.

None of this has anything at all to do with the patent disagreements between Adobe and Macromedia several years ago.

just_a_layman wrote:

That means that any pdf created in Acrobat 6.0 or later has to have fonts subset not embedded.

Subsetted fonts are embedded. The whole meaning of subsetting is that you are only including a needed portion of the entire font. If you weren’t including the font, there’d be no reason to subset.

just_a_layman wrote:

If you try to embed a protected font, you get the generic MSTT31c29100 or T13 T14 fonts listed in your document fonts. Those are not real fonts, that’s acrobat trying to substitute the nearest generic font it can find. It doesn’t do that very well.

It’s my understanding that getting a strenge reference like that usually indicates that the font was embedded, and subset. In the process of subsetting Acrobat gives the font a unique PostScript FontName.

just_a_layman wrote:

Use open type or true type fonts such as arial, Tacoma etc.

You can use pretty much any font that allows embedding, which is the overwhelming majority of fonts out there. Acrobat will give you warnings if it can’t embed a font, and you can check the PDF file after distilling to see whether the fonts are embedded (File - Document Properties - Fonts in Acrobat).

just_a_layman wrote:

Type 3 is a post script font which requires a screen and a printer font to work. If you only have half the font (the screen part) your pdf will not “print” to pdf correctly, also looking very much like the “damaged” file from Buckingham’s testimony.

I stronly suspect you meant to say Type 1 (there is a Type 3 format, but it is very rarely seen these days.

* * * * *

Second posting….

just_a_layman wrote:

I’m 90% sure it’s because a “broken” postscript font was used, where the creator has the screen font but not the printer font. (Which shows fine in applications such as word or publisher, but will be rejected in real publishing applications such as Quark, Indesign, Illustrator and Photoshop)

This is quite possible, but…. Note that the phenomenon being described is only possible on the Mac OS, and almost always with Type 1 (not Type 3) fonts. It is more helpful to think of these as “bitmap” and “outline” fonts rather than “screen” and “printer.” In fact, the bitmap fonts are no longer used for much of anything (except that kerning information is stored in the same “suitcase” as the bitmaps). The outlines are used to be scaled for both screen and printing. In the absence of outlines, older Mac OSes would use the bitmaps and scale those for both screen and print. The only time a bitmap would print well without the corresponding outline font is if this happens to be one of the standard fonts built into the printer or Acrobat as well. Otherwise, you’ll get scaled bitmaps (blecch) in print, and they won’t get used in the PDF as well. This is true regardless of the application you’re using.

just_a_layman wrote:

The term printer font is mildly misleading, because one can still print that document out in word, publisher etc and have it print out fine.

This is not generally true - only if the font is one of the few built into your printer.

just_a_layman wrote:

As far as the embedding issue goes, Adobe isn’t going to fix it.

What “issue” are you referring to? That Acrobat won’t embed fonts if you don’t have the outline font to embed? That it won’t embed fonts when the vendors request they not be embedded?

just_a_layman wrote:

The whole brouhaha was that in the older versions of acrobat (pre 6.0-not sure if the 5.5 patch messed with the embedding or not), if the font was embedded, one could extract the font from the document, and have the font without paying for it. (Major copyright violations and commercial infringement).

One can extract fonts from PDFs, but it is not trivial, and one loses some useful parts of the font. It has gotten a bit more difficult, but is not impossible. But whether or not one can extract fonts from PDFs has nothing to do with Acrobat’s choices in embedding behavior - it’s a non sequitur.

just_a_layman wrote:

That’s when Macromedia put in the protection code into fonts, which allows one to subset (meaning it only embeds the characters used, not all the keyboard characters) fonts for viewing and printing.

Well, you defined subsetting well enough. :)

The embedding bits (fsType) was specified by Microsoft, not Macromedia. Macromedia doesn’t put “protection code” or any other code into fonts, because it doesn’t make fonts.

However, Macromedia’s Fontographer tool has for many years by default put in a bogus value for the fsType. Font makers who relied on this tool have had to be particularly savvy to change this bogus value to one of the real values. Adobe has gone through some changes of opinion in what to do when confronted with a meaningless fsType value. Currently we treat is as okay to embed for preview and print purposes.

There is a separate fsType bit, a later addition to the spec, that allows the vendor to specify that they do not wish to allow subsetting - in other words that they only want the whole font embedded. Of course, subsetting was possible and done before this. Macromedia had nothing to do with the addition of this bit to the spec, and does not even support it.

Whew! Why is it that debunking goofy statements is always more work than making them in the first place? Kind of a parallel here, I guess.

Cheers,

T

Comment #54564

Posted by Sir_Toejam on November 1, 2005 2:09 AM (e)

I stronly suspect you meant to say Type 1 (there is a Type 3 format, but it is very rarely seen these days.

way more than anyone wanted to know about fonts and pdf’s i’m sure, but thanks for the head’s up.

I took a look at the corrupted pdfs in the editor, and they do indeed use type 3 fonts. In fact, one of them is corrupted, which caused the gaps and errors to appear in the file.

Since you brought it up, why on earth do you think they would have even tried embedding type 3 fonts to begin with?

Comment #54565

Posted by K.E. on November 1, 2005 2:11 AM (e)

Maybe its the printers they use on site

Comment #54572

Posted by Thomas Phinney on November 1, 2005 3:56 AM (e)

I just pulled down the problematic PDF. It does seem to be deeply messed up. The Type 3 fonts stored in this doc are bitmap fonts.

When Type 3 is used in PDF, it is most commonly used as a means of storing a bitmap font when, for whatever reason, an outline font is not available.

The only place one semi-regularly runs into Type 3 bitmap fonts these days is on some flavors of Unix. However, it looks like this PDF was produced on a Windows machine with Acrobat 6 and the PostScript driver (Psript.drv) 4.00. So that does not immediately make sense to me. But then again, messed-up PDFs aren’t my specialty (though font embedding is).

I’ll see if somebody else can diagnose this and/or fix it.

Cheers,

T

Comment #54595

Posted by improvius on November 1, 2005 10:14 AM (e)

Sorry if this is a repost…

No Dover liability insurance:

Because the Dover Area school board chose to be represented by the Thomas More Law Center, the school district is not covered by liability insurance in its First Amendment court battle over intelligent design.

The district had liability coverage of up to $100,000, Supt. Richard Nilsen said Monday. But because school board members chose to use a law firm other than the one required by the district’s insurance carrier, they forfeited the coverage, he said.

Still, the $100,000 might end up being just a drop in the bucket for Dover’s taxpayers.

Should Judge John E. Jones III rule in favor of the plaintiffs, their attorneys have said they will request the reimbursement of legal expenses.

Plaintiffs’ attorney Witold Walczak said the legal bill has grown now to more than $1 million.

Thomas More is representing the district for free.

Comment #54596

Posted by improvius on November 1, 2005 10:18 AM (e)

I would also speculate that, had the board used the “required” law firm, they would have been STRONGLY advised to settle.

Comment #54597

Posted by improvius on November 1, 2005 10:22 AM (e)

Also, new Mike Argento Column up today:

On the other hand, it’s really a sad day for America when public officials can no longer lie convincingly enough to get it past a federal judge.

Comment #54599

Posted by K.E. on November 1, 2005 10:32 AM (e)

Would it be unethical to clone Mike and put Mikes into every media outlet ? (Irony… for pedants)

Comment #54601

Posted by Fernmonkey on November 1, 2005 10:39 AM (e)

Holy guacamole, that’s a lot of money out of the education budget.

Comment #54603

Posted by Bayesian Bouffant, FCD on November 1, 2005 10:54 AM (e)

K.E. wrote:

Would it be unethical to clone Mike and put Mikes into every media outlet ? (Irony… for pedants)

Would you call such an effort “Project Mike”?

Comment #54607

Posted by Gerard Harbison on November 1, 2005 11:26 AM (e)

Given the, ahem, discrepancies between the School Board members court testiomony and their depositions, I wonder if this thread shouldn’t be retitled Of Pandas and Perjury?

Comment #54615

Posted by Thomas Phinney on November 1, 2005 12:46 PM (e)

Hmmm. That’s what I get for not knowing my printer driver versions. A colleague of mine writes:

The PSCRIPT.DRV 4.0 driver is the Microsoft PostScript driver shipped with Windows’95. It certainly was not designed for use with ANY version of Distiller, much less Distiller 6. Adobe came out with and maintained the AdobePS 4.x series of drivers to get around an exceptionally large number of bugs and limitations in the Microsoft version of the driver which they did not really maintain at all.

I suspect that the PostScript generated by that driver that went into the PDF file you cite was likely the result of a PPD [PostScript Printer Description file, associated with a printer or output path giving more information to the print driver - Thomas] that was not that of the Distiller (perhaps a “generic PostScript” PPD, circa 1995) in combination with use of the “convert TrueType to bitmap” option in the driver.

Is there any way to regenerate the PostScript?

So, it’s a result of using a truly antique PostScript driver, probably a wrong PPD, and definitely some bad option choices in the driver. If anybody knows the folks who are making these PDFs and wishes to pass this info on, please do.

Contrary to certain previous posts, this has nothing to do with bugs Adobe is unwilling to fix, or conflicts between Adobe and Macromedia over font embedding. (There certainly are bugs in any software, but we do work hard to fix them; Adobe and Macromedia have had exactly one major conflict, and it had nothing to do with font embedding or PDF.)

To download an installer which will give them the latest PostScript driver for whatever flavor of Windows they are running, they can go to the Adobe web site, choose support from the top menu, then downloads…. (I tried to post the direct URL, but the post was denied due to “questionable content.” I guess it’s trying to filter out spam posts or something.)

Regards,

T

Comment #54616

Posted by Thomas Phinney on November 1, 2005 12:48 PM (e)

And, I apologize for temporarily hijacking the thread. I really did just come here to read about the Dover trial. Honest. We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming. :)

Comment #54623

Posted by ega on November 1, 2005 1:55 PM (e)

Of Pandas and Perjury?

OK, I’ll write a web page with that tille. add it to my Useful FAQS section.

Comment #54629

Posted by Anton Mates on November 1, 2005 2:18 PM (e)

Also from the York Daily Record:

Dover Area School Board member Alan Bonsell testified he would be offended if plaintiffs’ attorney Steve Harvey was implying he chose Thomas More Law Center’s counsel based on information from its Web site.

During cross-examination in U.S. Middle District Court Monday, Harvey read the following line from the center’s site: “Our purpose is to be the sword and shield for people of faith, providing legal representation without charge to defend and protect Christians and their religious beliefs in the public square.”

Harvey said the information was on the Web site in December, not long after Bonsell, then-president of the board, was supposed to be checking into options for the district’s legal representation. The district was sued last year over its biology curriculum change, which included mentioning intelligent design.

While Harvey asked why the district picked Thomas More, noting the center’s Christian focus, defense attorney Patrick Gillen objected that the questioning was improper.

And then from a little later:

Outside court, Gillen said he objected to the questions because “no amount of rhetoric on our part should be held against our client.”

“The lawyers and clients are two separate things,” Gillen said. “They should never be charged or convicted based on anything a lawyer has done.”

For months, defendants and their supporters have questioned the intentions of the ACLU, one of the groups representing 11 plaintiffs suing the Dover board. They’ve claimed the group promotes immorality, such as child pornography and legalizing illicit drugs.

ACLU attorney Witold Walczak said his legal organization doesn’t discriminate and represents people — including Christians — who want to defend their rights.

So it’s perfectly proper to attack the plaintiffs for being represented by the evil Satanist hedonist baby-eating ACLU, but to question why the defendants in an ID case chose an explicitly Christian-focused legal firm, which bills itself as “defending and protecting Christians and their religious beliefs,” whose head extolls the “harmony” between ID and Christianity…no, that’s offensive and improper.

Yay hypocrisy!

Comment #54630

Posted by Bayesian Bouffant, FCD on November 1, 2005 2:33 PM (e)

Yay hypocrisy!

Don’t forget all those cross-examination questions directed at Barbara Forrest attempting to identify her as a member of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy for her membership in a humanist organization and the ACLU.

The current implications that the ACLU agrees with the prejudices of all clients whose free speech it protects is happening outside the courtroom, in the school board election campaign.

Comment #54634

Posted by ChrisO on November 1, 2005 2:47 PM (e)

Oh, this is devastating for the ID side. From the York Daily Record:

After Alan Bonsell finished his testimony Monday, in which he accused two local newspaper reporters of making up the information that drove the Dover Area School District into a First Amendment lawsuit, Judge John E. Jones III demanded to see a copy of Bonsell’s previous sworn statements …

Last week, former board member Bill Buckingham testified he handed the check, dated Oct. 4, 2004, to Alan Bonsell and asked him to forward it to Donald Bonsell. Written in the check’s memo line were the words: “for Pandas and People books.”

“You tell me why you didn’t say Mr. Buckingham was involved,” a visibly angry Jones said, staring at Bonsell as he read from his deposition.

Bonsell said he misspoke. And then, “That’s my fault, your honor.”

Bonsell said he didn’t think it mattered because Buckingham had not actually donated any of his money. Rather, the money had been collected from members of his church.

But Jones pointed out that Bonsell had said he had never spoken to anybody else about the donations.

The judge also wanted to know why the money needed to be forwarded to his father, why Buckingham couldn’t have purchased the books himself.

Bonsell stammered.

“I still haven’t heard an answer from you,” Jones said.

“He said he’d take it off the table,” Bonsell said.

“You knew you were under oath?” Jones asked at one point.

Bonsell perjured himself; the judge very clearly is aware of it and doesn’t mind showing that he’s angry about it. This is shaping up to be a truly catastrophic defeat for the ID-ists…

Comment #54638

Posted by Shadowram on November 1, 2005 3:30 PM (e)

I don’t think this will be a defeat for ID and the Discovery Int. They have been distancing themselves from this. And by the looks of it, the Judge might rule on the fact that the Dover Board tried to bring in ID prompted by religious needs, Thus not ruling that ID is in itself a religious concept. Only that religion was the board’s motivation.

The discovery Int. will still press that ID is not religious, and will be back to fight again. Maybe with an all atheist board, trying to push ID in the class rooms. ID will go only away if or when the Supreme Court determines whether ID is a True Science or Faith Based. Until then there will be lots of news about schools all across the country trying to implement ID. And push the US into the 18th century.

Shadowram

Comment #54639

Posted by geogeek on November 1, 2005 3:42 PM (e)

“will be back to fight again. Maybe with an all atheist board, trying to push ID in the class rooms”

Where on Earth do you think DI could find a bunch of actual atheists to push DI’s ideas?

Or maybe not on Earth - they would have to be the “Aliensdidit” crew, I suppose….

Comment #54640

Posted by Flint on November 1, 2005 3:43 PM (e)

This is if nothing else wonderfully entertaining. Buckingham testified that he never “asked” for the money. Instead, he stood up in front of his congregation and told them “the money is needed. You can make your contributions right here.” But ask? Nope, not that! Notice also that (with one exception) he had them contribute CASH contributions. He didn’t want the source of the money to be traceable - except, of course, it is collected in church. For purely scientific purposes, of course.

Donald Bonsell needed to buy the books because they were concerned about the audit trail if an active school board member actually made the purchase. So the official story was supposed to be: “Well blow me down, here are all these books! Where COULD they have come from? None of US bought them, and it WAS a cash purchase. Must be God was listening to us, because this is how God is known to operate.” But they couldn’t keep their story straight when the court, immersed in pathetic detail, started to dig into the source of the magic.

To make things even more delightful, these are the same people who spent their direct examination accusing every reporter (newspaper, radio, TV, the works) of lying in *every single report* they filed. Those despicable reporters lied in their original reports, in the notes they took on the spot, even in their videotapes (somehow). But all those reported lies, in all those news stories, somehow didn’t get noticed or complained about by anyone until the implications sank in.

Is it any wonder Judge Jones tossed out Dembksi et. al’s attempt to insert testimony without cross-examination? Cross is when the plaintiffs actually get to produce the reporters’ notes and videotapes. Which must be really painful for the DI, who came in right after Buckingham was pronouncing about Jesus and induced mass amnesia among the creationists on the school board, which extended right to all of the actual minutes being, uh, misplaced somehow.

Creationists, it seems, do law about as well as they do science. They just can’t seem to grasp that outside of their faith, things DO NOT become true just because they WANT them to be true or SAY they’re true. A federal court just doesn’t work the same way Dembski’s blog does, and they just can’t understand it.

Comment #54641

Posted by morbius on November 1, 2005 3:45 PM (e)

Thomas More is representing the district for free.

And the district is getting what it paid for.

Comment #54642

Posted by Bayesian Bouffant, FCD on November 1, 2005 3:49 PM (e)

Where on Earth do you think DI could find a bunch of actual atheists to push DI’s ideas?

In the Raelian science fiction cult.

That’s sure gonna help their credibility.

Comment #54644

Posted by improvius on November 1, 2005 4:13 PM (e)

Actually, if an atheist school board were to push an atheist science program - in which they told students that “there is no god” - the ACLU would be all over them.

Comment #54645

Posted by Gary Hurd on November 1, 2005 4:27 PM (e)

Douglas Theobald has found an apparently easy way to largely repair the damaged PDF files using his Mac & OSX. So, I suspect that the problem is also complicated by the use of (perhaps?) an older Mac by court reporter Wesley Armstrong.

Reading the full transcript of Mr. Buckingham’s testimony (Day 16) revealed that the DI and the Thomas More Center were in close association with the Dover Board well before any votes.

Comment #54647

Posted by Tevildo on November 1, 2005 4:46 PM (e)

Gary Hurd wrote:

Douglas Theobald has found an apparently easy way to largely repair the damaged PDF files using his Mac & OSX.

Are these available anywhere? Been waiting to read the end of Behe’s cross-examination for ages.

Comment #54649

Posted by Rilke's Granddaughter on November 1, 2005 5:03 PM (e)

The discovery Int. will still press that ID is not religious, and will be back to fight again. Maybe with an all atheist board, trying to push ID in the class rooms. ID will go only away if or when the Supreme Court determines whether ID is a True Science or Faith Based. Until then there will be lots of news about schools all across the country trying to implement ID. And push the US into the 18th century.

Is there such a thing as an all-atheist school board willing to insert ID into the curriculum?

Comment #54657

Posted by MidnightVoice on November 1, 2005 6:10 PM (e)

I love the fact that the Judge (A Bush appointee, and hence probably not a Liberal) is suggesting that Buckingham committed perjury!!

Comment #54659

Posted by morbius on November 1, 2005 6:22 PM (e)

Is there such a thing as an all-atheist school board willing to insert ID into the curriculum?

Hey, he said “maybe” – who can argue with that?

Comment #54664

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 1, 2005 6:48 PM (e)

“The lawyers and clients are two separate things,” Gillen said.

Apparently not, since it was, according to testimony, the Thomas More Law Center itself that told the Dover Board all about the “Pandas” book.

Isn’t there ANY fundie ANYWHERE who’s not a goddamn liar?

Comment #54672

Posted by Julie on November 1, 2005 7:05 PM (e)

Lemme get this straight. There’s no room in the Dover high school budget for a calculus class?

Education Lite. Less math, less biology. This has gone past the mildly frightening and into the truly horrifying.

Comment #54679

Posted by Steviepinhead on November 1, 2005 7:22 PM (e)

Less math is indeed a horrifying thing, and a high school that fails to offer calculus ought to be ashamed to call itself a high school. But inadequate public school funding can, at least arguably, force tough choices…

But Dover is proposing not simply to offer “less” biology, but fraudulent biology, promoted by perjurious rapscallions, without even the threadbare excuse of insufficient funds.

Of the two, fake biology sounds worse than lite math.

Comment #54686

Posted by Rupertg on November 1, 2005 7:35 PM (e)

I notice that the Discovery Institute’s response to the most recent events in the courtroom is to describe them thus: “The Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial continues, with the ACLU and its witnesses arguing that to briefly mention the theory of intelligent design just before spending several days teaching Darwinian evolution constitutes an establishment of religion and should not be allowed.” That’s certainly one way of looking at it, but one sadly not shared by any other outlet reporting on the case.

However, the DI post has more important things to present. “Even Religious Skeptics Skeptical of the ACLU’s Dover Position” is the title of the response, and it goes on to quote one Dean Esmay - “self-proclaimed liberal and atheist” - as saying that banning the “completely harmless” book Of Pandas… is “censorship… period”.

MInd you, this is the Dean Esmay who says on his web site that “I still believe that George W. Bush was the only progressive liberal running for President in 2000”. I know I’m a Brit with somewhat skewed ideas of what actually constitutes a liberal, but, um…

R

Comment #54688

Posted by Sir_Toejam on November 1, 2005 7:44 PM (e)

… and of course this is just another straw-man argument from the DI. NOBODY ever proposed banning the book in general, only that such drivel doesn’t belong in a science class.

Well, one good thing about this trial for certain, is that it is creating a documented example of how much and often these creationists will lie and obfuscate in order to further their goals.

regardless of what happens afterward, it has been and will continue to be a great reference in that regard.

Comment #54695

Posted by the pro from dover on November 1, 2005 8:16 PM (e)

Lenny, Lenny, Lenny, you poor misbegotten, unforgiven, satan-worshipping, liberal, homosexual, terrorist, pro-choice, Clinton loving, communist, probably-never-saw-passion-of-the-christ, heavy metal listening, Alec Baldwin worshipping,if-you’ve-got-a-blacklist-I-wanna-be-on-it, anti-american member of the intellectual educated segment of the east coast elite don’t you understand that those fundies aren’t lying…they’re speaking in tongues! (possibly forked, but that would be an insult to lepidosaurs everywhere).

Comment #54702

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 1, 2005 8:52 PM (e)

Lenny, Lenny, Lenny, you poor misbegotten, unforgiven, satan-worshipping, liberal, homosexual, terrorist, pro-choice, Clinton loving, communist, probably-never-saw-passion-of-the-christ, heavy metal listening, Alec Baldwin worshipping,if-you’ve-got-a-blacklist-I-wanna-be-on-it, anti-american member of the intellectual educated segment of the east coast elite don’t you understand that those fundies aren’t lying…they’re speaking in tongues! (possibly forked, but that would be an insult to lepidosaurs everywhere).

HEY ! I did TOO see “The Passion of Christ”. ;>

Well, at least the first twenty minutes or so of it. Until it bored the living crap out of me.

Comment #54709

Posted by K.E. on November 1, 2005 9:23 PM (e)

Pro from Dover you forgot “conspiracy theory debunker, identifier of weird sects”

Speaking of which Mel Gibson and his Father are a nasty bunch of anti-Semitic fundamentalists.

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2003_07_20_dneiwert_archive.html

Comment #54716

Posted by Cynthia Yockey on November 1, 2005 10:11 PM (e)

Hubert Yockey (my father and author of Information Theory, Evolution and Molecular Biology, Cambridge University Press, 2005) read through Minnich’s pre-trial expert testimony today and has just posted his answers to Minnich on his Website, http://www.hubertpyockey.com. (To find the new stuff you’ll have to scroll down past the first table of answers and the definitions.)

As far as I know, Dr. Yockey is the only scientist to point out three important objections to Intelligent Design:

1. The genome is the engine of evolution. It evolves through a random walk and therefore has no need of an Intelligent Designer.

2. There are no gaps in the genome from the origin of life to the present and for all life yet-to-evolve. Therefore there is no need for an ad hoc Intelligent Designer to explain gaps in the fossil record or morphology.

3. Non-living matter requires an “Intelligent Designer” to function and evolve ONLY because it has no genome. In all the Intelligent Design scenarios, the “Intelligent Designer” takes the place that the genome holds in living matter. Since living matter has a genome programming its functioning and evolution, it does not need an Intelligent Designer.

He has some good points about “Of Pandas and People,” too.

There’s more on the Web site, http://www.hubertpyockey.com.

P.S. Remember, the genome is the non-material information programmed in DNA. “Genome” and “genetic code” are not synonymous (see the HPY Web site for the definitions).

Comment #54743

Posted by Alan Fox on November 2, 2005 4:46 AM (e)

Robert Shapiro has commented further on peer review and Behe’s DBB here.

Comment #54754

Posted by Bruce Beckman on November 2, 2005 6:43 AM (e)

Tevildo, an clean copy of Behe’s cross from 10/19 PM can be found at Thomas More’s website
http://www.thomasmore.org/pdfs/Behe_10-19_Afternoon.pdf

Comment #54893

Posted by Jeffery Keown on November 2, 2005 11:10 PM (e)

I looked for this Polonium Halo paper. I don’t think it exists. If someone finds it, do let me know.

Comment #54895

Posted by godarwin on November 2, 2005 11:38 PM (e)

Polonium Halos Web site

http://www.halos.com/

TalkOrigins’Polonium Halo FaQ

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/

Comment #54903

Posted by tytlal on November 3, 2005 1:01 AM (e)

LOL! Did anyone else read today’s Perry Mason moment:

http://dailykos.com/story/2005/11/3/0222/44353

Oh, the sweet irony!

Comment #54919

Posted by Frank J on November 3, 2005 6:28 AM (e)

Wesley R. Elsberry wrote:

Robert V. Gentry, final defense witness of the McLean v. Arkansas case, set up a press conference in the capitol rotunda to talk about the talk that he gave elsewhere this evening. He says his polonium halo work proves a young earth.

Great. Now the “don’t ask, don’t tell” crowd (Discovery Institute IDers) doesn’t need all the misrepresentations of evolution that are all tied one way or another to religious (and thus legally risky) design arguments. Now they can give positive “naturalistic” evidence for a young earth, and let students infer from that whatever their little hearts desire. Unless, of course, the DADT crowd knows that young earth arguments are nonsense.

IDers: If ID is not creationism, here’s your golden opportunity to put your $ where your mouths are.

Comment #54933

Posted by Bayesian Bouffant, FCD on November 3, 2005 10:03 AM (e)

The plaintiffs have been trying to make the case that IDC is just repackaged creationism. This little trial tidbit reported in the YDR helps

In August 2004, before the October vote on the intelligent design statement, Baksa and others received e-mail from Stock and Leader lawyer Steve Russell. The district had asked him for advice about the pro-intelligent design textbook “Of Pandas and People.”

“Today I talked to Richard Thompson…. they refer to the creationism issue as ‘intelligent design,’” Russell wrote, referring to Dover’s lawyer from the Thomas More Law Center in Michigan.

After court, Thompson maintained that creationism and intelligent design were separate.

There ya go, intelligent design is a way of referring to creationism.

Does the pre-trial involvement of the Thomas More Law Center constitute a conflict of interest for them?

Comment #54951

Posted by kay on November 3, 2005 11:31 AM (e)

Offtopic, but here it comes: I wrote a little story about the whole debate.

http://www.spiritplumber.com/change_over_time/

Comment #54952

Posted by Bob O'H on November 3, 2005 11:35 AM (e)

Bayesian Bouffant wrote:

Does the pre-trial involvement of the Thomas More Law Center constitute a conflict of interest for them?

I can’t see why it does: they’re on the same side throughout.

Of course, it could be argued that the TMLC’s activities at these times had religious motivations, and hence are fair game to be investigated. Wouldn’t it be fun (and historically resonant) if the plaintiffs asked Mr. Thompson, the TMLC lawyer, to take the stand.

Bob

Comment #54956

Posted by Flint on November 3, 2005 12:02 PM (e)

I can’t help but wonder if any creationist school boards elsewhere will notice that the DI led the Dover dupes down the primrose path by hand UNTIL they were in over their heads, at which point the DI backed out and adopted a new “official position” opposite of what they talked the Dover dupes into, as though that had been their position all along.

Of course, in doing so the DI demonstrated exactly the sort of consistency and integrity creationists have become so famous for, but I do NOT expect any creationists to be able to see that pattern no matter what. I just wonder if a single creationist on any school board anywhere will think “Wait a minute, maybe we shouldn’t lean quite so heavily on all the free assistance the DI offers…”

Comment #54998

Posted by Alexey Merz on November 3, 2005 2:52 PM (e)

Bayesian Bouffant wrote:

Does the pre-trial involvement of the Thomas More Law Center constitute a conflict of interest for them?

Bob O'H wrote:

I can’t see why it does: they’re on the same side throughout.

But that’s not the issue. The issue is whether the TMLC’s interests conflict with the interests of the clients that they are representing – the Dover school board.

Comment #55095

Posted by Shadowram on November 3, 2005 8:51 PM (e)

I just found a site with the FREE ID videos. I just forced myself to watch the full 52 mins of “Icons of Evolution”. After watching it..I can honestly say I am scared S***Less. IDer’s can win over true science. This is a slick video, and for the weak of mind..after watching the video, you may become an ID’er.

This link shows free video of almost all the ID media. I “dare” any one of you to force yourself to watch “Icons of Evolution” (53mins) . It scared me. It’s VERY believable, and evolution is going to lose unless our scientist will step forward and tell the lay person what is going on, and the advancements we have made in our understanding of evolution. The huge strides we have made. The lay person does not read the journals. Promote the knowledge we have gained in science. The only thing I found to be a true statement in the video, was at the start…it says. “Evolution is not taught enough in high school”.

http://www.theapologiaproject.org/video_library.htm

Shadowram

Comment #55143

Posted by Peter Ellis on November 4, 2005 4:02 AM (e)

Hmmm - I don’t suppose there’s any mechanism by which you can get yourself called as a witness for the plaintiffs to say that you offered to host Gentry’s stuff and were rejected? It might help make the point that scientists are not conspiring to suppress stuff.

Comment #55153

Posted by Ron Okimoto on November 4, 2005 7:41 AM (e)

Slick videos are one thing, but reality is another. All they will get by scamming the rubes is another Dover. It may make people bolder to try the scams, but in the end all they have are ignorant incompents supporting them. What in the videos held up in Court? What was even put forward as evidence? Even the Discovery Institute knows that they can’t trust Well’s junk. Rubes like in Ohio have already been burned for trying to use it. Icons was part of the reference list in the draft lesson plan, but it and the various obvious lies got axed. How did the Wellsian lie about “no moths on tree trunks” get into the Ohio lesson plan? Why was it removed if it was legit?

Comment #55167

Posted by Greg H on November 4, 2005 9:12 AM (e)

For Peter,

Not an attorney here, so you should probably check with one, but I do believe there is a way to submit a brief to the court to present your statement.

Amicus Curiae

Definition: Latin term meaning “friend of the court”. The name for a brief filed with the court by someone who is not a party to the case.

“… a phrase that literally means “friend of the court” – someone who is not a party to the litigation, but who believes that the court’s decision may affect its interest.” William H. Rehnquist, The Supreme Court, page 89

I have only seen refernce to them in Supreme Court cases, so it may not be applicable in the lower courts, but there you are…

Comment #55173

Posted by Ed Darrell on November 4, 2005 9:50 AM (e)

Wesley,

Gentry’s claim is a slander to you, particularly since you did exactly the opposite of what he claimed in his slam. Were you to sue, it would not be a faux claim, a nuisance suit.

That last sentence contains one way scientists are superior to creationists ethically, in the latter part; and I suspect, in the former part it contains a way that scientists are superior in manners to creationists.

Comment #55176

Posted by B Richardson on November 4, 2005 9:59 AM (e)

Update on Gentry: Robert Gentry was in the courtroom in the morning, and noticed me sitting with the plaintiffs. At a break, he told me that he was retracting his permission for me to provide his papers on my website. Along the way, he made a rather insulting insinuation that I would alter his materials in some way.

Trivially a non-issue. Surely he knows about digital signatures.

Comment #55192

Posted by Bayesian Bouffant, FCD on November 4, 2005 11:37 AM (e)

Mike Argento’s latest column

As bad as things were, it was worse for Muise. At one point, he tried to get Minnich to talk about the guy who lost his keys — remember him? He was some guy running a scientific journal that published an article on intelligent design and wound up filing a federal complaint about the other scientists being mean to him. Among his complaints, they hid his keys.

That would be Richard von Sternberg. Why didn’t they call him as a witness instead of trying to get Minnich to pass on hearsay about it?

So Muise wanted Minnich to recall that incident, relying on “the public record.”

Steve Harvey, one of the lawyers for the plaintiffs, objected on the grounds of hearsay.

Muise began to respond, mentioning the “public record,” and the judge cut him off, asking, “Do you mean newspaper articles?” Muise and his cohorts have a standing objection to the admission of newspaper articles into the record, a dispute that will be settled today, and the judge said if Muise was going to rely on newspaper articles, it seemed to be a change in strategy, to say the least.

Muise started to say something and the judge cut him off, delivering a verbal slap upside the head: “Don’t insult my intelligence.”

Yowza!

Comment #55196

Posted by ega on November 4, 2005 11:56 AM (e)

Dembski just barred me from his site.

Comment #55197

Posted by godarwin on November 4, 2005 11:56 AM (e)

More from the Argento article:

The day after the school board changed the biology curriculum to include intelligent design creationism — let’s call it what it is — social studies teacher Brad Neal e-mailed Asst. Supt. Mike Baksa, joking about Dover converting from being “standards-driven” to being “living word-driven.”

Baksa replied that the school board, specifically, board member Alan Bonsell, was looking at introducing Christianity into the social studies curriculum next, and offered to pass on a book Bonsell provided that argues separation of church and state is a “myth.”

Does anyone know anything about this book? It’s something we certainly need to watch out for in our own school systems.

Comment #55198

Posted by godarwin on November 4, 2005 11:59 AM (e)

More from the Argento column:

The day after the school board changed the biology curriculum to include intelligent design creationism — let’s call it what it is — social studies teacher Brad Neal e-mailed Asst. Supt. Mike Baksa, joking about Dover converting from being “standards-driven” to being “living word-driven.”

Baksa replied that the school board, specifically, board member Alan Bonsell, was looking at introducing Christianity into the social studies curriculum next, and offered to pass on a book Bonsell provided that argues separation of church and state is a “myth.”

Does anyone know anything about this book? It’s something we certainly need to watch out for in our own school systems.

Comment #55203

Posted by Greg H on November 4, 2005 12:48 PM (e)

Take your pick. There’s this one I found in about 5 minutes with Google.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0925279188/102-7762454-4672901?v=glance

According to the reviews, it’s horribly incorrect, but since when have little things like evidence and the truth been a problem for the people pushing this agenda?

After all, as one of the reviewers says:

Anyone who would review this book and not understand the true history it reveals must have prejudice and bias against God and Christianity which is beyond reasoning with.

Comment #55205

Posted by Bayesian Bouffant, FCD on November 4, 2005 1:11 PM (e)

Does anyone know anything about this book? It’s something we certainly need to watch out for in our own school systems.

I’m sure a federal judge was impressed to find that, after gutting biology education, they plan to move next to social studies and teach that separation of church & state is a myth.

Comment #55206

Posted by Greg H on November 4, 2005 1:19 PM (e)

Ok, I had to go back and repost the entire review.

FINALLY THE TRUTH IS SPOKEN, January 26, 2004
Reviewer: Don Landis, Sr. (Peachtree City, GA)
I have read David Barton’s book and found it very informative and well written. He carefully documents what he has written.

Which is all very well and good, but I have to ask if Mr Landis bothered to check the original sources for himself or just accepted the carrot along with the stick.

He shows what the founding fathers said not what some said they said.

I’m still trying to figure out what this means.

Mr. Barton has show beyond a reasonable doubt that the current interpretation by the Supreme Court is not a reasonable interpreation of the constitution which they are sworn to uphold, but a cleaverly disguised attempt by the Court to establish a state religion which congress is prohibited from doing.

Which religion would that be?

By removing Christianity from the social and political life of the nation the Supreme court has established Humanism and it’s origins doctrine of Evolution as the state religion. This is not the religion of the people but the religion of the Supreme Court.

Oh. That religion.

David Bartion shows the historical context and intent of the founders regarding there attitude about religion. (When the founding fathers used the term religion they meant Christianity because all else was false religion.)

Christian intolerance at its finest.

The intent was to keep the government from establishing any sect of Christianity from being made the state religion and from compelling anyone to worship as the state dictated. The First Amendment is to prohibit congress from establishing a state religion and to keep them from telling you and me how we can worship. The constitution does not say anything about prohibiting you or me from worshiping or practicing our religion as we please. The Supreme Court has over stepped it’s boundaries by making law where none exists. (If congress can make no law on this issue then no law can exist on this issue.)

Actually that last statement is incorrect. According to the little regarded 10th amendment, what Congress is forbidden from doing goes to the states, or if the states are forbidden from enacting it, to the people.

And last but not least…

Anyone who would review this book and not understand the true history it reveals must have prejudice and bias against God and Christianity which is beyond reasoning with.

Sorry for hijacking the thread.

Comment #55208

Posted by Shadowram on November 4, 2005 1:36 PM (e)

Minnich said it himself. “Science is not a democratic process,”. Duh…It can’t be..it has to be based on facts..not faith. Sorry if you do not like the outcome, disproved it. You can’t take a vote on truth and evidence. I can’t believe Minnich wants to turn Science into a “Democratic Process” I wish there was video of the trial. There is no way he can say that with a straight face.
“To endorse intelligent design comes with risk because it’s a position against the consensus. Science is not a democratic process,” University of Idaho microbiology professor Scott Minnich said under cross-examination.
The article
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1151AP_Evolution_Debate.html
Shadowram

Comment #55211

Posted by Craig De Luca on November 4, 2005 2:02 PM (e)

I was born and raised Catholic and still carry my believes, but in no way would I ever place them above proven science. In the history of the Human Race there has always been those that were crucified and shun from there societies for proving evidence against the church and then later proven to be right. How can anyone be as foolish as to believe that we were created by some 1 HIGHER being? If there was such a creator of life than why is there no evidence shown. The religious freaks out there have all neglected that there are plenty of holes in the teaching from the bible, from the Old Testament to the new and that to follow the word of the lord is ludicrous, further more it is the same as believing in Santa Claus because it was written down by enough people over time. Science can date fossils and the time span of the planets and solar system, track DNA from one person to another and uncover all facts that can never be verified by the teachings of the bible. If there was also 1 HIGHER being the creator all of us, then why is it that all different religions have different views of the GOD. Is Catholicism the only right religion? Why it is the Catholic Church is the only religion that can’t get along with science? You don hear of Buddhist or Jews preaching that science and evolution is wrong. I just can’t believe that so many Americans are ignorant to something that can be proven like 2+2 = 4. I will agree that there are gaps in Evolution, given the inescapable missing link. But even with that there is still more proof of evolution being true. Even with science we see that certain chemical or substances in situations that create an outcome that was never imaginable. Is this the work of GOD? Is everything unexplainable Gods work? Catholic Church doesn’t believe in Stem Cell Research or Abortion because it’s killing life, but if we are able to give life back to some individuals than why isn’t that seen as good for man kind? Why it is only viewed as evil and why will devout believers of religion blow up or sabotage Abortion and Stem Cell research facilities? Is that not wrong and taking life and hope away from people, is that not going against the bible? The people who believe that a Higher Being created them are trying to find an answer to a question that has no answer. The way the Big Bang theory is comprised illustrates that anywhere in the universe is a star that can exploded and form a world just like ours, and the chances of another planet in the universe that is able to harness life in one way or another like out planet is very probable. Are ID believers going to say that GOD created that also? Ignorance spreads like a rash as history has shown. What if they killed Columbus for saying the earth was round, would we still think that it’s flat? Or if we didn’t believe Copernicus about the sun, and believed the church that the universe revolved around Earth? History proves as it will, in this case that there is no possible way the church has any facts, as always the church goes by what was written 2000 years ago in the sand. If we believe these people, we might as well go back to living in Mud houses. The Egyptians believed there were Gods for different things, i.e…The Sun God Ra and Nut the Goddess of the Heavens and Sky. We would be just as foolish to believe these GODS in this day and age now knowing how what the sun and heavens are created. We can watch things happen in space and describe the process that takes place, the bible can’t describe this. The bible will only say that god created it. The bible was made to give a answer to all the questions that had no answer before science could find one. And that was that a God made us and everything around us. When those ignorant people followed all of those believe it was fine but in this day and age to believe that God creates everything is for the ignorant.

Comment #55212

Posted by Gerard Harbison on November 4, 2005 2:12 PM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'I'

Comment #55220

Posted by Russell on November 4, 2005 3:13 PM (e)

About Gentry. I wonder if he was confused by the title of your website: “Antievolution.org”. Perhaps he took that to mean it was a forum where his claims would be disseminated without being subjected to much critical scrutiny.

Comment #55221

Posted by Arne Langsetmo on November 4, 2005 3:18 PM (e)

I have read David Barton’s book and found it very informative and well written. He carefully documents what he has written.

That wouldn’t be this David Barton, would it?

More on Barton here and here and here and here.

Cheers,

Comment #55239

Posted by God on November 4, 2005 5:09 PM (e)

Isn’t this trial over yet? It’s getting boring.

Comment #55244

Posted by whatever on November 4, 2005 5:39 PM (e)

About Gentry and his fears of someone altering his papers: Has he heard of Adobe Acrobat? You can lock those files.

Comment #55250

Posted by Shadowram on November 4, 2005 6:23 PM (e)

Boring..How can you say this trial is boring..This I think is the funniest trail in history…the cast of: Behe, Buckingham, Bonsell. I will be the first to watch the movie of the week when it comes out. It will be reality comedy at it’s best…you can not make this stuff up.

Comment #55251

Posted by Bayesian Bouffant, FCD on November 4, 2005 6:27 PM (e)

The closing statements were scheduled for this afternoon (Friday 4 Nov 2005). The decision may not be handed down until December.

Comment #55257

Posted by Phil Karn on November 4, 2005 6:48 PM (e)

First, a simple question: doesn’t the school board record their meetings? Weren’t there any tape recordings or transcripts to resolve the simple question of what was said about creationism, when and by whom?

Like Buckingham, I suffer from chronic pain so I actually feel sorry for the guy. My doctors have treated me with various opioids, including OxyContin, and I can say from personal experience that they have absolutely no effect on memory. Nor have I found any such effects in the medical literature, and I read a lot of pain journals.

From the stories written about him, I get the strong impression that Buckingham is not an addict but a legitimate chronic pain patient. He has mistaken physical dependence, a normal and expected consequence of long-term opioid use, for psychological addiction, a remarkably rare complication of legitimate medical use. Used properly under medical supervision, opioids are both safe and effective for chronic pain. They improve functioning with remarkably few side effects. Even the addiction specialists will confirm this.

It’s certainly possible that Buckingham’s doctors are incompetent or misinformed and gave him bad advice. But given Buckingham’s history of rejecting solid scientific theories like evolution, I think it more likely that he stubbornly rejected his doctors’ advice, put himself through an unnecessary and unpleasant withdrawal, and is again suffering from untreated chronic pain.

I guess that just goes to show that willful scientific ignorance can be its own punishment.

Comment #55258

Posted by CJ O'Brien on November 4, 2005 6:48 PM (e)

you can not make this stuff up.

Given that you were addressing your comment to God, I’d have to say: Yes, he can.
Sorry you’re bored, God. I guess omniscience ain’t all it’s cracked up to be.

Comment #55259

Posted by Shadowram on November 4, 2005 6:54 PM (e)

Oh OH it’s Magic…

They are talking about magic..

“We infer design when we see parts that appear to be arranged for a purpose.” said Dr. Scott Minnich

Sure the same way I infer that the magician cut the woman in half..I saw it..he cut her in half..but the reality is..well you know the rest of the story

Shadowram

Comment #55261

Posted by improvius on November 4, 2005 7:03 PM (e)

Phil Karn wrote:

First, a simple question: doesn’t the school board record their meetings? Weren’t there any tape recordings or transcripts to resolve the simple question of what was said about creationism, when and by whom?

Apparently not.

Mark curriculum committee’s minutes absent

Comment #55274

Posted by Greg H on November 4, 2005 8:36 PM (e)

I would suppose that it is the same David Barton. *chuckles* I would be surprised if I was the first person to ask WTF?? in response to this crap.

Comment #55276

Posted by morbius on November 4, 2005 8:53 PM (e)

At worst, someone could take members of a government board to court for failure to comply with the rules by not keeping minutes. “The fine runs about $100,” Henning said.

Someone ought to do it as payback for Scopes being fined $100.

Comment #55287

Posted by Michael Hopkins on November 4, 2005 10:31 PM (e)

Greg H, Amicus Curiae are indeed filed in lower courts. There were several filed in the Cobb County disclaimer case before the district judge ruled. Dean Kenyon filed on in Edwards v. Aguillard long before it reached the Supreme Court. And indeed there are some filed in the current case.

There are clearly rules on such filings. Judge Jones rejected on by the Discovery Institute since it attempted to gets the withdrawn witnesses testimony on the record without exposure to cross-examination. You will need to consult a lawyer. I suspect that it is a bit too late to file for the District Court given that the trial is over.

Comment #55290

Posted by Flint on November 4, 2005 10:44 PM (e)

First, a simple question: doesn’t the school board record their meetings? Weren’t there any tape recordings or transcripts to resolve the simple question of what was said about creationism, when and by whom?

I distinctly remember reading here (but I don’t feel like looking it up, so take it as hearsay) that the school board’s meetings WERE recorded. But the DI came along, and took the creationist school board members aside for a few days. After that, two things happened. First, *every one* of the creationist school board members fell victim to amnesia and just couldn’t recall anything that was said at any meetings (and the media, who covered them, were of course all lying every report, which before the DI intervened hadn’t been noticed!). Second, the records of all preceding school board meetings were, uh, somehow mislaid and haven’t been found since.

So all that remains today is actual videotape and reporters’ notes. The notes are lies, of course, but the video tapes have been harder to deny. Buckingham complains that he “misspoke” to the reporters because he was so busy concentrating on all of the news reports up to that time which he testified he’d never seen, read, or discussed with anyone.

Comment #55291

Posted by godarwin on November 4, 2005 10:53 PM (e)

First, a simple question: doesn’t the school board record their meetings? Weren’t there any tape recordings or transcripts to resolve the simple question of what was said about creationism, when and by whom?

From direct examination of Dover Schools Superintendent Dr. Richard Nilsen:

Q. Rich, take a look at that tape. And I want to ask you, does Dover Area School District have a general policy with respect to the taping of its board meetings?
A. Yes, it does.
Q. Describe that for us, please.
A. The general policy and procedure is the fact that the secretary of the board tapes all meetings, uses that as a backup for the notes and developing the minutes. Once the minutes have been approved, the policy, even prior to when I showed up, was the fact that either the tapes were overwritten or destroyed.
Q. Was this tape destroyed?
A. No.
Q. And why was that?
A. By recommendation of counsel.
Q. Okay. And we were not your counsel at the time of that recommendation?
A. No. It was our school counsel.

But, what of the non-erased tape (in which the final version of the curriculum was approved)?

Q. Does the tape record the whole meeting?
A. The tape does not cover the whole meeting. The background of that is the fact that at this time our business manager and board secretary was battling cancer and was on medical leave, and her secretary had filled in as the acting secretary over that time period. But at this meeting, her son had a wrestling match, and she was absent, so a third secretary filled in at that time period. And when I requested for the verbatim transcript to be developed, he communicated to me that when he had taken the first tape out to put a second tape in, that he had paused the tape, and when he had hit play, he had not unpaused the tape, so the second half of the meeting was not recorded.

The minutes of other meetings were transcribed from the tapes, but did not, apparently, include much of the discussions, mostly just the votes.

Here’s the transcript in which I found the above (so don’t call me a quote miner):

http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/trans/2005_1020_day13_pm.pdf

Comment #55296

Posted by Suzyka on November 4, 2005 11:29 PM (e)

What’s the story??
I’ve been following the trial and spent the past nights reading up on ID/creationism and the experts’ statements and the trial transcripts and what not and am dying to know about Judge Jones’ ruling. It’s 5.30 my time (Germany) which means past “court hours” in the US in terms of November 4th… but nothing new either on “Panda’s thumb” nor on the ACLU website.
(Have you checked http://www.meta-library.net/perspevo/presmb-frame.html ? It’s a treat to SEE and HEAR these guys - Behe, Dembski vs. Miller et al.)

Comment #55297

Posted by morbius on November 4, 2005 11:41 PM (e)

The tape does not cover the whole meeting. The background of that is the fact that at this time our business manager and board secretary was battling cancer and was on medical leave, and her secretary had filled in as the acting secretary over that time period. But at this meeting, her son had a wrestling match, and she was absent, so a third secretary filled in at that time period. And when I requested for the verbatim transcript to be developed, he communicated to me that when he had taken the first tape out to put a second tape in, that he had paused the tape, and when he had hit play, he had not unpaused the tape, so the second half of the meeting was not recorded.

This is clearly too complex not to have been by design.

Comment #55300

Posted by RBH on November 5, 2005 12:29 AM (e)

Suzyka asked

What’s the story??
I’ve been following the trial and spent the past nights reading up on ID/creationism and the experts’ statements and the trial transcripts and what not and am dying to know about Judge Jones’ ruling.

The judge’s decision won’t be out for some weeks. He said something about December, but there’s no hard and fast deadline for it.

RBH

Comment #55301

Posted by Shadowram on November 5, 2005 12:29 AM (e)

Finding out you are going to be sued, and if you lose you pay the lawyer bill : $1.5 million

Lying in court and having the judge question you directly, having to replace soiled underwear: $3

Closing arguments from plaintiffs: Priceless

Attorney Eric Rothschild, arguing for 11 parents who sued the Dover, Pennsylvania, Area School District and oppose the theory’s inclusion in the curriculum, told the court that intelligent design was creationism in disguise.

He accused former school board member William Buckingham of lying when Buckingham testified he had mistakenly spoken in favor of creationism in a television interview because he had never been interviewed before and felt “like a deer in the headlights.”
“That was no deer in the headlights,” Rothschild said. “That deer was wearing shades and was totally at ease.”

Too funny!!!!!!

Shadowram

Comment #55304

Posted by godarwin on November 5, 2005 1:48 AM (e)

You nailed it, Greg.

During cross-examination by plaintiffs’ attorney Eric Rothschild, Baksa testified that not long after he started his job in fall 2002, Bonsell gave him a copy of the “The Myth of Separation: What is the Correct Relationship Between Church and State” by David Barton, which states the separation is a mischaracterization of the law.

“When I received the book from Mr. Bonsell … Mr. Bonsell expressed a desire to me that the students learn about the founding fathers and the Constitution,” Baksa said.

Trial peeks into class from the York Daily Record.

Comment #55310

Posted by Phil Karn on November 5, 2005 5:27 AM (e)

Actually that last statement is incorrect. According to the little regarded 10th amendment, what Congress is forbidden from doing goes to the states, or if the states are forbidden from enacting it, to the people.

Actually, the relevant amendment is the 14th, not the 10th. The 14th amendment, one of the “Reconstruction” amendments passed after the Civil War, has been interpreted by the Supreme Court as applying nearly all of the protections listed in the Bill of Rights against the states and local governments.

That is, not only is the federal government prohibited from promoting or interfering with religion, but so are the states and local governments.

Comment #55312

Posted by Rose on November 5, 2005 6:42 AM (e)

Why wont the IDers just admit that they are really rooting for the Grand Old Designer?

Comment #55320

Posted by Bayesian Bouffant, FCD on November 5, 2005 9:30 AM (e)

Why wont the IDers just admit that they are really rooting for the Grand Old Designer?

Because there are already legal precendents that ‘Creation science’ is religion, and that teaching it in public school science class is a violoation of separation of church & state

That’s why no one had heard of “Intelligent Design” creationism before 1987.

Comment #55323

Posted by Bayesian Bouffant, FCD on November 5, 2005 9:35 AM (e)

“We infer design when we see parts that appear to be arranged for a purpose.” said Dr. Scott Minnich

Behe repeatedly used the term “purposeful arrangement of parts”, which is ambiguous. Does ‘purposeful’ mean ‘serves a function’ or ‘is the result of conscious design’? Minnich apparently doesn’t have the same finesse for obfuscation; his arrangement of words indicates that he means the latter, and exposes the circularity of his argument.

Comment #55325

Posted by Freud wore a slip? on November 5, 2005 9:52 AM (e)

This may be old news here, but I just ran across “The Psychology of Christian Fundamentalism” here.

The author is a professor, which we know in itself proves nothing about the validity of his argument, but it’s a very interesting read.

Comment #55327

Posted by Brian Spitzer on November 5, 2005 9:53 AM (e)

For those who haven’t already read it, the closing argument by Eric Rothschild made me want to stand up and applaud.

The ACLU did a grand job in the courtroom. Three cheers for their hard work, and for everyone who helped ‘em.

The text of the closing argument can be found here.

Comment #55329

Posted by Bayesian Bouffant, FCD on November 5, 2005 10:08 AM (e)

In the judge’s hands

York Daily Record wrote:


Judge John E. Jones III said he hopes to reach a decision by the end of the year….
And while it is true Bonsell embraces the biblical account of Genesis, he should not be judged for his beliefs, Gillen said.

He may be judged for his perjurous statements though, the lying *******.

“What I am about to say is not easy to say, and there is no way to say it subtly,” Rothschild said. “Many of the witnesses for the defendants did not tell the truth.”

The story of Kitzmiller v. Dover played out, ironically, in a state founded on the principles of religious liberty, Rothschild said,…

Comment #55338

Posted by Greg H on November 5, 2005 11:06 AM (e)

Posted by Phil Karn on November 5, 2005 05:27 AM
Actually, the relevant amendment is the 14th, not the 10th. The 14th amendment, one of the “Reconstruction” amendments passed after the Civil War, has been interpreted by the Supreme Court as applying nearly all of the protections listed in the Bill of Rights against the states and local governments.

You know, as I typed that, I thought it may have been 14 and not 10. Teach me to be too lazy to go look before I click post. Thanks for the correction Phil.

Posted by godarwin on November 5, 2005 01:48 AM

You nailed it, Greg.

It’s puzzling to me, and not a little frightening, how someone, or a group of people, think they can just ignore the past 200 years and say..”All that stuff that went before…they were all lying to you. WE have the truth, and if you don’t believe what we say, you’re obviously an anti-Christian, bigoted person with the IQ of a treesloth. Of course if you do believe us, you’re obviously brain dead, which we prefer. Amen.”

I guess what it boils down to is that when your belief, your faith, in ANYTHING, not just religion, clouds your common sense and robs you of your ability to think for yourself, it’s not just silly, its downright bad for you. And dangerous for the rest of us.

Comment #55352

Posted by Steve S on November 5, 2005 1:23 PM (e)

Man, I just read that Closing Argument. It was so good I need a cigarette.

“It is not just Pandas that is faulty. It is the entire Intelligent Design project. They call it a scientific theory. But they have done nothing. They have produced nothing. Professor Behe wrote in Darwin’s Black Box that if a scientific theory does not publish, it must perish. That is the history of Intelligent Design. As Professor Behe testified, there are no peer reviewed articles in science journals reporting original research or data that argue for Intelligent Design. By contrast, Kevin Padian, by himself, has written more than 100 peer reviewed scientific articles.”

Comment #55356

Posted by morbius on November 5, 2005 2:08 PM (e)

“We infer design when we see parts that appear to be arranged for a purpose.” said Dr. Scott Minnich

Behe repeatedly used the term “purposeful arrangement of parts”, which is ambiguous. Does ‘purposeful’ mean ‘serves a function’ or ‘is the result of conscious design’? Minnich apparently doesn’t have the same finesse for obfuscation; his arrangement of words indicates that he means the latter, and exposes the circularity of his argument.

Minnich seems unaware that the word “appear” means “is inferred” and the word “design” means “for a purpose”. So this boils down to “We infer design when we see parts that we have inferred to be arranged by design”.

Comment #55357

Posted by morbius on November 5, 2005 2:18 PM (e)

Actually, I should amend that. “design” does mean “To create or contrive for a particular purpose or effect”, but “appear” means “to seem to be” and “seem” means “appear” – a seeming comes down to a free standing belief. So Minnich said in effect “We infer design when we think there’s design”.

Comment #55358

Posted by morbius on November 5, 2005 2:24 PM (e)

P.S.

Does ‘purposeful’ mean ‘serves a function’ or ‘is the result of conscious design’?

This is not ambiguous – it strictly means the latter; purpose entails intent, which is what distinguishes it from function.

Comment #55363

Posted by Tim on November 5, 2005 3:03 PM (e)

How I’m going to miss this entertaining trial! Don’t suppose the Scool Board would agree to keep it going as defendants in a perjury trial….

Comment #55412

Posted by godarwin on November 6, 2005 2:20 AM (e)

My county school system is currently buying new science books and offering them up for public review. I decided to see if there were any texts marketed for kids (other than Of Pandas and People) that would be cause for concern. I was amazed – there are too many to list here, so I included a couple of Web sites at the bottom. While many have give-away titles, others go by seemingly innocuous ones such as Champions of Mathematics, Exploring Planet Earth and Life in the Great Ice Age.

From the promotional blurb for The Fossil Book:

This excellent and informative work has been thousands of years in the making! It’s the exciting story of fossils: How were they formed? Where are they found? How old are they? How are they extracted? This one-of-a-kind book explains how coal and oil are formed, how the Grand Canyon was created, how to interpret the geologic column from a creationist perspective, and how to identify various fossils. It refutes the horse and whale evolutionary models and explains the four Cs of biblical creation and compares this model with evolution’s model of time, chance, struggle, and death.

These and more at:

http://store.nwcreation.net/hore.html

http://store.nwcreation.net/justforkids.html

I doubt I’ll find any of these, but then again, my governor is the President’s brother.

I encourage you all to review the books in your own school districts if you get the chance. At least they will know we are watching them.

Comment #55420

Posted by kay on November 6, 2005 6:23 AM (e)

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/11/closing_arguments_dover_plaint.html#more I love the Galileo quote at the end. :)

Comment #55421

Posted by Freud_wore_a_slip? on November 6, 2005 9:17 AM (e)

If (when) Dover looses they presumably will have to pay the plantiff’s legal fees which apparantly is on the order of $1.5M.

I wonder if any of the money behind the Thomas More Law Center is really interested enough in the science education of the Dover kids to pony up for those expenses so the school system won’t have to pay them and thus be forced to drop additional courses.

Comment #55423

Posted by K.E. on November 6, 2005 10:22 AM (e)

I wonder what advice the TMLC gave the board regarding the Boards collective/personal liabilities and what the TMLC would have said regarding any liability if they lost ?

It seems the board are off the hook financially, so something along the lines of “you have nothing to loose and everything to gain, don’t worry someone else has to pick up the tab”.

Its clear the TMLC didn’t even consider they could loose, even so; they would have still said to the Board- “if in the extremely unlikely event we loose it’s the opposition that will be left holding the baby”

If that’s the case I can’t see the board going after the TMLC for bad advice.

Have I missed a detail here ?

Comment #55448

Posted by kay on November 6, 2005 7:19 PM (e)

“Oops, we don’t have the money for the biology course, we’ll have to drop it. Kids, ask your Sunday school teacher for now.”

Comment #55459

Posted by Troff on November 6, 2005 9:18 PM (e)

Hi all,

been following this with great, great interest (in spite of the fact I’m on the entirely wrong continent) and been involved (ha) in my own university’s public-forum debate.

Would very much like to post Eric Rothschild’s closing arguments to same forum, but I’m dead positive someone (probably even me) would like to see what arguments were offered by the opposing side.

Found the PDF of the plaintiff’s closing arguments via the ACLU; does anybody know, please, where to get Gillen’s closing argument?

Many thanks, if anyone knows…

Comment #55463

Posted by Ken on November 6, 2005 9:48 PM (e)

Something interesting. The new scientific view of Genesis is a cosmic view. Well in the Bible in Hebrews Chapter 11 it says:
Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

So the Bible talks of worlds that are formed by God. That’s planets so the bible confirms there are other planets.
Also that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear
That equation would be M=E/C(2) which is essentially fusion.
Now Einstein said that E=MC(2) which is fission.So, Einstein turned it around but used it to develop General relativity or E=MC(2). But always remember Einstein was thinking fusion when he developed general relativity and fission.
Again, Now Einstein said that E=MC(2) which is fission.

Comment #55464

Posted by nitpick on November 6, 2005 10:07 PM (e)

K.E. wrote:

Have I missed a detail here?

One thing does stand out:

“loose” means “not tight”.
“lose” means “to not win”.

Comment #55468

Posted by Henry J on November 6, 2005 11:21 PM (e)

Re E=MC(2) = fission and M=E/C(2) = fusion

Not sure I follow that. The usual cases of both fusion and fision convert a bit of mass into energy - the exceptions are cases where an excess of energy forms things that can’t form otherwise (such as heavy nuclei).

Henry

Comment #55471

Posted by Scott on November 7, 2005 12:09 AM (e)

“THE POSITIVE CASE FOR DESIGN”
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=546
It’s amazing how ID can so accurately “predict” things that have been known for decades or even centuries.

Comment #55472

Posted by K.E. on November 7, 2005 12:11 AM (e)

Thanks nitpik — might have something to do with the loose interpretations floating around.

to wit.

Ken said

Bible in Hebrews Chapter 11 it says:

Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

Taking a wider view of mans collected wisdom may help explain the way we see the world/universe.


The Buddha said

With our thoughts we create the world.

The ancients could only use metaphysics (philosophy) not real physics.

IMO its a tricky task to hook an ancient insight to modern science which deals with real evidence and builds on a vast depth of knowledge. You run the danger the ID crowd have found themselves in. Like the “broken clock theory” which we all know will be right twice a day some descriptions of the world by the mystics, prophets and seers will be right…sometimes.

The Bible as do the scriptures of the other ancient religions are full of useful guidance on how to live an ethical and meaningful life.

My suggestion is to use the bible for science on Sunday and (ethical) critical thinking for science during the week.

Comment #55476

Posted by morbius on November 7, 2005 1:52 AM (e)

That equation would be M=E/C(2) which is essentially fusion.
Now Einstein said that E=MC(2) which is fission.So, Einstein turned it around but used it to develop General relativity or E=MC(2). But always remember Einstein was thinking fusion when he developed general relativity and fission.
Again, Now Einstein said that E=MC(2) which is fission.

The only accurate statement in this gibberish is that “Einstein said that E=MC(2)” (if that means E=MC**2). He said it in 1905. He didn’t publish his General Theory of Relativity until 1915. Both fission and fusion came later.

Comment #55535

Posted by Greg H. on November 7, 2005 3:17 PM (e)

Posted by Ken on November 6, 2005 09:48 PM

So the Bible talks of worlds that are formed by God. That’s planets so the bible confirms there are other planets.
Also that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear
That equation would be M=E/C(2) which is essentially fusion.
Now Einstein said that E=MC(2) which is fission.So, Einstein turned it around but used it to develop General relativity or E=MC(2). But always remember Einstein was thinking fusion when he developed general relativity and fission.
Again, Now Einstein said that E=MC(2) which is fission.

I’m trying to figure out Ken’s point in this particularly hard to read assemblage of words. Despite the arrangement of the equation that Ken uses, I’m not sure that fusion essentially creates mass. If I remember my physics correctly, the amount of matter that is used in a nucleus actually weighs less than the components that make up the nucleus. The difference in mass is converted into energy that is used to bind the nucleus together. (Bear with me, my last physics lecture was probably 10 years ago).

For instance, in fusion (since that’s what we were talking about) 4 Hydrogen atoms can be combined to create a Helium atom. Each of the hydrogen atoms weighs in with an atomic weight of 1.008u, while Helium tilts the scale at 4.003u. But wait you say, we’re missing something - something that weighs .029u. You bet - it went out the window at close to 27MeV of energy. So fusion really isn’t making mass - it’s dumping mass in favor of creating energy.

Comment #55546

Posted by morbius on November 7, 2005 3:52 PM (e)

Perhaps Ken thinks that a hydrogen bomb produces actual mushrooms.

Comment #55547

Posted by Dean Morrison on November 7, 2005 3:53 PM (e)

I wonder if any of the money behind the Thomas More Law Center is really interested enough in the science education of the Dover kids to pony up for those expenses so the school system won’t have to pay them and thus be forced to drop additional courses.

we’ve been having a similar debate on the Judge Grills Dover Official - (who pays?) thread.
It seems to me there is a ‘heads we win, tails you lose’ situation as far as the Plaintiff’s kids are concerned. Perhaps we should have a collection for some real textbooks?

Comment #55592

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 7, 2005 6:43 PM (e)

Perhaps we should have a collection for some real textbooks?

Dover high school library already has a world-class science section:

http://www.geocities.com/lflank/dover.html

;>

Comment #55688

Posted by godarwin on November 7, 2005 10:10 PM (e)

I went to review my county’s proposed school science books today. In a county with a population of about 480,000, four people showed up – which means I was representing 120,000. Two of them looked over a few books, wrote down their comments and left. I don’t know what their observations were.

I went for the 9th grade biology books. While I was looking them over, another guy came in looking for the texts I was perusing, but contented himself with the 7th and 8th grade life sciences books. He started spouting off about factual inaccuracies, embryonic development photos, that Lucy was a chimp, circular reasoning (rocks dating fossils and fossils dating rocks), etc.

The scary part: He was also representing 120,000 people.

I found the books contained a good representation of mainstream science. The teachers present made it clear to me that they are on our side, but they need our help. Winning in Dover will not put an end to this nonsense. If they give you a chance, let your school system (and your state’s D.O.E.) know how you feel. You know the anti-science crowd does.

Comment #55759

Posted by Dean Morrison on November 8, 2005 10:07 AM (e)

Dover high school library already has a world-class science section:

http://www.geocities.com/lflank/dover.html

;>

.. what a great story! sorry if I’m playing catch-up here. Looks like you managed to show up the confusion, double-standards and dishonesty of the board at the same time as providing some good reading for the kids.
I happen to be reading the ‘Ancestors Tale’ at the moment and thoroughly enjoying it. Thanks for the great reading list - it’s just a shame I’m not a student at Dover, I’ll have to pay for the books myself.
Crikey, you even managed to get Harkins to admit that ‘books are good’.

Comment #55767

Posted by Rich on November 8, 2005 10:48 AM (e)

I just wanted to say that I enjoy reading the posts on this site and I’m learning that debating a ‘really scientific topic’ with scientists, means that you have some work to do… It seems to me that the ID types don’t seem to want to do the work… maybe because doing the research involved to speack ‘intelligently’ on the topic, only seems to support the opposing position……

I’m not a scientist… I’m a technology project manager, but it seems to me that George W wants to spend multi-billions of dollars to prepare for a bird-flu pandemic, which currently hasn’t ‘EVOLVED’ (wouldn’t that pre-suppose that EVOLUTION might occur???) yet….. while at the same time, he supports the instruction of ID as science…. Aren’t those actions logically incompatible???

Maybe my reasoning hasn’t advanced as far as ID’ers, or possibly it’s not ‘Intelligent Design…’ being promoted, but ‘Advanced Double-Secret Intelligent Design’… and I’m just not up to speed on those concepts yet….

I would appreciate it if other contributors could help me see the error of my ways…..

Just a normal guy named Rich….

Comment #55771

Posted by Flint on November 8, 2005 11:23 AM (e)

Rich:

Bush is concerned not with logical compatibility but with political compatibility. The world of politics is all about balancing competing interests. By its nature, there is no right or wrong, only your preferences against mine. If there are two sides, those two sides are equal on the merits by definition. They are only (potentially) unequal in power base.

So Bush isn’t “supporting the instruction if ID as science”, he’s modeling school classes as political bodies reconciling interests backed by a political power base. And in politics, it’s pretty much a requirement to give a voice to anyone with political power; the consequences of silencing them are generally much worse than at least pretending to listen. Political equality isn’t at all the same thing as scientific equality, but how would Bush know that? If half the voters were fanatical about teaching astrology as science, any successful politician would readily agree we should teach “both sides” on that as well.

Meanwhile, he’s tuned into political concerns enough to know that the possibility of a pandemic has captured the public imagination in a big way. How likely or immediate the actual threat of bird flu actually IS doesn’t matter, what matters is how many people THINK it’s a huge threat, and how they vote. And without question, they represent enormous political power; enough to appease with over $7 billion in promised measures. And whether those measures even make sense doesn’t matter either. When you hear a voice that powerful, you give it what it wants.

Comment #55796

Posted by Dean Morrison on November 8, 2005 2:33 PM (e)

The IDers’ response to bird flu is that they didn’t say they didn’t believe in microevolution.
Anyone who is any doubt that we share a great deal of our DNA with apes should check this out:
you can’t make a monkey out of me….seems that the problem really may be one of microevolution?

Comment #55799

Posted by jim on November 8, 2005 2:44 PM (e)

If Dover taught me nothing else, it’s that I need to pay attention to the school board in my kids district. I plan to be a regularly attendee in the monthly meetings start next Monday!

I’m hoping they’re a reasonable bunch or I might be forced to run for election to the board *groan*.

Comment #55832

Posted by Sir_Toejam on November 8, 2005 6:47 PM (e)

yaay Jim!

You just made my day when you say that observing Dover motivated you. I think a lot of parents have simply forgotten (or are too busy working) to get involved at even the level of their local PTA’s, let alone the school board.

I hoist a frosty one at ya.

cheers

Comment #55833

Posted by Steve S on November 8, 2005 6:59 PM (e)

Well, Casey Ruxpin reappeared today

Kansas education board downplays evolution
State school board OKs standards casting doubt on Darwin
Image: Willard
Charlie Riedel / AP
Board member Kenneth Willard studies a proposal to change the science standards during a meeting of the Kansas Board of Education in Topeka on Tuesday. Willard joined five other members in approving science standards that cast doubt on evolution.

• Human evolution at a crossroads
• King rat and the brilliant squibbon
• Evolving with our stomachs
• Creationists take a new tack
• Darwin vs. Einstein: A tale of 2 theories
• FULL COVERAGE
Related Stories

| What’s this?
• Intelligent-design decision dissected
• ‘Intelligent design’ faces first big court test
• Darwin’s critics fire back at Nobel laureates
• Judge ponders evolution arguments as ‘intelligent design’ trial wraps up in Pennsylvania
• Theologian says intelligent design is religion
Most Popular
• Most Viewed • Top Rated • Most E-mailed
• Another lawyer in Saddam trial shot dead
• France declares state of emergency to quell riots
• ‘Housewives’ fires actor who played prisoner
• Kansas educators vote to downplay evolution
• Pilfered parrot used to stuff bra, cops say
• Most viewed on MSNBC.com
• Tracking Disease
• Rudd to retire after Nextel Cup season
• A survivor: Soon Ok Lee
• Dead lab worker’s records mean freedom to convicts
• Shaggy survivors hanging on after Katrina
• Most viewed on MSNBC.com
• Soda may increase women’s blood pressure
• Kansas educators vote to downplay evolution
• Child car seat advice questioned
• Pilfered parrot used to stuff bra, cops say
• France declares state of emergency to quell riots
• Most viewed on MSNBC.com
RSS FEEDS ON MSNBC.COM

Add these headlines to your news reader
• Science
• Learn more about RSS
MSNBC News Services
Updated: 6:52 p.m. ET Nov. 8, 2005

TOPEKA, Kan. - Risking the kind of nationwide ridicule it faced six years ago, the Kansas Board of Education approved new public-school science standards Tuesday that cast doubt on the theory of evolution.

The 6-4 vote was a victory for “intelligent design” advocates who helped draft the standards. Intelligent design holds that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by a higher power.

Critics of the new language charged that it was an attempt to inject God and creationism into public schools in violation of the separation of church and state.
Story continues below ↓ advertisement

All six of those who voted for the new standards were Republicans. Two Republicans and two Democrats voted no.

“This is a sad day. We’re becoming a laughingstock of not only the nation, but of the world, and I hate that,” said board member Janet Waugh, a Kansas City Democrat.

Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, said the decision would encourage school districts in Kansas and elsewhere to make similar moves, distracting and confusing teachers and students.

“It will be marketed by the religious right … as a huge victory for their side,” she said. “We can expect more efforts to get creationism in.”

Supporters of the new standards said they would promote academic freedom.

“This is a great day for education. This is one of the best things that we can do,” said board chairman Steve Abrams. Another board member who voted in favor of the standards, John Bacon, said the move “gets rid of a lot of dogma that’s being taught in the classroom today.”

The Seattle-based Discovery Institute, which supports challenges to evolutionary theory, praised the Kansas effort. “Students will learn more about evolution, not less as some Darwinists have falsely claimed,” institute spokesman Casey Luskin said in a written statement.

read the rest at msnbc

Comment #55837

Posted by dre on November 8, 2005 7:13 PM (e)

msnbc says re kansas:
“In addition, the board rewrote the definition of science, so that it is no longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena.”

man… how do i get on that board? i never knew how much power they had.

Comment #55838

Posted by Michael Hopkins on November 8, 2005 7:21 PM (e)

Day 3 AM Transcript in HTML. This is Robert Pennock’s testimony.

Comment #55840

Posted by Michael Hopkins on November 8, 2005 7:23 PM (e)

Day 3 AM transcript in HMTL. This is Robert Pennock’s testimony.

Comment #55844

Posted by Michael Hopkins on November 8, 2005 7:36 PM (e)

Major smoking gun revelation for anyone who might had given Buckingham any benefit of the doubt over the perjury issue. Recall Buckingham’s excuse to Judge Jones was that the reporter ambushed him – took him by surprise. Well the reporter, Jennifer Sherlock of Fox 43, has a different version of events. She says that the interview was arranged hours in advance. What FOX affliate showed in its newcast was only the last few second of a ten minute interview which he used the term “creationism” several additional times.

Election won’t affect Dover suit, lawyer says, (Patriot News Tuesday, November 08, 2005.)

Comment #55845

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 8, 2005 7:36 PM (e)

“In addition, the board rewrote the definition of science, so that it is no longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena.”

The Saul Alinsky-ite in me is just DYING to use this against them. Let’s encourage every nutty group we can think of – everything from the astrologers to the pyramid-power-ites to the Raelians to the psychic-hotline-ers to the flat-earthers to the geocentrists to the hollow-earthers to the moon-landing-is-fake-ers to the remoter viewers to the spirit-channelers to the Bigfoot/Nessie/Atlantis-hunters, to flood the Kansas board with demands to teach their “science”.

Every one of them meets the new “definition”.

The Board has no grounds to refuse any of them.

I’d LOVE to watch them deal with that …. .

Comment #55870

Posted by Shadowram on November 8, 2005 8:10 PM (e)

Rev Dr’ Lenny Flank,
Let’s not forget The Flying Spaghetti Monster, A letter has already been sent to the Kansas School board to have this Theory included. I sure most of you have seen this, but a another look at his “noodle appendage” is needed :). It’s just brilliant

http://venganza.org/

The replies to the “Open Letter” from the school board are just as great.

Response from Mrs. Janet Waugh - District 1 - Received 6/25/05
From: JWaugh1052@[xxxxxxx]
To: bobby.henderson@gmail.com
Date: Jun 25, 2005 6:34 AM
Subject: Response from a member of the Kansas Board of Education

Thanks for your comments about the Flying Spaghetti Monster and all the supporters who have sent their support to members of the Kansas Board of Education. I am supporting the recommendations of the science committee and am currently in the minority. I think your theory is wonderful and possibly some of the majority members will be willing to support it.
Thanks again,

Janet Waugh
District 1

Response from Mrs. Carol Rupe - District 8 - Received 8/16/05
From: Carol Rupe crupe@[xxxxxxx]>
To: bobby.henderson@gmail.com
Date: Aug 16, 2005 8:19 AM
Subject: Kansas State Board of Education

Dear Mr. Henderson,
In the midst of the sad circumstances of having our science standards lowered, you and your legion of fellow FSM followers have offered wonderful comic relief. Rather than the form letters which we often receive on other topics, each FSM letter has been clever and unique. I responded to several at first, but now there have just been too many. I am a member of the Kansas State Board of Education and have voted repeatedly to maintain excellent science standards. Last week was the vote to send a new draft (written by the 6 conservative members) out for external review. The four of us on the board who are moderates were in the minority on the vote. The group of science teachers and university professors who had written the original standards (before they were changed) have now asked that their names be withdrawn from the document. The new version changes the very definition of science from “seeking natural explanations” to “seeking logical explanations”. That is why I think FSMism is able to be included. It is as “logical” as any other theory.
The final vote on the standards will be in October. We will be in Lawrence, Kansas for that meeting. Those of us who are moderates on the board are trying to have the meeting in the Natural History Museum at the University of Kansas. We think that would be an appropriate setting for the occasion. We welcome you to be in attendance.
We have received thousands of emails from scientists around the world. At first, they all tried to explain good science to us. After the vote last week, however, they have resorted to calling us hillbillies and morons. And those are the nice letters!
Thank you for adding levity to this situation. You have developed quite a following. I was wondering if we could reverse the effects of global warming if we started breeding pirates.
Sincerely,
Carol Rupe
P.S. I ordered a Kansas Museum of Science t-shirt. I may just have to wear it to a board meeting

From: Mrs. Kathy Martin, District 6

“It is a serious offense to mock God.”

I for one will be supporting FSM in Kansas schools, why not its just as believable as ID. My tee shirt is on the way
Shadowram

Comment #55881

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 8, 2005 8:24 PM (e)

From: Mrs. Kathy Martin, District 6

“It is a serious offense to mock God.”

Wow. What a tight-ass.

But hey, make sure to save this one. A judge may be interested in seeing it at some future date, to determine whether or not the Kansas Board had any, uh, religious motives….

This is the one thing I love most about fundies. All you gotta do is let them talk long enough, and they shoot themselves in the head every time. Can’t NONE of them go ten minutes without preaching.

It’s why they will never win in court. (shrug)

Comment #55885

Posted by Sir_Toejam on November 8, 2005 8:36 PM (e)

From: Mrs. Kathy Martin, District 6

“It is a serious offense to mock God.”

hmm. one wonders just how far away we are from that comment being a legally actionable offense (again?), rather than just a “serious” offense…

Comment #55892

Posted by Michael Hopkins on November 8, 2005 8:50 PM (e)

Emily Gordon was able to restore some, but not all of the missing text from the faulty PDF for Day 16’s morning session. I have put up an HTML version of the text which she provided. This is the session which Buckingham perjured himself.

Buckingham testimony at Dover (Day 16 AM)

Comment #55901

Posted by Greg H on November 8, 2005 9:08 PM (e)

Well, once again Kansas has voted to reduce themselves to the least common denominator in education. It’s a sad, sad day for the state of science education in the United States.

Comment #55919

Posted by Shadowram on November 8, 2005 9:52 PM (e)

Humm there seems to be a message in the PA schoold board elections going on today. These are the results (Incomplete, all the votes are not in yet) from the York Dispatch,
These are the stats so far for the Dover district:

—– Dover —–
B Reinking Dem. 441
H Mc Ilvaine, Jr. Dem. 426
B Rehm Dem. 421
T Emig Dem. 437
A Bonsell Rep. 380
J Cashman Rep. 415
S Leber Rep. 406
E Rowand Rep. 404

2-Year Term
L Gurreri Dem. 413
P Dapp Dem. 425
J Mc Ilvaine Dem. 426
E Riddle Rep. 397
R Short Rep. 403
S Harkins Rep. 390

2-Year Unexp
P Herman Dem. 397
D Napierskie Rep. 394

1 Out of 6 precincts

Now it seems that the Democrats do not have a big lead, which they don’t, the point I want to make, and you can see it at the site, most of the other districts, the republicans are whopping butt.

—– Central —–
M Wagner Dem. 623
M Snyder Dem. 614
R Weikert Dem. 608
K Peckmann Dem. 585
M Wagner Rep. 1049
M Snyder Rep. 1043
R Weikert Rep. 1033
K Peckmann Rep. 1004

6 Out of 12 precincts

It will be interesting if the Dems win mainly because they opposed ID, will the republicans in other School Boards in the country start to change their views?. The effects might not be limited to JUST school boards.

Shadowram

Comment #55921

Posted by Shadowram on November 8, 2005 9:54 PM (e)

Opps forgot to add the Link
http://www.yorkdispatch.com/features/elections

Shadowram

Comment #55926

Posted by Shadowram on November 8, 2005 10:22 PM (e)

I need to get me one of these beers..This is way too cool. It’s real!!!

http://www.wasatchbeers.com/evopage.html

Comment #55936

Posted by Michael Hopkins on November 8, 2005 11:19 PM (e)

Six out of six precincts have now been counted. The creationists will no longer in the school board once the new terms begin. And congrats to the perjerer for his last place finish.

B Reinking 	  Dem. 	2754 
H Mc Ilvaine, Jr. Dem. 	2677 
B Rehm 	          Dem. 	2625 
T Emig         	  Dem. 	2716 
S Leber 	  Rep. 	2584 
E Rowand 	  Rep. 	2547 
J Cashman 	  Rep. 	2526 
A Bonsell 	  Rep. 	2469 

Comment #55937

Posted by Michael Hopkins on November 8, 2005 11:22 PM (e)

Congrats to the perjurer.

I have to to learn to click “check spelling” each time…

Comment #55949

Posted by Shadowram on November 9, 2005 12:20 AM (e)

I just posted this on Dr. Dembski’s Blog. http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/464

It is rather interesting that the Vise Strategy seemed to have a huge impact on the Dover case (sorry the Dover school board got voted out today, but at least Dover might now be able to save face in the eye of the world). I think it did, but Dr Dembski, it might have been prudent to have kept that a secret from the plaintiffs, and pushed that strategy more then you did on the defense. You did after all write that for the defense correct?

I think the ACLU hijacked that strategy, shame on them. They used it to discredit most of the defense’s witnesses, to the point of perjury and even got Dr Behe to admit that under the proposed criteria that will allow ID into the scientific arena as a true scientific theory, Astrology would also qualify, as would a number of other concepts such as The Flying Spaghetti Monster.

It just sounds ludicrous, that the definition of science has to be changed to allow ID or FSM for that matter as a scientific school of thought.

I have nothing against ID at all, I only think that “hey you might have something there” but ID is still in its infancy, and has a long way to go. It might become a scientific theory one day, who knows, I doubt it, but you never know. I just do not understand why ID cannot play by the same rules that any other scientific theory has to play by. Why?. Why do you need to change the definition of science?

As Professor Ken Miller said. (Paraphrasing) “IF ID can prove itself to be a real scientific Theory, then automatically they will be placed in every science classroom in the world, without having to side step the whole scientific possess.”

I have heard that unpopular post, like I’m sure mine is, are usually deleted on this site, I thought I would give it a try anyways and also post it on my blog. I do hope you can address my questions Dr Dembski.
Thanks and with respect
Shadowram
Newport News VA

http://www.myspace.com/shadowram

Comment by Shadowram — November 9, 2005 @ 12:10 am

Comment #55955

Posted by k.e. on November 9, 2005 1:19 AM (e)

Shadowram you have nothing to be worried about with “Vice” strategy.

Just remember one question

“Define the creator”

Bill/Casey and the whole cast of God Botherers no amount of weaseling is going to get you out of that.

Even if every single ID DIot has their tongue cut out so they can’t utter the G word they will have to include ace spaliens,mind readers,FSM, Plutonians, LGM, in fact the infinite panoply of every single man, woman and child’s imagination on God’s Green Earth. Tough eh ?

Comment #55960

Posted by Registered User on November 9, 2005 1:50 AM (e)

Kathy Martin

“It is a serious offense to mock God.”

Can I mock the mysterious designer, Kathy? I mean, we can make fun of scientific theories without offending anyone, right? That’s how we got to this point, isn’t it?

Of course it is.

Don’t forget to chew your food, Kathy.

Comment #55963

Posted by bystander on November 9, 2005 2:14 AM (e)

shadowram,

Can’t see your post. What got me about this is the strange world that Dembski inhabits. Why would he crow about a document that obviously didn’t help in the Dover case.

Comment #55965

Posted by k.e. on November 9, 2005 2:24 AM (e)

Bystander said

Why would he crow about a document that obviously didn’t help in the Dover case.

Too easy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megalomania

Comment #56008

Posted by Shadowram on November 9, 2005 8:49 AM (e)

Sure enough when I checked my post on Dembski’s site this morning, it has been deleted. My post was number 10 right after the Bombaldi post. Wow instead of answering my question, he just made it disappear, like magic..oh excuse me…Intelligent Design. Odd, I thought my questions to him was valid, non-abusive, and respectful. I feel sorry for the real Scientist that have to deal with him on a daily basis.

Shadowram

Comment #56143

Posted by rupertg on November 9, 2005 4:20 PM (e)

One of Dembski’s supporters on his blog is suggesting that “Considering the decision in Kansas, now may be a good time to try out The Vise on our friends at Pandas Thumb. A few less turns might be needed to make ‘em pop”. Presumably it’s still experimental, so deploying it on Dembski’s own blog has too high a risk of making the wrong thing go bang - or letting those cursed evolutionary critters escape and leave trails of awkward questions everywhere.

Reading through the Vise document reminds me of someone with whom I once worked. He too had an uncrushable belief on his intellectual superiority over anyone who disagreed with him and his unique access to The Truth ™, only he avoided confrontation by saying that it was much stronger than we weaklings could manage and would ruin our lives if we knew too much.

Unfortunately, one aspect of The Truth ™ was that he was unbearably attractive to women, who were thus all (and I mean all) involved in a titanic subconscious struggle to avoid admitting this to themselves. If I remember correctly, at one point the local constabulary were drafted in by one particular woman to help with her particular titanic subconscious struggle - that’s how weak she was. So strong was his Truth ™ that the forces of law and order were needed to battle its enormous Truthfulness.

It would all have been jolly fun except that how he ended up is something I wouldn’t wish on anyone, no matter how barking.

Comment #56145

Posted by Gerard Harbison on November 9, 2005 4:24 PM (e)

I feel sorry for the real Scientist that have to deal with him on a daily basis.

Dembski? Hahaha. How many real scientists do you think there are on the faculty of East Jesus Baptist Seminary?

Dembski’s complete naivete about science was betrayed a couple of days ago when he posted a link to a wacko-fringe device claiming to get energy from the ground state of hydrogen. Evidently he isn’t familiar with a little thing called the Heisenberg uncertanty principle. Or maybe, when he’s finished refuting evolution, he’s going to take on quantum mechanics.

Comment #56147

Posted by Russell on November 9, 2005 4:54 PM (e)

Dembski’s complete naivete about science was betrayed a couple of days ago when he posted a link to a wacko-fringe device claiming to get energy from the ground state of hydrogen.

This sounds potentially entertaining. Is this still up, or did WAD recognize his error and remove it?

Comment #56148

Posted by Doug Sharp, Head IDiot on November 9, 2005 4:57 PM (e)

While Dover marches to its doom Kansas marches towards the Truth of IDio:

OPEN EPISTLE TO KANSAS SCHOOL BOARD
November 8th, 2005
I write with joy and thanks in my heart after having read of your bold decision to promote the Church of The Intelligent Designer and its one true God IDio. Finally, our Church needs no longer cower behind a façade of science.

Now that your blessed action on IDio’s behalf has rendered the Constitution, with its irritating religious establishment clause, inoperative, we can proudly proclaim in every Kansas classroom, “There is but one Intelligent Designer and His name is IDio!” We thank the taxpayers of Kansas for donating their money to proselytize for His church. May IDio mutate you all intelligently.

www.godinabox.com

Comment #56163

Posted by Dean Morrison on November 9, 2005 6:37 PM (e)

The wacko-fringe hydrogen thing got reported in the UK’s ‘The Guardian’ Fuel’s paradise? Power source that turns physics on its head ; though not as uncritically perhaps as it could have been. At least they have Dr Ben Goldacre and his excellent Bad Science column.

Comment #56169

Posted by Gerard Harbison on November 9, 2005 7:13 PM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'i'

Comment #56170

Posted by Gerard Harbison on November 9, 2005 7:14 PM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'i'

Comment #56171

Posted by Gerard Harbison on November 9, 2005 7:16 PM (e)

The wacko-fringe hydrogen thing got reported in the UK’s ‘The Guardian’ Fuel’s paradise? Power source that turns physics on its head ; though not as uncritically perhaps as it could have been

British newspapers in general are even worse in their science coverage than American newspapers.

WAD still has the thing up, though he’s temporized a bit in his comments section. Undergraduate physics and chemistry majors learn to solve the equation of motion of the hydrogen atom, and any one of them could tell Bill why you can’t do what the article claims to do. One has to simply conclude he doesn’t understand sophomore level physics, which is a bit sad for a Math Ph.D.

Comment #56175

Posted by CJ O'Brien on November 9, 2005 7:26 PM (e)

rupert, that bit about The TruthTM is Very Funny.

Thanks for the laugh.

Comment #56186

Posted by Steve S on November 9, 2005 7:43 PM (e)

Physics is not W.A.D.’s strong suit. see also Wavelengths, Infinitely Long

Comment #56198

Posted by Tevildo on November 9, 2005 8:33 PM (e)

Quick information point - the NCSE have, at long last, managed to get hold of a clean copy of the Day 16 AM transcript (Buckingham’s testimony).

Comment #56221

Posted by Michael Hopkins on November 9, 2005 11:42 PM (e)

Tevildo wrote:

Quick information point - the NCSE have, at long last, managed to get hold of a clean copy of the Day 16 AM transcript (Buckingham’s testimony).

The NCSE got fixes to all of the faulty PDFs. They appear to have gotten Word copies of Wes Armstrong’s transcripts and made there own PDFs.

You did do a nice job at Wikipedia’s Trial document page by not being fooled Day 20 PM’s incorrectly being labeled as Day 21 PM by both the NCSE and by the court reporter.

I have updated the T.O. Dover page. Now it has an HTML version for every released PDF.

Comment #56224

Posted by RBH on November 9, 2005 11:52 PM (e)

And you’ve done a very good job with the T.O. Dover page, Michael. Thanks!

RBH

Comment #56225

Posted by morbius on November 10, 2005 12:13 AM (e)

Physics is not W.A.D.’s strong suit.

There’s nothing special about physics in that regard.

Comment #56226

Posted by k.e. on November 10, 2005 12:17 AM (e)

rupert, that bit about The TruthTM is Very Funny.

Thanks for the laugh.

Ditto CJ not only do we have (snigger) little “t” truth on our side but HUMOUR, Monty Python,Shakespeare,All the philosophers (except those humourless Postmodernists with howlers such as “sqr_root of minus one=juissance”) every scientist who gets it, every theologian from any religion who gets it, the ancient Hindu Gods, that fat guy who sat under a Bhodhi tree,
Even Christ got it.

Comment #56294

Posted by improvius on November 10, 2005 2:53 PM (e)

Someone should tell Dembski that arguments based on intellectual solopism aren’t very effective.

Comment #56302

Posted by improvius on November 10, 2005 3:16 PM (e)

Pat Robertson, witness for the… plaintiffs?

Comment #56307

Posted by Dean Morrison on November 10, 2005 3:44 PM (e)

At least they teach good political science at Dover: this from todays YDP;

Dr. Melvin Kulbicki, professor of political science at York College, said that the challengers appear to have simply out-organized and out-campaigned the incumbents. He also attributes the upset, in part, to a principle called “false certainty.” People tend to associate and communicate with those who share their viewpoints. So incumbents might have had the impression that more people supported them than actually did.

But ultimately, Kulbicki said, the race was a victory of those who accept modernism over those who are uneasy with it.

“There’s no turning back the clock,” Kulbicki said.

-remind you of anyone? I think “False Certainty” goes quite nicely with “Specified Information” and “Irreducable Complexity”…and if Dembski only associates and communicates with people who share his viewpoints then he’s only got himself to blame for censoring his blog.

Comment #56353

Posted by Michael Hopkins on November 10, 2005 6:41 PM (e)

RBH wrote:

And you’ve done a very good job with the T.O. Dover page, Michael. Thanks!

And thanks for those words.

There is still a lot to do on it though. When the transcript sequence is complete, formal navigation arrows will need to be put in and
make a far better table of contents. I would eventually like to see the links to other documents made in all the transcripts as already exist in some of the earlier ones. Maybe in a couple of weeks I will be able to do some work on that. Though a there is revised FAQ which is going to need a lot of HTML work before it is put up and some other tasks that
will need to be done first.

Comment #56388

Posted by Shadowram on November 10, 2005 8:18 PM (e)

Humm I think there might be a problem brewing with us Evo’s in how we deal with the ID folks. If we are not careful we will turn them into martyrs. This is an interesting story by NPR. They even interview Eugenie Scott and Ken Miller. The attacks on ID’ers are not good, and “looks” like us Evos are trying to stifle open thought and discussion. We all know this is not true, we are just trying to keep these crack pots out of our schools, but perception is what counts.

Listing to the Audio portion, the link is on this page. It is a very interesting story.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5007508

Shadowram

Comment #56393

Posted by John Tweedie on November 10, 2005 8:32 PM (e)

I read about the ID folks making waves in Kansas in the news today.

First of let me say thank you to the school system here in Ireland. Mediocre as it may be and Catholic to the core, no one would seriously propose that this nonsense be taught as a viable alternative to evolutionary science.

Seems fairly discriminatory to me, what will Muslims be taught? What about Buddhists?
Will a Scientology version have to be taught as well?

Anyway - if anyone is in any doubt about Robert V. Gentry’s pseudoscience, a straightforward rebuttle can be found at the address below.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html

Happy evolving ! :-)

Comment #56470

Posted by kay on November 11, 2005 4:34 AM (e)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1520019/posts Here we go…

Residents have said they just want this election to be over, similar to the sentiment of many Americans after the 2000 presidential election.

But in the Dover Area School District, Tuesday’s election is a bit more complicated.

There are no “hanging chads,” but York County election officials are inspecting a faulty voting machine at Friendship Community Church on Fox Run Road that counted only one vote for incumbent school board candidate James Cashman.

John Scott, York County director of elections, said this morning that officials are looking into it, but declined further comment. “There’s obviously something wrong,” Cashman said yesterday.

The machine registered “001” votes for Cashman, who said other candidates running on the same platform received about 100 votes at the machine.

Tuesday, Cashman and seven other board
incumbents were narrowly defeated by eight members of Dover CARES (Citizens Actively Reviewing Educational Strategies).

Comment #56477

Posted by Dean Morrison on November 11, 2005 5:44 AM (e)

re: The Intelligent Designer fools with lab experiment for laughs;
-perhaps the ID community don’t need to look too far to find who has been playing tricks with th voting machine: or perhaps they want to look for a naturalistic explanation first?

Comment #56479

Posted by Dean Morrison on November 11, 2005 6:13 AM (e)

.my theory, which is mine, that belongs to me is this:

God (whoops start again…)

The Intelligent Designer took a lot of trouble to cover his tracks - otherwise people that believed in him wouldn’t need ‘faith’ - they’d have hard evidence of his existence. Everyone would be a beleiver, everyone saved: result: overcrowding in Heaven; unemployment in Hell and Southern Baptist Churches (from an idea of Douglas Adams’)
But now Dembski and the lads are onto him; so now he’s involved in desperate attempts at cover-up; “why oh why did I leave that smoking flagellum lying around?” - he’s got to do something to hold back these ID sleuths somehow: slip them some Oxycontin? No, tried that, plant cash on them?, bad idea: brainwave! - do the voting machine trick - why not? it worked before: however he gets too keen so the results in one ward betray intelligent design!!!!.
Oh No! - the only thing to do now is to get on the phone to his agent on earth, Pat Robertson, to pave the way for some devine vengance to destroy the evidence (plague of frogs/locusts, tempest, earthquake etc - universal flood being ruled out of course)- that way no sane person will believe its the ID when it happens!
I’m confident that the ‘missing votes’ affair will blow his cover and the whole thing will come to be known as “Cashmangate” or “Frogate” or “Dembskigate” or something.
Now who says the far-right have the monopoly on conspiracy theory? - and where did I leave my happy pills?

Comment #56515

Posted by Greg H on November 11, 2005 10:39 AM (e)

Just in case any of you were afraid that the IDiots would let this all go down without a fight:

From http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/11/10/religion.robertson.reut/index.html

Conservative Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson told citizens of a Pennsylvania town that they had rejected God by voting their school board out of office for supporting “intelligent design” and warned them Thursday not to be surprised if disaster struck.

So, now that sensible people have spoken, and cast off the idiots that were elected before, suddenly we’re reverting to Puritanism in New England. “Beware the wrath of the Almighty, for He is pissed at you.”

I wonder if the pagans are still looking for converts…

Comment #56558

Posted by Brian Foley on November 11, 2005 12:46 PM (e)

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-evolution9nov09,0,416642.story?coll=la-home-nation

THE NATION
Vote by Kansas School Board Favors Evolution’s Doubters
The divided panel urges that ‘controversy’ over the theory be taught. Science groups call it a bid to inject religion in the classroom.
By Nicholas Riccardi
Times Staff Writer

November 9, 2005

TOPEKA, Kan. — The state Board of Education approved curriculum standards Tuesday that question evolution and redefine science to include concepts other than natural explanations.

The board, in a 6-4 vote, recommended that schools teach the “considerable scientific and public controversy” surrounding the origin of life — a dispute most scientists contend exists only among creationists.

National science groups opposed the measure, and critics contended it was an effort to inject religion into the classroom.

But its advocates said they were interested only in improving science.

“This is a great day for Kansas,” board President Steve E. Abrams said. “This absolutely raises science standards.”

Comment #56595

Posted by improvius on November 11, 2005 4:04 PM (e)

Pat Robertson Retracts God’s Wrath Statement on Dover

Robertson apparently chose to retract his comments after being contacted by irate representatives of the Seattle-based “Discovery Institute”, an organization funded by right-wing religious conservatives that has been lobbying for the acceptance of “intelligent design” doctrine as a scientific theory, and for the inclusion of the doctrine in school curricula.

“Someone should lock that doddering doofus up and throw away the key,” said Kip Sprinkle, a livid leading “intelligent designologist” with the Discovery Institute. “What the hell was he thinking? The whole reason we came up with the phrase ‘intelligent design’ was so that we could pretend that what we’re advocating is something other than Biblical creationism.”

Mr. Robertson, in his retraction, indicated that what he had meant to say was “I’d like to say to the good citizens of Dover: if there is a disaster in your area, don’t turn to a non-religiously affiliated intelligent designer, you just rejected the scientifically-proven-to-exist omnipotent celestial engineer from your city.”

Comment #56606

Posted by Sir_Toejam on November 11, 2005 5:20 PM (e)

Kip Sprinkle??

that’s almost as bad as Sir Toejam

oh wait…

Comment #56730

Posted by Bayesian Bouffant, FCD on November 12, 2005 11:16 AM (e)

“This is a great day for Kansas,” board President Steve E. Abrams said. “This absolutely raises science standards.”

War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.
Source of rumbling sound located

Comment #56736

Posted by Tevildo on November 12, 2005 12:08 PM (e)

Transcripts for Day 2 AM (Miller Cross, Kitzmiller), Day 4 PM (Carol Brown Direct), Day 11 AM (Behe Direct) and Day 16 PM (Buckingham Cross, Bernhard-Bubb Direct) are now available at the NCSE site. The record is now complete up to the end of Day 18 - we still need transcripts for Days 19 and 21.

Over to you, Michael! Thanks again for the HTML versions.

Comment #56747

Posted by Stuart Weinstein on November 12, 2005 1:14 PM (e)

“WAD still has the thing up, though he’s temporized a bit in his comments section. Undergraduate physics and chemistry majors learn to solve the equation of motion of the hydrogen atom, and any one of them could tell Bill why you can’t do what the article claims to do. One has to simply conclude he doesn’t understand sophomore level physics, which is a bit sad for a Math Ph.D.”

Maybe we can sell Waldo on the exotic virtues of Hydrogen Dioxide.

Comment #56754

Posted by improvius on November 12, 2005 1:45 PM (e)

Stuart Weinstein wrote:

Maybe we can sell Waldo on the exotic virtues of Hydrogen Dioxide.

Or the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide.

Comment #56854

Posted by God on November 12, 2005 6:51 PM (e)

There’s no shaum in bein a bad spella. Eienstein was maent to have been a bad spella. Of curse chronic mizzpellings could be a sign of someting more sirus.

Comment #56874

Posted by Gawd on November 12, 2005 8:08 PM (e)

Surry, I wade a misteak riting thut privious commet. It twas suposed to be claer thot it wus in riply ta dis.

“Some are so badly designed that they can’t spell ‘intelligent’.”

Comment #56875

Posted by Gawd on November 12, 2005 8:09 PM (e)

Surry, I wade a misteak riting thut privious commet. It twas suposed to be claer thot it wus in riply ta dis.

“Some are so badly designed that they can’t spell ‘intelligent’.”

Comment #56887

Posted by Sir_Toejam on November 12, 2005 9:03 PM (e)

er, not that i advise dancing in the streets or anything, but here’s a nice spin on the vote in dover:

http://villagevoice.com/news/0546,zeliger,69964,2.html

Comment #56985

Posted by Dean Morrison on November 13, 2005 3:38 PM (e)

For anyone who is still suffering withdrawl symptoms and, like me, is missing the wonderful Mike Argento - don’t despair - he’s posted his summing up of the C.A.R.E.S victory today on the YDP. It doesn’t appear on the Dover trial section but at:
Shock and Awed
There is also entertaining local comment at Mike’s front stoop at: a Pat on the back including the thought provoking:

“I’d like to say to the good citizens of Dover. If there is a disaster in your area, don’t turn to God, you just rejected Him from your city. And don’t wonder why He hasn’t helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I’m not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that’s the case, don’t ask for His help because he might not be there.”

If that’s what Mr. Robertson would say to the good citizens of Dover, we shudder to think what he’d say to the bad. (Scott Fisher)

Comment #58031

Posted by Michael Hopkins on November 16, 2005 1:55 AM (e)

The T.O. Dover Intelligent Design Trial now has all transcripts up in HTML. Do note that one should be able to link to every paragraph in the trial. All stuff like “Q:”, “THE COURT:”, “MR. WHOEVER” should all be links that will look like links if one puts one’s mouse pointer over them. Click them (they link to themselves) and the address window will have the URL. Other paragraphs without any all-caps can be tabbed to. (Tab will send you from one link to another.) The vast majority of times the links are in order: #day4am333 will be followed by #day4am334. If all else fails, one can always view the HTML source.

Comment #58033

Posted by Sir_Toejam on November 16, 2005 2:04 AM (e)

nice job, Michael!

thanks

Comment #58484

Posted by Philip Bruce Heywood on November 17, 2005 8:36 PM (e)

Once again, sorry to screw up a perfectly good page by introducing logic & observation. My compliments to those contributors who do their bit to make the world both a happier and more enjoyable place. Doubtless there are contributions above that fall into that category. Correct me if I am mistaken: your heading, which attracted my attention, is provided by someone classifying himself as, quote, “a scientist”. As I have previously brought to the attention of our gentle viewers, Lord Kelvin says that science is honour bound to investigate every question fairly presented to it.

1). Species were unrolled in sequences, yet each species is reproductively self-contained. Explain the role of devices such as the immune system, DNA/RNA, and the reproductive system, in this phenomenon. Presumably we have to do with a species lock, and information input that trips the lock.

2). Describe the chain of events involved in a species transformation - say, from one member of the horse-series to another. Account for re-programming of DNA with discreet new species information. Account for birth and rearing of the first members of the new species.

3). Either provide the reference(s) to, or provide, yourself, the detailed mathematically-based model which conclusively shows that selective environmental pressure adds new information to any random collection of organic chemicals.

4). Such a model obviously can be built if it is assumed that environmental pressure acts merely as a trigger. It relies however upon the organic chemicals either containing latent information within themselves (which the trigger activates) or upon the triggering of a bonding with information-carrying devices which already exist in the biosphere. Can you add to this?

5). Are you willing to discuss the rational, mathematically-based processes of species actuation? Will you do so?

Things not to do: Don’t say, “Evolution did it.” The universe is mathematical, not mystical. Don’t say there can be no mathematically-based model of species actuation. Apart from the life aspect, a species is an expression of maths-statistics. We are dealing with information technology. Don’t say, “We don’t have enough information.” We have very little information, but the little we have clearly points the way. And don’t say, “Scientists are Darwinists”. History speaks another language.

We have from here to the end of Cyberspace - if some of the more verbally volumetric havn’t already filled it - to show the world the calibre of this “science” we keep hearing about. Yours etc., P.H..

Comment #58515

Posted by k.e. on November 17, 2005 11:20 PM (e)

Philip Bruce Heywood

I’ve got a better idea

Why don’t you do it ?

And if not, why do IDists pathologically have to prove that they can’t do and won’t do science or even do a simple google search but instead offer only the argument from ignorance or “god of the gaps,”.

Justify to me your laziness please.

Since you put up some questions, here are a few from me.
(Which I am happy to speculate on for you if you want, after you have answered your own rhetorical questions; I’ll make it easy for you. Present both a for and against argument for your rhetorical questions, which side you choose and why. And I’ll do the same, you fist)

1. What do you think Lord Kelvin would make of the fact that Paley’s arguments have been categorically defeated time and time again as a “god of the gaps” argument from ignorance and Darwin’s TOE has been categorically confirmed again and again over the last 150 years as the true revelation of nature.

2. What do you think Lord Kelvin would make of this

Cardinal Paul Poupard, who heads the Pontifical Council for Culture

http://www.livescience.com/othernews/ap_051103_v…

.
.
“But we also know the dangers of a religion that severs its links with reason and becomes prey to fundamentalism,” he said.

“The faithful have the obligation to listen to that which secular modern science has to offer, just as we ask that knowledge of the faith be taken in consideration as an expert voice in humanity,” he said.

Comment #58521

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 17, 2005 11:33 PM (e)

Lord Kelvin says that science is honour bound to investigate every question fairly presented to it.

And ID has nothing to present.

See how simple that was?

Do you disagree? Then please please pretty please with sugar on it, by all means go ahead and tell us (1) what the designer did, (2) what mechanisms the designer used to do whatever the heck you think it did, and (3) where we can see the designer using these mechanisms to do … well . . anything.

(sound of crickets chirping)

Yep, that’s what I thought. Another pit yorkie. All yap and no bite.

Comment #58523

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 17, 2005 11:39 PM (e)

Hey Mr Heywood, was Casey Luskin lying to us when he claimed:

Many critics of intelligent design have argued that it’s merely a negative argument against evolution. This
could not be further from the truth.

If he was, why.

If he wasn’t, would you mind showing us this “positive scientific theory of ID”, the one that’s NOT “merely a negative argument against evolution” (like your post was)?

Thanks in advance for not answering my question.

Comment #58579

Posted by Philip Bruce Heywood on November 18, 2005 6:29 AM (e)

Most contributors to this site are capable both of pressing on a link and of thinking, so I won’t waste cyberspace pointing out the obvious. – However, in response to what Lord Kelvin would think of a pontifical council – bless them all – Kelvin being now left us, and not in the way of being able to answer for himself – Forgive me, Sir William, if I get you wrong here – him being a good protestant and all, a man of the Word, he might say, Bless them all.
Anyone else got any ideas, what Kelvin might make of a pointifical council? I’m bushed. P.B. Heywood.

Comment #58586

Posted by limpidense on November 18, 2005 7:27 AM (e)

Mr. H. Jabloumee,

One of the most painfully dull experiences is the one you seem to be attempting to specialize in: being a self-admiring, self-described “wit.” You must be able to kill parties within a 50-mile radius must die faster than an entire accounting firm could ever hope.
To retort with wit at your own, borrowed, level: if your [sic] so smart why aint’ [sic] you rich?

===================================

Dear others,

What’s the worst kind of creationist?
The plain nutcases (all YECs and Bible-literalists, as well as all “lonegunmen” theorists) of course have their charm, when they are neither neighbors nor elected officials at least.
The bores (like Heywood here: three times self-awarded winner of the “Wile E. Coyote: Super-genius” Prize) are easily recognized, tagged, and released back into the wilderness of obscurity. No real harm, no foul.
The professional politicians who chime in on these issues are despicable, but they are despicable in every other possible way as well.
It’s the “intellectual” farts that presents me with something I can find neither humor nor a moral lesson worth learning. Hearing people like WD, SM, and MB say things they clearly do NOT believe, flat-out lying, evidently because they enjoy the attention and filthy lucre, really makes me feel that a certain percentage of humanity is rotten by choice, rather than by nature or nurture.
What awful people they present themselves as being! I wish them every minor unhappiness, and such wishes are bound to come true.

Other amusing opinions?

Comment #58597

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 18, 2005 8:20 AM (e)

Most contributors to this site are capable both of pressing on a link and of thinking, so I won’t waste cyberspace pointing out the obvious.

Glad to hear it.

Now then, about this “positive scientific theory of design” that Luskin says he has …. ?

Comment #58831

Posted by Philip Bruce Heywood on November 19, 2005 8:49 AM (e)

I wish to take this opportunity to commend and thank the founders and organizers of this Page. Democracy relies on free speech, which you maintain. You are leading the world in this arena, at least partly by practicing free speech. (Free speech in its political sense, not the personal sense.)
“The Reverend Doctor” is a free speech man who may well have been on the right side at Galileo’s trial - I can’t say which side I would have been on - to partially quote the Doctor, “Who the — is Luskin?” I’m bushed again. Not familiar. If he said anything usefull about DNA or the geologic column, fill me in. You are doing something right if you maintain (political) free speech. P.H..

Comment #58837

Posted by k.e. on November 19, 2005 10:25 AM (e)

Philip Bruce Heywood

Just what is your problem?
Let me guess

Earlier I said

Posted by k.e. on November 17, 2005 11:20 PM (e) (s)
….…. why do IDists pathologically have to prove that they can’t do and won’t do science or even do a simple google search but instead offer only the argument from ignorance or “god of the gaps,”.

Justify to me your laziness please.

To which you replied

Posted by Philip Bruce Heywood on November 18, 2005 06:29 AM (e) (s)

Most contributors to this site are capable both of pressing on a link and of thinking, so I won’t waste cyberspace pointing out the obvious.

???
What links, what arguement ?
Pathological laziness?

Lenny:-

Hey Mr Heywood, was Casey Luskin lying to us when he claimed:

Many critics of intelligent design have argued that it’s merely a negative argument against evolution. This
could not be further from the truth.

If he was, why.

If he wasn’t, would you mind showing us this “positive scientific theory of ID”, the one that’s NOT “merely a negative argument against evolution” (like your post was)?

Posted by Philip Bruce Heywood on November 19, 2005 08:49 AM (e) (s)

“Who the —- is Luskin?” I’m bushed again.Not familiar. If he said anything usefull about DNA or the geologic column, fill me in.

Pathological Stupidity?

Get cracking there are only 48,000 links on Google

Comment #58841

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 19, 2005 11:11 AM (e)

The Reverend Doctor” is a free speech man who may well have been on the right side at Galileo’s trial

Don’t BS me, Heywood.

Is there a positive scientific theory of ID that does NOT consists merely of negative argumetns against evolution, or isn’t there.

If there is, let’s see it.

If there’s not, then why do IDers keep talking about something (a theory of ID) that doesn’t exist.

Comment #59067

Posted by godarwin on November 21, 2005 1:57 AM (e)

Latest doings in Dover…

School Board member Napierskie says let’s drop ID statement and offer $1 in damages as new Board won’t require statement anyway. Board denies motion..

Judge John E. Jones III said the election results don’t figure into his ruling…

Board’s attorney Thompson says dropping suit would “short-circuit the entire legal strategy that was put in place by the Thomas More Law Center,” as they want to appeal to the Supreme Court…

Thompson accuses DI of pushing Napierske…

Napierske says he talked with DI, but they didn’t influence his decision. He got his advice from another attorney who said he saw a substantial risk that the judge would rule against the Board…

http://www.ydr.com/doverbiology/ci_3223198

Comment #59068

Posted by godarwin on November 21, 2005 2:18 AM (e)

Clarification: By “dropping suit” I meant “filing a motion to dismiss suit.”

Comment #63641

Posted by George Nelson on December 20, 2005 6:34 PM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'kwickxml'

Comment #63667

Posted by Paul Christopher on December 20, 2005 8:25 PM (e)

philip bruce heywood wrote:

Account for birth and rearing of the first members of the new species.

Unless you are of the belief that evolution leads to sudden (single-generation) change from one species into another (such as cats giving birth to dogs), then how is this question even relevant?

My suspicion is that you are attempting some form of clumsy satire, but it’s often difficult to tell these days.

Comment #63704

Posted by drakvl on December 20, 2005 10:26 PM (e)

Anyone hear what Bill O’Reilly had to say on the matter? Apparently he feels that Judge Jones is yet another of those damnable liberal activist judges, trying to stifle freedom of speech! In spite of the fact that, at least according to the CNN scroll, Judge Jones is personally a supporter of ID. But hey – CNN is just part of that crazy liberal media, after all!

Comment #63761

Posted by Ritchie Annand on December 21, 2005 3:24 AM (e)

Gerard, I had not heard a whole lot on the mural-burning issue apart from a caretaker having done it. I was not expecting the issue to be mentioned in the judgment that came out today.

Judge Jones wrote:

In the midst of this panoply, there arose the astonishing story of an evolution mural that was taken from a classroom and destroyed in 2002 by Larry Reeser, the head of buildings and grounds for the DASD. At the June 2004 meeting, Spahr asked Buckingham where he had received a picture of the evolution mural that had been torn down and incinerated. Jen Miller testified that Buckingham responded: “I gleefully watched it burn.” (12:118 (J. Miller)). Buckingham disliked the mural because he thought it advocated the theory of evolution, particularly common ancestry. (26:120 (Baksa)). Burning the evolutionary mural apparently was insufficient for Buckingham, however. Instead, he demanded that the teachers agree that there would never again be a mural depicting evolution in any of the classrooms and in exchange, Buckingham would agree to support the purchase of the biology textbook in need by the students. (36:56-57 (Baksa) (emphasis added))

That’s pretty horrifying. I’ve heard of some pretty bad administrators over the years, but even the dysfunctional school board here which was dissolved and re-formed six years ago wouldn’t pull anything on that scale.

On another note, we get some pretty odd things happening up here in Alberta every now and again. We have a very cool palaeontological theme in the airport here. Lots of little fossil tiles and inlays. Every now and again, someone puts a little folded cross on top of them. What the hell?

Comment #65385

Posted by Dimon on December 28, 2005 11:50 AM (e)

“WAD still has the thing up, though he’s temporized a bit in his comments section. Undergraduate physics and chemistry majors learn to solve the equation of motion of the hydrogen atom, and any one of them could tell Bill why you can’t do what the article claims to do. One has to simply conclude he doesn’t understand sophomore level physics, which is a bit sad for a Math Ph.D.”