Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

With world watching, trial starts
The York Dispatch ^ | 9/26/2005 | CHRISTINA KAUFFMAN

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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; US: Pennsylvania
KEYWORDS: anothercrevothread; crevolist; crevorepublic; enoughalready; evolution; lawsuit; played; redundant; scienceeducation
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-106 next last
To: Right Wing Professor
Sorry, all forms must triplicate originals.

Mimeographs and carbon papers are not allowed.

61 posted on 09/26/2005 3:54:22 PM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

After reading the complete article, I would hardly characterize Behe as being anything other than sceptical of Lenski's work.


62 posted on 09/26/2005 4:06:57 PM PDT by connectthedots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: connectthedots
After reading the complete article, I would hardly characterize Behe as being anything other than sceptical of Lenski's work.

I don't see where Behe is at all skeptical of Lenski's work. Behe in fact specifically brings up Lenski's work, and says if anything cool came out of it, that would convince him. And Lenski says something cool has in fact come out of it. We'll have a wait a couple of weeks to find out what that is.

Behe said he might find the mainstream scientists' argument compelling if they were to observe evolutionary leaps in the laboratory. He pointed to an experiment by Richard Lenski, a professor of microbial ecology at Michigan State University, who has been observing the evolution of E. coli bacteria for more than 15 years. "If anything cool came out of that," Behe said, "that would be one way to convince me."

Behe said that if he was correct, then the E. coli in Lenski's lab would evolve in small ways, but would never change in such a way that the bacteria would develop entirely new abilities.  

In fact, that is what appears to have happened. Lenski said his experiment was not intended to explore this aspect of evolution, but "we have recently discovered a pretty dramatic exception, one where a new and surprising function has evolved," he said.

63 posted on 09/26/2005 4:23:38 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor (Why is FR censoring mainstream science?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: bkepley
I don't think anyone despises America right now more than the British elite.

Your knowledge of the rest of the world is mazing.

64 posted on 09/26/2005 4:28:18 PM PDT by Oztrich Boy (What ever crushes individuality is despotism, no matter what name it is called. J S Mill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Then check this out: Intelligent Design: 'The Death of Science': Excerpt:
There is a way to settle this, however, because like Behe's irreducible complexity, the concept of specified complexity can also be tested.

"If Dembski were right, then a new gene with new information conferring a brand new function on an organism could never come into existence without a designer because a new function requires complex specified information," Miller said.

In 1975, Japanese scientists reported the discovery of bacteria that could break down nylon, the material used to make pantyhose and parachutes. Bacteria are known to ingest all sorts of things, everything from crude oil to sulfur, so the discovery of one that could eat nylon would not have been very remarkable if not for one small detail: nylon is synthetic; it didn't exist anywhere in nature until 1935, when it was invented by an organic chemist at the chemical company Dupont. The discovery of nylon-eating bacteria poses a problem for ID proponents. Where did the CSI for nylonase—the actual protein that the bacteria use to break down the nylon—come from?


65 posted on 09/26/2005 4:30:21 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Disclaimer -- this information may be legally false in Kansas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: connectthedots
The defendants' list is pretty impressive.

Read Behe's book. Will be pretty hard for the plaintiffs' to dispute his testimony.

As someone else already pointed out, this case isn't really about intelligent design versus evolution. Behe's testimony is ultimately irrelevant. This case will be decided on the three prongs of the Lemon v. Kurtzman test. If you take the time to look over the pleadings that are posted on the district court website, you'll realize that the "purpose" prong is already lost for the Dover School Board, one of whom went on record making several remarks clearly indicating that the purpose of introducing their "intelligent design policy" was religious in nature.

I'd be willing to place a very large wager on the outcome of this trial going in favor of the plaintiffs.

66 posted on 09/26/2005 4:30:52 PM PDT by Chiapet (Cthulhu for President: Why vote for a lesser evil?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
I don't see where Behe is at all skeptical of Lenski's work.

Behe said, "I'll wait and see."

That's not being skeptical?

67 posted on 09/26/2005 4:32:01 PM PDT by connectthedots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: connectthedots

He's skeptical of the new discovery (properly so, I might add; I'm very skeptical about anything I haven't seen in black and white in a journal, though Lenski is a good scientist), not of the work itself.


68 posted on 09/26/2005 4:35:11 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor (Why is FR censoring mainstream science?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Chiapet

Did you read the answer of the defendants?


69 posted on 09/26/2005 4:36:48 PM PDT by connectthedots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: RichInOC
Heh. If they televise Saddam's trial, I might buy that headline. If they ever file a case against the guys who whacked Natalee Holloway, and they televise that trial, I might buy that headline. As it is, I suggest that there are few trials (if any) that the entire world is less likely to be following with bated breath than this one.

One would be the trail of "the guys who whacked Natalee Holloway" - that's an American thing.

70 posted on 09/26/2005 4:38:43 PM PDT by Oztrich Boy (What ever crushes individuality is despotism, no matter what name it is called. J S Mill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
He's skeptical of the new discovery (properly so, I might add; I'm very skeptical about anything I haven't seen in black and white in a journal, though Lenski is a good scientist), not of the work itself.

If Behe is skeptical of the 'new discovery', it seems to be rather obvious that he is skeptical of the work.

I would say that Behe is an excellent scientist, who also has a firm grasp of the principles of logic.

71 posted on 09/26/2005 4:39:26 PM PDT by connectthedots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

I thought you were doing a "What I say three times is true" thing


72 posted on 09/26/2005 4:42:14 PM PDT by Oztrich Boy (What ever crushes individuality is despotism, no matter what name it is called. J S Mill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: connectthedots
If Behe is skeptical of the 'new discovery', it seems to be rather obvious that he is skeptical of the work.

He cited the work as an example of how evolution proceeds by small changes. He's skeptical about it, but he cites it as evidence in support of his position?

I would say that Behe is an excellent scientist, who also has a firm grasp of the principles of logic.

You're entitled to your opinion, of course. Mine is, that if I'd written something as universally derided in the community of scientists as 'Darwin's Black Box', I'd go into selling pharmaceuticals on the internet under an assumed name. :-)

73 posted on 09/26/2005 4:45:02 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor (Why is FR censoring mainstream science?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: connectthedots

Yes, I read the defendants' Answer, in addition to Order entered by the judge in response to their Motion to Compel deposition testimony from two reporters who apparently recorded and reported on the comments. It appears as though their case will hinge on attempting to claim that everyone who heard the comments lied about what was said.

The Discovery Institute must be livid. This is going to screw up their whole infiltration program in a major way.


74 posted on 09/26/2005 4:46:47 PM PDT by Chiapet (Cthulhu for President: Why vote for a lesser evil?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

Have you actually read Behe's book?


75 posted on 09/26/2005 4:51:18 PM PDT by connectthedots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

Just a side note on the witness list that you linked to...I do believe that Dembski is no longer going to testify or be a part of the trial in any way, and it may be the same situation for Behe, though I'm just guessing on that one.


76 posted on 09/26/2005 4:53:08 PM PDT by Chiapet (Cthulhu for President: Why vote for a lesser evil?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: connectthedots
Have you actually read Behe's book?

Yes, I have. It was painful.

77 posted on 09/26/2005 4:53:26 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor (Why is FR censoring mainstream science?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Chiapet

I believe Behe is slated to testify, though not in any way representing DI. As a Pennsylvania IDer, it would be hard for him to explain away a refusal.


78 posted on 09/26/2005 4:54:44 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor (Why is FR censoring mainstream science?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

Ah, poor man. Catch 22 for him, huh. Still, couldn't have happened to a more well-deserving fellow!


79 posted on 09/26/2005 4:56:35 PM PDT by Chiapet (Cthulhu for President: Why vote for a lesser evil?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: agere_contra

That's the way I feel...God started it all, then things evolved....there's just no way to prove anything.


80 posted on 09/26/2005 4:58:11 PM PDT by stuartcr (Everything happens as God wants it to.....otherwise, things would be different.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-106 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson