Ex-Teacher Testifies in Evolution Case [Day 3 of trial in Dover, PA]

The Intelligencer (PA) via phillyBurbs ^ | 28 September 2005 | MARTHA RAFFAELE

[PatrickHenry]

HARRISBURG, Pa. - A former physics teacher testified that his rural school board ignored faculty protests before deciding to introduce the theory of "intelligent design" to high school students.

"I saw a district in which teachers were not respected for their professional expertise," Bryan Rehm, a former teacher at Dover High School, said Tuesday.

Rehm, who now teaches in another district, is a plaintiff in the nation's first trial over whether public schools can teach "intelligent design."

Eight Dover families are trying to have the controversial theory removed from the curriculum, arguing that it violates the constitutional separation of church and state. They say it effectively promotes the Bible's view of creation.

Proponents of intelligent design argue that life on Earth was the product of an unidentified intelligent force, and that Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection cannot fully explain the origin of life or the emergence of highly complex life forms.

Aralene "Barrie" Callahan, a former member of the Dover school board and another plaintiff in the case, said that at least two board members made statements during meetings that made her believe the new policy was religiously based.

At a retreat in March 2003, a board member "expressed he did not believe in evolution and if evolution was part of the biology curriculum, creationism had to be shared 50-50," Callahan testified.

At a school board meeting in June 2004, when she was no longer on the board, Callahan recalled another board member complaining that a biology book recommended by the administration was "laced with Darwinism."

"They were pretty much downplaying evolution as something that was credible," she said.

In October 2004, the 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.

In a separate development Tuesday, two freelance newspaper reporters who covered the school board in June 2004 both invoked their First Amendment rights and declined to provide a deposition to lawyers for the school district.

Both are expected in court Wednesday to respond to a subpoena to testify at trial, said Niles Benn, a lawyer for the papers. Lawyers for the school district have questioned the accuracy of articles in which the reporters wrote that board members discussed creationism during public meetings.

In other testimony Tuesday, plaintiff Tammy Kitzmiller said that in January, her younger daughter opted out of hearing the statement - an option given all students - putting her in an awkward position.

"My 14-year-old daughter had to make the choice between staying in the classroom and being confused ... or she had to be singled out and face the possible ridicule of her friends and classmates," she said.

The Dover Area School District, which serves about 3,500 students, is believed to be the nation's first school system to mandate that students be exposed to the intelligent design concept. It argues it is not endorsing any religious view and only letting students know there are differences of opinion about evolution.

The non-jury trial is expected to take five weeks.

[Tribune7]

If we lived in that biblical land, and I wanted you dead, and I was in power (or favored by those in power) and you weren't, you would be dead.

That's true of most non-Western places (why?) and is less true of ancient Israel than those nations that surrounded it.

Anyway blasphemy has a completely different meaning than doubt.

[connectthedots]

Your illustration has no basis in reality. It is nothing more than wild speculation.

[connectthedots]

Wrong...it's not a requirement and sciation is gradual, just like the transition from green to blue on a spectrum

You may want to think it is the same, but it isn't. You are comparing biology to light waves. They are not the same. More wild speculation.

[bobdsmith]

Classifying organisms into species is simply a clustering exercise based on their features. Much like how dots have been clustered in the image below:

Each dot represents an organism and the distance between organisms is how related they are. In reality organisms have many more than 2 features, some of them are discrete features rather than continuous ones, and some animals have features that other's don't. So there is no one single easy way of clustering them. You could compare physical features, or DNA, or behaviour, or a mix of all of these. The end goal is the same - to get a list of clusters which organisms fall into.

For example even though tigers and lions can interbreed, they fall into two distinct clusters and so are treated as seperate species.

Populations change over time and therefore the clusters move:

Evolution is about how the shape and position of clusters changes over time.

Eventually a cluster representing a species could have moved far enough through feature space that it is considered that a speciation event has occured:

This is because the old population and new population are far enough apart that they would be considered seperate clusters if they co-existed at the same time. This is just one method of speciation.

Another method involves a cluster growing in size so that organisms on either side are very far apart, and possibly may not be able to even interbreed (like in ring species). All that is needed is for the middle organisms to disapear which would mean two seperate smaller clusters instead of one larger cluster:

[bobdsmith]

Your illustration has no basis in reality. It is nothing more than wild speculation.

You claimed: It would have to occur from one generation to the next. the reality is that for speciation to be true, the offspring of on set of parents would have to be a different species

My illustration showed why your claim was wrong. It doesn't have to happen like you said. It can happen gradually.

[From many - one.]

Nice diagram.

[From many - one.]

Excuse me, but I teach this stuff. How much background do you have?

[Antonello]

Forgive me, but I am growing weary of trying to explain why I would oppose a tyrannical, fascist, bloodthirsty regime where being in power not only means you have free reign to murder and steal for your own selfish reasons but are above the very laws that hold others under your absolute control.

Perhaps instead you could explain why you believe such a system and its harsh methods are so appealing to you.

[connectthedots]

Excuse me, but I teach this stuff. How much background do you have?

Teach at what level? Teach about light waves, biology, physic, chemistry, or biochemistry?

Exactly what substantive relationship do you see between visible light spectrum and evolution?

[From many - one.]

College.

General Biology, Botany, Biology for non-science majors (my favorite, great seeing their eyes light up when they "get it"), Human Anatomy... plus museum associated popular science classes, plus grad classes etc.

Your turn, you didn't answer my question about your background.

[Tribune7]

I am growing weary of trying to explain why I would oppose a tyrannical, fascist, bloodthirsty regime

You haven't explained why. You simply claim that you would.

[connectthedots]

I see you are obviously not in the same league as Behe. Seems to me you have rather mediocre credentials.

As for me, letus just say my IQ is more than three standard deviations above average; have superior skills in logic, and can analyze and make senxe of lots of information. Also have a PhD in recognizing B.S., such as when some mediocre college instructor (you didn't say you were a phD or professor, or even asst. professor) tries to equate the visible light spectrum with evolution.

BTW, what exactly is the relationship between evolution/biology and the visible light spectrum?

[From many - one.]

IOW you have no useful background in the biological sciences.

You also seem not to recognize an analogy when you see it.

I gave you enough information to document my ability to speak authoritatively on evolution. I give limited personal information on the internet and will, under no circumstances, document a degree or school.

I'm glad you are happy with your IQ.

[jennyp]

As for me, letus just say my IQ is more than three standard deviations above average; have superior skills in logic, and can analyze and make senxe of lots of information. Also have a PhD in recognizing B.S., such as when some mediocre college instructor (you didn't say you were a phD or professor, or even asst. professor) tries to equate the visible light spectrum with evolution.

So, ummm, how's that lawsuit going that you were loudly bragging was going to bring down the WA State government?

[connectthedots]

You also seem not to recognize an analogy when you see it.

i recognize analogies. I also know when someone misuses them, such as comparing the visible spectrum to evolution, like you tried to do.

I gave you enough information to document my ability to speak authoritatively on evolution. I give limited personal information on the internet and will, under no circumstances, document a degree or school.

I didn't ask for the name of a school, and I hardly see how stating your level of education would be revealing anything. Probably have a MS, at best, and teach at some CC or JC.

[connectthedots]

Actually, it's going quite well. There are some interesting thiongs that will be happening in the next month or two. Thanks for asking.

[jennyp]

Well, good for you if anything finally comes of that. But meanwhile you're acting like a wiggly defense lawyer on creation, and it's causing the barrenness of the position you're defending to be all the more apparent.

[connectthedots]

I simply think the ToE has too many 'gaps' to be accepted as the truth; and there are certainly enough of them that it is not unreasonable to point out that they exist.

I am also honest enough to admit that I believe in ID/creation and don't see that great a difference between the two, other than that those who believe in creation are more likely to be religious, with Christianity being a significant one.

I am also honest enough to admit that believe in ID/creation requires an element of faith as well; but there is substantial evidence for it.

On the other hand, I would also say that a belief in the ToE also requires a degree of faith. If there are 'gaps' in the ToE, some faith must be present.

It's my personal opinion that belief in evolution requires more faith than in ID/creation, but I can see where those on the evolution side might think the opposite.

I don't think I've been evasive about ID/creation. I've never said that you can prove, in a positive sense, that id is true. My arguments have simply been that the evidence doesn't support evolution, and especially macro-evolution. I have never had a problem with natural selection, and I don't think any intelligent IDer does.

I have never defended the use of actual numbers in proclaiming the improbability of evolution. While I think the odds against evolution are extraordinarily high, I don't see how the proponents of those numbers can reach them without considerable speculation in the same way I think evolutionists have to resort to mind-boggling speculation to explain away problems with evolution.

You and I obviously disagree in the evolution v. ID/creation debate, I don't think it would be fair to say I am being intellectually dishonest.

[jennyp]

...I am also honest enough to admit that believe in ID/creation requires an element of faith as well; but there is substantial evidence for it.

On the other hand, I would also say that a belief in the ToE also requires a degree of faith. If there are 'gaps' in the ToE, some faith must be present.

It's my personal opinion that belief in evolution requires more faith than in ID/creation, but I can see where those on the evolution side might think the opposite. ...

You and I obviously disagree in the evolution v. ID/creation debate, I don't think it would be fair to say I am being intellectually dishonest.

That's fine, but on these threads you're just sitting there saying "speculation!" every tine someone shows you an analogy or piece of evidence for evolution. It's like you're whipping out a cross & holding it up to the screen while you chant "lalalalalalalaicanthearyoulalalalalala". You're agressively trying not to comprehend what's before you. Whether or not that means you're being intellectully dishonest I leave as an exercise for the reader.

[From many - one.]

Sorry that you neither understand the analogy nor are willing to consider there might be something here to learn.

Oh, and I don't get goaded. You've got all the personal information I am willing to give.