Posted on 09/27/2005 9:21:27 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
HARRISBURG, Pa. - The second day of a trial over what students should be told about evolution and alternative views of life's origins veered briefly into a discussion of faith.
Brown University biologist Kenneth Miller, a witness for eight families suing the Dover Area School District for introducing the concept of "intelligent design," was asked by a school attorney whether faith and reason are compatible.
"I believe not only that they are compatible but that they are complimentary," said Miller, who had earlier volunteered that he was a practicing Roman Catholic.
Pressed on that point, Miller was asked why a biology textbook he had written included a statement that evolution is "random and undirected." Miller said he had a co-author on the textbook, a 1995 edition, and that he missed that statement. He said he did not believe evolution was random and undirected.
It was the second day on the witness stand for Miller, whose testimony Monday made the landmark trial sound like a science lecture, with references to DNA, red blood cells, viruses and complex charts shown on a projection screen.
Even U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III was a little overwhelmed.
"I guess I should say, 'Class dismissed,'" Jones said before recessing for lunch.
Dover is believed to be the nation's first school system to mandate students be exposed to the intelligent design concept. Its policy requires school administrators to read a brief statement before classes on evolution that says Charles Darwin's theory is "not a fact" and has inexplicable "gaps." It refers students to an intelligent-design textbook for more information.
Intelligent design holds that Darwin's theory of natural selection cannot fully explain the origin of life or the emergence of highly complex life forms. It implies that life on Earth was the product of an unidentified intelligent force.
Eight families sued, saying that the district policy in effect promotes the Bible's view of creation, violating the constitutional separation of church and state.
On Monday, Miller said the policy undermines scientific education by wrongly raising doubts about evolutionary theory.
"It's the first movement to try to drive a wedge between students and the scientific process," he said.
But the rural school district of about 3,500 students argues it is not endorsing any religious view and is merely giving ninth-grade biology classes a glimpse of differences in evolutionary theory.
"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.
The non-jury trial is expected to take five weeks.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs began their case by arguing that intelligent design is a religious theory inserted in the school district's curriculum by the school board with no concern for whether it has scientific underpinnings.
"They did everything you would do if you wanted to incorporate a religious point of view in science class and cared nothing about its scientific validity," attorney Eric Rothschild said.
Miller, who was the only witness Monday, sharply criticized intelligent design and questioned the work that went into it by one of its leading proponents, Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe, who will be a key witness for the district.
The statement read to Dover students states in part, "Because Darwin's theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered." Miller said the words are "tremendously damaging," falsely undermining the scientific status of evolution.
"What that tells students is that science can't be relied upon and certainly is not the kind of profession you want to go into," he said.
"There is no controversy within science over the core proposition of evolutionary theory," he added.
On the other hand, Miller said, "intelligent design is not a testable theory in any sense and as such it is not accepted by the scientific community."
During his cross-examination of Miller, Robert Muise, another attorney for the law center, repeatedly asked whether he questioned the completeness of Darwin's theory.
"Would you agree that Darwin's theory is not the absolute truth?" Muise said.
"We don't regard any scientific theory as the absolute truth," Miller responded.
The Dover lawsuit is the newest chapter in a history of evolution litigation dating back to the Scopes Monkey Trial in Tennessee nearly 80 years ago. More recently, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1987 that states may not require public schools to balance evolution lessons by teaching creationism.
You can't read, you don't understand the establishment clause or that that particular clause is the only issue before the court.
As for ID, I'm not an ID'er, I'm a Catholic who believes that God created it all.
For future reference, what is the accurate calculation?
That's about the same odds of a shuffled deck of cards coming up in the order they do.
There is none, its impossible to calculate something like that.
Very good Narby, you have a good grasp of the issue before the court.
Members of the school board are on record saying precisely that their motivation *is* to insert religion into public schools. And the textbook they recommended was originally written in support of the explicitly religious "creationism" viewpoint, and the text was changed only to replace the word "creationism" with the words "Intelligent Design".
Now, you're falling down on the law. Motivation is not justiciable by federal courts, only actions are. The 1A prohibits the feds or states from "establishing religion". The Dover School Board has established no religion nor favored any religion over any other. And plain reading of the 1A would make the case farcical and it would be thrown out of court. Any conservative should question why this case is in federal court, it is a local issue to be decided by locals absent aby coecion that violates the Constitution.
The Discovery Institute, which is almost solely devoted to the ID issue has bailed out of this one. I'm sure they can see a defeat coming, and don't want to be tainted by it.
I don't attend mass at the DI, I attend mass at St James in Danielson, Ct.
You guys are going to lose this one. Badly.
Maybe, maybe not but if the court rules for the statists here, we all lose.
Impossible? Why?
Improbability is not equal to impossibility.
A dangerous thing to do. We should encourage more study of the scientific process, not less. We are falling behind many other parts of the world.
I'm still porting data in from the older database, but for all intents and purposes, yes.
Nice try but not everyone believes life "happened" in the manner you do. Thus, your comment is based on a rather shaky premise.
That said, continue . . .
PH, this is just a rant. Biology is science, while evolution is merely academic opinion based largely on philosophy. An attack on biology might be an attack on science in general, but an attack on a philosophy that is being inserted into a science class is not an attack on science. Biology continues regardless of what the origin of any species is, whether one be creationist, or evolutionist, biology remains the same.
As for ID, I'm not an ID'er, I'm a Catholic who believes that God created it all.
I can read, I do understand the establishment clause as it is currently applied, and I am aware that it is the only issue before this court. Oh, and I never specifically accused you of being an ID'er.
ID is an attempt to insert religious beliefs into science classrooms. The policy being challenged requires a mandatory statement to be presented in a mandatory class to students who are required by law to attend school. Now, to repeat myself in the context of all this: ID proponents are lying by claiming that ID is not based on religion. They are doing so to deliberately try to circumvent the religious rights of the students to not have religion imposed upon them. I cannot fathom someone thinking that such deception is virtuous, and I certainly cannot approve of someone wishing to reward their lies by granting them their desire to force their beliefs on others without the recipients having a choice in the matter.
You say you are not an ID'er, and I believe you. But do you stand in support of those who practice deception in the name of God?
14'th Amendment. "Should" is another question, but that's why.
...absent aby coecion...
Looks like someone picked the wrong week to switch to decaf ;)
The implication made is that the chances that it happened are small. This has no bearing on whether it actually did or didn't happen, as either way it has already occurred. So my claim that it is useless to use statistics to predict the past stands. In other words, how likely it is that something happened is not proof that it didn't happen.
Thanks for the ping!
I agree, retroactively. See my awesome post on another thread:
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.