Posted on 09/26/2005 12:14:08 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
Members of the national and international press gathered outside the federal courthouse in Harrisburg this morning for the start of a trial that could determine the fate of intelligent design in public school.
The BBC, London Guardian and People magazine were among news agencies outside the courtroom, where the case of Kitzmiller v. Dover began at 9 a.m.
Julian Borger, a Washington-based reporter for the Guardian, said the interest in the United Kingdom is in the American school system. He said people in the UK don't have the ability to vote on what is or isn't taught in school.
"There are a small percentage of people who believe in intelligent design," Borger said, "but some also believe it's a peculiarly American phenomenon."
BBC producer James Van der Pool said: "There is no single view in the UK. There's a curiosity about how something like this can create such a stir.
"Evolution is more accepted in the UK," he added. "Our interest is whether there is anything in this (intelligent design). Is it an American affair and is it going to come over here (the UK)?"
The federal court case filed against the Dover Area School District and its school board over mention of intelligent design in biology classes was to begin with opening statements by the district's attorneys and those representing 11 parents who filed the suit in December.
The parents, along with the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, were expected to argue that the school board had religious motives in requiring a statement about intelligent design to be read in biology classes. They also contend intelligent design is based on religion.
The school board's attorneys from the Thomas More Law Center,
a Michigan-based public interest law firm that often represents Christians who say their rights have been violated, were expected to argue that the board had a secular purpose in mentioning intelligent design as an "alternative theory" to evolution and intelligent design is scientifically sound.
Intelligent design says living things are so complicated they had to have been created by a higher being, that life is too complex to have developed by evolution as described by biologist Charles Darwin.
The parents and their attorney assert that intelligent design is akin to creationism.
The first week: After opening statements, the parents' attorneys will begin to present their case. Their witnesses are expected to testify at least through the first week. Once the parents' attorneys have rested their case, the defense will have an opportunity to call witnesses.
Brown University professor and biologist Kenneth Miller was expected to take the stand first for the parents.
Miller, who teaches in Brown's Department of Biology & Medicine, is known nationally for his opposition to teaching "intelligent design" as part of public school science courses.
He has said that intelligent design fails to hold up to scientific tests, and that it is a philosophical concept that is not scientifically rooted.
Miller's testimony is scheduled to conclude tomorrow.
He will be followed by fact witnesses -- or those who can testify about the events that frame the case -- that neither side would publicly name.
Wednesday's testimony is expected to steer back to science with Rob Pennock, a Michigan State University professor of science and philosophy.
Pennock wrote the book "Tower of Babel: The Evidence against the New Creationism" and edited "Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical, Theological, and Scientific Perspectives," both published by The MIT Press.
Pennock is expected to share time Wednesday with intelligent design historian Barbara Forrest, a professor of philosophy at Southeastern Louisiana University.
Forrest has written several scientific publications about intelligent design and co-wrote "Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design," with Paul R. Gross, published by Oxford University Press.
The book details the "wedge strategy" intelligent design proponents use to slowly push the concept into mainstream national education politics, according to the book's sleeve.
ACLU staff attorney Paula Knudsen said Forrest has researched the evolution of the creationism movement into the intelligent design movement, and she is expected to show the links between intelligent design and its alleged ancestor, creation science and creationism.
The week's final witness is expected to be Jack Haught, professor of theology at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C., and director of the Georgetown Center for the Study of Science and Religion.
He has written several books, including "Science and Religion: From Conflict to Conversation," and "Deeper Than Darwin: Evolution and the Question of God."
In a 2002 interview with the National Center for Science Education, Haught said intelligent design's scientific arguments are "theological diversions, not scientifically fruitful suppositions."
All media seats taken: As scientific, philosophical and theological witnesses converge on Harrisburg, so do representatives of the media.
The 40 courtroom seats available to the media have been grabbed by both local and national members of the press, ranging from The York Dispatch to the New York Times and National Public Radio.
The court's clerks have been expecting a hearty showing from the public as well.
About 40 courtroom seats are available to the public on a first-come, first-served basis. They will be distributed on the ninth floor, beginning an hour before the start of the trial. Spectators must be seated within 15 minutes before court is in session.
Passes may not be reserved in advance for members of the public.
Those who are unable to be accommodated in the courtroom will be directed to an auxiliary room where the trial will be broadcast through a closed-circuit audio feed.
Portion of today's article regarding testimony on Monday. miller seems to have admitted that evolution is not a 'fact'. Anyone who tries to suggest that gravity and friction are not 'facts' in the same way evolution is not a 'fact' is going to have problems later on in his cross examination. I don't think Miller is going to hold up very well.
http://www.yorkdispatch.com/local/ci_3066513
"Cross examination starts: The ACLU's Walczak ended his line of questioning with Miller with about an hour and a half left in the day.
Robert Muise, attorney with the Thomas More Law Center, began his cross examination by suggesting that maybe there was evidence, "observable, empirical facts" to a greater hand's help in the Red Sox victory.
His next line of questions seemed to focus on the language used in the board's policy, which says there are "gaps" in Darwin's theory.
But Miller countered that no scientific theory is a fact: Even the theories of friction and gravity are not "fact" because in science, everything is subject to testing.
Bonsell said he thought the first day of the trial was successful for the school board. In his opinion, he said, Miller had not said that the language in the school board's policy was incorrect."
Miller admits evolution is not a fact:
http://www.yorkdispatch.com/local/ci_3066513
They're giving high fives over at Panda's Thumb. Our side thinks he hit it out of the park.
Of course evolution is not a fact. It's a theory.
I've not visited that site.
Our side thinks he hit it out of the park.
Unless one reads the actual transcript, it's hard to tell. Based on the article in the paper today, Miller didn't even come close to hitting it out of the park. The cross-examination of Miller was not completed yesterday, so it will be interesting to see how today went. With a five week trial, this is just getting started. i don't think miller is going to be as strong a witness as some on the evolution side think.
Of course evolution is not a fact. It's a theory.
In other words, you can't state that it is true without reservation? Isn't that what the ID camp has be saying for years? There are a lot of evolutionists who claim that evolution is an established fact; and many of the pro-evolutionists on FR are among them.
Behe's testimony is going to be very interesting and I would suggest the same concerning Phillip Johnson, if he testifies.
This may or may not wind up being a battle the ACLU should have sat out.
Talkorigins.org says it is a fact and a theory.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
Kind of funny, in a Marie Antoinette way.
>>In October 2004, the Dover board voted 6-3 to require teachers to read a brief statement about intelligent design to students before classes on evolution. The statement says Darwin’s theory is “not a fact” and has inexplicable “gaps,” and refers students to an intelligent-design textbook for more information.<<
Sounds like the teachers still teach evolution, but have to acknowledge it's just a theory, just as you proudly proclaim (now). If they want other info on ID, which is not taught, they are given a reference.
But of course a brief reference to ID will bring down evolution.
LOL
DK
No. I can say the Theory of Special Relativity is also true, without reservation. The experimental evidence is so extensive there is no significant chance of falsification.
There are a lot of evolutionists who claim that evolution is an established fact; and many of the pro-evolutionists on FR are among them.
We're dealing in semantics here. Is it a fact that OJ killed Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman, or a theory? Is it a fact that Charlie Manson masterminded the murder of Sharon Tate, or that LHO killed JFK?
Behe's testimony is going to be very interesting and I would suggest the same concerning Phillip Johnson, if he testifies.
He won't. The only way he'd testify is if the plaintiffs could figure out a way to subpoena him. Johnson's made so many rash statements about ID he'd be a sitting duck, Professor of Law or not.
I don't think Behe's going to be a good witness. Miller's an award winning teacher and textbook author. Those skills translate pretty well to the witness stand. Behe's a science nerd; research scientists, particularly those who haven't done much teaching, are often totally discombobulated under cross-examination (I've done quite a bit of expert witness work, and I've seen it happen. I saw one guy forced to completely contradict himself at a deposition, for heaven's sake. Our attorney looked like a cat who'd just swallowed a mouse.)
Worse for Behe, he'll not be able to live down his testimony. Writing silly books was one thing, but actively testifying on the anti-science side in a trial like this is quite another. He will be completely ostracized.
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.