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.
Free SeaLion!First Modernman, and now SeaLion's been suspended/banned??? Seesh!!!
Considering the various design defects in the human body, that's a more plausible theory than ID...
The defendants' list is pretty impressive.
Read Behe's book. Will be pretty hard for the plaintiffs' to dispute his testimony.
It's not just you. Is this 1984 and are we seeing the first of many vaporizations?
Behe's "irreducible complexity" argument is fatally flawed. Ichneumon's post 35.
Irreducible Complexity Demystified. Major debunking of ID.
The Flagellum Unspun: The Collapse of "Irreducible Complexity," Kenneth R. Miller. Critique of Behe.
I'm unimpressed with the refutations. You think the defendants would have him as a defense expert, if his book was fatally flawed?
"I'm unimpressed with the refutations. "
I'm not impressed with your answer. Be more specific; how are the refutations wrong?
"You think the defendants would have him as a defense expert, if his book was fatally flawed?"
Yes. They haven't shown they are particularly bright.
No pulled posts either.
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.
We're behind enough in science education as it is without these ID moonbats dumbing down the system even further.
What happened with SeaLion? Didn't know he was suspended until now.
Behe's book has been pretty thoroughly rebutted. In fact, all of his 'irreducibly complex' examples have been shown not to be irreducibly complex by his own definition. Ken Miller, on the plaintiff's list, has done a nice job on this.
Also, based on some things he's written recently, I suspect Behe may be wavering. In a recent interview, he referred to some of Lenski's work on in vitro speciation in microbes as a 'compelling' argument for standard evolution, if it turns out to be true. Lenski's result is embargoed prior to publication, but I understand it's big.
Behe's book has been pretty thoroughly rebutted. In fact, all of his 'irreducibly complex' examples have been shown not to be irreducibly complex by his own definition. Ken Miller, on the plaintiff's list, has done a nice job on this.
Also, based on some things he's written recently, I suspect Behe may be wavering. In a recent interview, he referred to some of Lenski's work on in vitro speciation in microbes as a 'compelling' argument for standard evolution, if it turns out to be true. Lenski's result is embargoed prior to publication, but I understand it's big.
Behe's book has been pretty thoroughly rebutted. In fact, all of his 'irreducibly complex' examples have been shown not to be irreducibly complex by his own definition. Ken Miller, on the plaintiff's list, has done a nice job on this.
Also, based on some things he's written recently, I suspect Behe may be wavering. In a recent interview, he referred to some of Lenski's work on in vitro speciation in microbes as a 'compelling' argument for standard evolution, if it turns out to be true. Lenski's result is embargoed prior to publication, but I understand it's big.
Wow. Triplicate. Dunno what I did, but I apologize!
"Wow. Triplicate. Dunno what I did, but I apologize!"
Some things are worth repeating over and over. :)
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.