With world watching, trial starts

The York Dispatch ^ | 9/26/2005 | CHRISTINA KAUFFMAN

[connectthedots]

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."

[connectthedots]

Miller admits evolution is not a fact:

http://www.yorkdispatch.com/local/ci_3066513

[Right Wing Professor]

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.

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.

[connectthedots]

They're giving high fives over at Panda's Thumb.

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.

[Dark Knight]

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

[Right Wing Professor]

In other words, you can't state that it is true without reservation

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.