Posted on 06/20/2005 12:53:15 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
Seemingly, they’re would-be allies. But a disagreement last week over legal representation means three experts with connections to the pro-intelligent design Discovery Institute will not be testifying in a federal court case on behalf of the Dover Area School Board.
The three experts — William Dembski, Stephen Meyer and John Campbell — were slated for testimony on the debate over intelligent design.
But last week, their names were removed from the list before they could give depositions in the case.
Eric Rothschild, plaintiffs’ attorney with Pepper Hamilton, said he was baffled by the decision.
Meyer is the director of Discovery Institute’s Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture, which funds research projects related to intelligent design. Dembski and Campbell are senior fellows there.
Dembski, a mathematician and scientific philosopher, said the Thomas More Law Center, which is defending the school board, basically fired him because he wanted to have his own attorney present during the depositions.
He said he’s puzzled and frustrated by Thomas More’s refusal to let him participate. “I felt like I was in the crossfire,” Dembski said.
Even though Discovery is probably the country’s leading proponent of intelligent design, it opposes the Dover Area School Board’s decision to make the concept regarding life’s origins part of its science curriculum.
Its members say they don’t oppose intelligent design being taught in the schools, they merely oppose it being mandated.
In December, 11 parents filed a lawsuit against the decision, arguing that the board violated the First Amendment clause prohibiting the establishment of religion.
While Dembski said he disagrees with many aspects of Darwinism, “there is still a long way at hammering out ID as a full-fledged research program. That said, there is nobody I know that says intelligent design should be mandated. I think this is the problem with Dover. It’s not a way you build consensus and help education along.”
But Richard Thompson, Thomas More president, said the decision to not use the three experts had nothing to do with their positions on intelligent design and whether it should be mandated in a classroom.
Rather, he said he objected to the experts bringing along their own lawyers, calling it a “conflict of interest.”
“The case involves the school board and the parents,” he said. “Now, if you have attorneys coming in and representing the experts and their attorneys are saying, ‘Don’t answer that question,’ then you have a conflict with the aims of the school board.”
Thompson said the problem arose in the past several weeks when the Discovery Institute insisted that its people have separate legal representation. But Thompson said the defense remains well represented.
Scott Minnich of the University of Idaho and Michael Behe of Lehigh University, along with Warren Nord, a University of North Carolina professor, and Dick Carpenter of Focus on the Family, have already given their depositions and are prepared to testify.
Behe and Minnich are also Discovery fellows. They gave their depositions before the debate over legal representation began.
No one at the Discovery Institute returned repeated calls for comment.
In addition to his connections with Discovery, Dembski is also working as an editor and writer for the Foundation of Thoughts and Ethics, publishers of the pro-intelligent design book, “Of Pandas and People.”
Last month, the nonprofit textbook publisher filed a motion to join the fight against the lawsuit. The lawsuit could harm the Texas company’s financial interests and educational goals since “Of Pandas” is being used in the district, its attorneys argue.
“FTE primarily will focus on plaintiffs’ purpose to destroy both intelligent-design theory as a viable scientific explanation to the origins of life and FTE’s ability to market textbooks,” according to a motion filed Monday in U.S. Middle District Court in Harrisburg.
Dembski said he thinks the whole issue is unfortunate. “Discovery and Thomas More have their differences,” he said. “I have a lot of loyalty with Discovery.”
Dover and intelligent design
On Oct. 18, when its school board voted 6-3 to approve science curriculum changes, the Dover Area School District is believed to have become the first district in the country to include intelligent design in its high-school biology curriculum.
Intelligent design is the idea that life is too complex to have evolved solely through natural selection and therefore must have been created by some intelligent force.
Its supporters say it’s about fairness — giving time to alternative views to evolution.
Its critics say it’s not science, but a way of forcing Christianity into biology class. In December, 11 parents filed a federal civil-rights suit against the district.
On Jan. 18 and 19, as part of the school board’s mandate, district administrators read a statement to ninth-grade biology students in which intelligent design was mentioned.
|
How Clintonesque!
So Dembski, Meyer, and Campbell decided to lawyer up. What do they have to hide? Their scientific qualifications? Their publications? Their source of funding?
Their motives:
Discovery Institute's "Wedge Project". Replacing science with theism.
The Wedge at Work. The Discovery Institute's war against reason.
The "Wedge Document": "So What?" The Discovery Institute defends the Wedge document.
Um, connections to Radical Islamic anti-Science organizations in Turkey, perhaps?
I think the TMLC has got a good point here: A scientist shouldn't need to have a lawyer present at a deposition about science matters -- that's simply silly, IMHO. Methinks maybe DI has shot itself in the foot here....
Thanks for the interesting post, Patrick!
Interesting that you mention this. The "expert" who testified against evolution in Kansas writes in praise of creationism, and recommends it to his fellow followers of Islam, while praising the Discovery Institute (see the second link).
Mustafa Akyol (Turkish creationist) testifies in Kansas "Monkey Trial".
Why Muslims Should Support Intelligent Design, By Mustafa Akyol.
DI is a Moonie organization. ID shoots itself in the foot when it associated with Moonies and radical Muslims. And when it tries to get an ideology taught in public schools before it has an actual research program (their words, not mine).
I'm shocked, shocked to hear this! < /"Casblanca" mode>
So the creationists at DI have something to hide. How interesting. But not surprising. These guys have smelled crooked to me since day one.
This might have something to do with the fact that neither Intelligent Design or Evolution have anything to do with life's origins.
There's a lot going on that the ID gang don't want you to know:
Science Research Foundation. Inspired by the books and writings of Harun Yahya (see next link).
Harun Yahya International. Islamic creationism
Islamic Scientific Creationism: A New Challenge in Turkey. Links between Harun Yahya and ICR's Gish and Morris.
SRF (Science Research Foundation) Conferences US and Islamic creationists working together. Pics!
Not only that, the ID movement has other strange adherents:
The Raelian Theory. Intelligent Design finds support among the Raelians.
Fine, fine js1138. We already know your opinion of DI. But really, "moonies and radical Muslims?"
ID can say it allows for all of us being designed by Kumquats, but that doesn't add anything to its credibility. Where did the aliens come from? Did they evolve.
Evolution does not deny God or solve the mystery of creation. All it does is describe how living populations change over time.
It's not just all IDers, Creationists all basically UNIVERSALLY believe that the theory of Evolution is about how life spontaneously formed from non-life (which actually is abiogenesis, not evolution), rather than an explanation of speciation.
I've found it's basically hopeless to even begin trying to explain to them otherwise, and since IDers and creationists don't even have the foggies clue of what the debate is ABOUT, you can't even begin to have a rational debate about Evolution.
I think the TMLC has got a good point here: A scientist shouldn't need to have a lawyer present at a deposition about science matters -- that's simply silly, IMHO.
There is a legal term for the Thomas More Center's attorney's claim that there is a conflict of interest in having personal counsel sitting in with the deponent. It is what is known, in the legal profession, as "a load of crap."
In civil matters, the scope of the matter which is discoverable in a deposition is very broad; basically, so long as it is not privileged and could somehow lead to admissible evidence, it is fair game. BUT, and this is the important point, if personal counsel objects and there is any dispute as to whether the question has to be answered or not, it is a simple matter to make a motion to compel discovery and get the judge to order the expert to answer the question. If there is no good basis for the objection, or it is out of bounds, then the judge will direct the expert to answer the question. Otherwise, if the objection is valid, then the expert shouldn't have to answer the question, even if the Thomas More people want him to.
That being said, I don't understand why these folks need personal counsel, unless the DI is afraid that they may say something which can be used against DI. What that may be would be speculation...
Permit me to speculate. Would any of these questions be bothersome to the Discovery Institute's "experts"?
1. Describe the peer-reviewed research that supports your "theory."
2. Describe the evidence that contradicts your claims of "irreducible complexity."
3. Are you familiar with the Discovery Institute's "Wedge Project"?
4. What are the principal sources of your funding?
5. What is your best guess as to the identity of the Intelligent Designer?
I speculate that DI doesn't want its source of funding revealed under oath.
I can't imagine why being funded by a reclusive millionaire who previously served on the board of two organizations whose goals were "to replace American democracy with a theocracy based on biblical law and under the dominion of Christians." would be an embarassment. Gosh, don't all creationists want that?
"Father's words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When Father chose me (along with about a dozen other seminary graduates) to enter a Ph.D. program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle.-- Dr. Jonathan Wells
Thank you. I didn't have the references at my fingertips.
Thanks to an initial clue from dread78645, those links -- and more -- are now in The List-O-Links, in a new section called THE INTERNATIONAL ISLAMIC-CREATIONISM ALLIANCE
Follow the money. Check out funding for some other Conservative endeavors, too. (Start with World Net Daily and News Max.) The Washington Times and UPI are too big to be really influenced by their owner.
What really gets me is when they spend enormous amounts of energy trying to prove that ID is non-theistic, then try to use it to discredit religion's putative number one foe.
Jon Wells is an unabashed moonie who refers to the reverend as "father".
The first international conference titled "The Collapse of the Theory of Evolution: The Truth of Creation" was held in 4 April 1998 in Istanbul. Two of the three speakers were from ICR; Drs. Duane Gish and Kenneth Cumming.
Source: CONFERENCES OF THE SRF.
True Goals and Financial Supporters of the Discovery Institute. The Ahmanson connection.
The Discovery Institute: Following the Money.
Be warned. Crevo threads can get obnoxious.
Thank you both for the pings!
(Handel the music with care.)
Which simply begs the question: "Whut the hail do we want to have lawyers adjudicate science issues fer?" Where there is a lawyer about, politics is never far behind.
And this entire issue of Darwinian Evolution v. Intelligent Design seemingly is increasing showing all the signs of a shallow political debate.
As far as I'm concerned, if the Discovery Institute wants to climb into the same bed as the neo-Darwinists, then may they both "be hoist on the same petard."
And "a pox on both houses."
I don't have the time or interest for sectarian disputes. I want to see real science being done by real people with real ideas. And then to follow the logical trail they lay down.
I don't think that's asking for too much. FWIW. Thanks for writing, WHC!
So what? What does this have to do with Intelligent Design theory? I don't think ID "wants" to "destroy" Darwinism. I think ID wants to supplement it where there are reasonable indications that it needs supplementation. :^)
Thanks for dropping me a line, dread....
Dear Doc, that would be the greatest waste of my time and energy that I could think of right now.
If I don't like science reduced to "politics," I'm probably not going to like it any better reduced to "soap opera."
So thank you, please excuse me, forgive me; but I'll take a pass.
Thanks for writing, Doc.
Oh tsk tsk tsk.... A chacon son goute.....
You asked the question. If you don't want an answer, don't ask.
Thank you so much for your insights!
But consider this...
While Dembski said he disagrees with many aspects of Darwinism, “there is still a long way at hammering out ID as a full-fledged research program.
ID could be right or wrong, but it is not yet science.
I notice that these guys surrendered before the first shot was fired. Perhaps they should be referred to as Les Trois.
Things seem to get "curiouser and curiouser," Alamo-Girl. I'm very disappointed. But no matter: Science goes on.
Thanks to FesterChugabrew, today I came across some fascinating articles by Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, U.S. Naval Academy (recently retired). I downloaded a whole boodle of 'em, and have read two this evening: "The Wondrous Design and Non-random Character of 'Chance' Events," and "Simplifying the Technical Aspects of the G, D-World, MA models and U-cosmology."
Believe it or not, I should have read the second article before the first, IMHO. For despite its daunting title, "Simplifying the Technical Aspects...." is by far the "simpler" piece, laying down -- in the simplest, clearest, non-technical language -- some highly refined mathematical principles that the author suspects ungirds and thus explains the Universe in ways susceptible to direct human observation. Plus the article is a kind of outline or "Cliffs Notes" of a much more elaborated theory presented in many subsequent articles and four books. (Which apparently, virtually not a single human has ever read. Pity.)
Anyhoot, if any one's "game" (i.e., has the time and/or interest regarding the above), I'd love to hear from you....
Very intriguing stuff IMHO.
Thanks so much for writing, A-G! Hugs!!!
I asked a question regarding the logical/evidentiary tie-in between DI and Moonies and/or Radical Muslims. I am still waiting for an answer. Why would I want to retract my question?
I'm sure I'll have a comment or two once I've absorbed it.
js1138, frankly, I don't care what you call it. The important thing (at least to me ) is that you keep an open mind, and "follow the evidentiary trail" wherever it leads....
Thanks for writing, guy....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.