You heard it here first, Darwinism is going to fall like a house of cards.
Wolf
I see you know how to avoid making reference to some very relevant sections of the testimony. Here is just a small portion that caused Forrest considerable problems:
Q. Okay. I know you're aware of Eugenia Scott.
A. I'm on her board of directors. I forgot to mention that organization, by the way. I'm on the board of directors for the National Center for Science Education.
Q. And Ms. Scott is noted as a notable scientist of the Manifesto 3, do you know that?
A. No. I didn't know that.
Q. The manifesto makes broad philosophical claims such as, humans are the result of unguided evolutionary change, and that humanists recognize nature as self-existing. Do you agree with those claims?
A. I do.
Q. Are they scientific claims?
A. No, that's a philosophical statement. It goes beyond what science can establish.
Q. Okay. And basically, she is in charge, head of the National Center for Science Education, is that correct?
A. She's the director.
Q. But she is making philosophical and, I believe, religious claims in the area of science, would you agree with that?
A. She signed that statement as a personal act on her part. That is not what she does as the director of the National Center for Science Education. She does not promote her personal preferences as head of that organization. She promotes the principles of good science education.
Q. But she is a very outspoken person with regard to teaching of Darwinism, is she not?
A. She's a very forceful defender of teaching science as it should be taught.
Q. And she does everything she can as the director to prevent intelligent design from being included in the science education?
A. She does.
Q. Based on the comments that Eugenia Scott has made and Dr. Wineberg, would you conclude that evolution is not a scientific theory?
A. Based on what specific comments, sir?
Q. The comments that I just read?
A. The comments that --
Q. By Steven Wineberg, the first comment I read?
A. Those are Steven Wineberg's comments not Eugenia Scott's.
Q. No, I said, and Eugenia Scott's comments. Do you believe that Darwinism should not be a part of the educational curriculum?
MR. ROTHSCHILD: Objection. I'm not sure there are any Eugenia Scott comments that have been presented to the witness.
MR. THOMPSON: Quote, humans are the result of unguided evolutionary change and that, quote, humanists recognize nature as self-existing, end quote.
THE COURT: You withdraw the objection?
MR. ROTHSCHILD: I don't think those are comments Eugenia Scott made.
MR. THOMPSON: Well, I just put quotes around the phrases.
MR. ROTHSCHILD: I'm not sure that changes that they're not things -- she didn't make comments to that effect. I mean, I think the issue, just for clarity, is that those are words from, I think, the humans manifesto, which apparently she had signed onto. The witness doesn't even know that is so.
THE COURT: So you're saying they're mischaracterized as direct quotes?
MR. ROTHSCHILD: It's very unclear. I think the witness was confused about what comments are being referred to, and I'm not --
MR. THOMPSON: I understand. I think I understand.
THE COURT: Well, here's what I perceive, and that is that, the objection likely caused the question to be issued in two parts. So why don't you restate the question?
MR. THOMPSON: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: That will be clear to the witness, I'm sure.
BY MR. THOMPSON:
Q. I earlier read to you the comments by Nobel laureate Steven Wineberg. Do you remember that?
A. Yes.
Q. Based on the comments that he made regarding the philosophical and quasi-religious, I guess, nature of evolution and modern science, do you believe that that would exclude Darwinism as a scientific theory?
MR. ROTHSCHILD: I'm just going to object to the characterization, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Overruled. You can answer the question.
THE WITNESS: If I understand you correctly, you are linking the comments that he made with the status of Darwinism as an evolutionary theory.
BY MR. THOMPSON:
Q. Correct.
A. I don't think the comments that he made, his personal statements about science have that much to do with the status of evolutionary theory. And, I'm sorry, I don't see the connection that you're trying to make.
Q. Okay. I think you answered my question. And then regarding Eugenia Scott, you know she's the director of the National Center for Science Education, and she is a notable signer of the humanist Manifesto 3. To accurately characterize that, the humanist manifesto makes proceed philosophical statements such as, quote, Humans are the result of unguided evolutionary change. And then further again, the manifesto --
A. Um-hum.
Q. -- claims that humanists recognize nature as self-existing, end quote. Do you agree with the claims that the humanist manifesto makes?
A. I understand those claims, and I generally agree with them.
Q. Okay. And Eugenia Scott is an outspoken advocate of teaching Darwin's theory?
A. She is an outspoken advocate of teaching evolutionary theory in public science class, yes.
Q. Based upon the methodology you used in excluding statements -- excuse me. Withdraw that. Based upon the methodology you use to conclude that statements made by Dembski or Steven Myers or Jonathan Wells should exclude intelligent design from public education, why would that same methodology not be used to exclude Darwinism from public education?
A. If you will permit me, sir, let me please make a distinction in what I think these people are doing. And I don't think you're representing Eugenia Scott's position accurately. Eugenia Scott's signed the humanist manifesto as a personal act on her part. She is quite cognizant, and she has expressed this many times, of the difference between what she can assert as a scientist and what she can assert as a citizen with philosophical preferences.
She has many times expressed that distinction. She is quite aware of it. In fact, she does not use her position as director of the National Center for Science Education to promote her particular personal viewpoints. She is adamantly against doing that.
In fact, she was the most important person in persuading the National Association of Biology Teachers to take language of that sort out of their statement. She is quite aware that there are many personal viewpoints people can take, and she has stated many times that one must recognize a distinction between what one can say as a scientist and what one says as a private citizen expressing a philosophical preference.
She does not do the same thing that, I believe, Dr. Dembski and his intelligent design associates are doing.
Q. I guess then, what methodology do you use to exclude the same kind of consideration from Dr. Dembski and others that you used to exclude Eugenia Scott's philosophical and religious comments?
MR. ROTHSCHILD: Objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: No, I'll allow the question. The objection is overruled.
THE WITNESS: In Dr. Dembski's case, it is not a matter of his having a scientific viewpoint which can be defended and a philosophical viewpoint attached to that. His viewpoint regarding intelligent design is at its core, in its essence, a religious viewpoint, not a scientific one.
What I object to is his presenting that as a scientific theory that should be offered to students in a science class. I don't think there is any analogy at all between what he is doing and what Eugenia Scott does. And part of my job as a philosopher is to make those distinctionss clear.
BY MR. THOMPSON:
Q. Well, I think you've already indicated that you are not a scientist, correct?
A. I'm not a scientist, but I am an educated person who understands the way science works. That's not hard to understand.
Q. And you are not -- you are not an expert in science to the extent that you can evaluate Michael Behe's concept of irreducible complexity, are you?
A. I have never claimed to be a scientific expert evaluating Dr. Behe's statements about irreducible complexity. That is not within my expertise.
Q. Okay. And so you continue to say that intelligent design is not science without you personally being able to evaluate the scientific claims of Dr. Michael Behe, is that correct?
A. My understanding of intelligent design as science is a position that I can defend without having to address the particular scientific claims. Those have been very well addressed by Professor Miller. What I know about intelligent design is that it is defined by its own leaders in religious terms. And any idea that is defined by its own leaders in religious terms as requiring a supernatural creator is not a scientific idea. That's simply basic elementary science.
Q. That's what I'm getting at. You excuse Eugenia Scott and Steve Wineberg when they talked about their scientific theories and religious and philosophical terms, but you will not give the same benefit to those in the intelligent design movement, is that true?
MR. ROTHSCHILD: Objection. Mischaracterizes the statements that Mr. Thompson has just been quoting.
THE COURT: Well, he has her on cross. And I think it's a fair question on cross. I'll overrule the objection. You may answer.
THE WITNESS: Would you repeat it, please, the one that you just asked?
(Whereupon, the court reporter read back the question.)
THE WITNESS: They're not doing the same thing, sir. Eugenia Scott is not advocating that her personal philosophical preferences be taught to school children in a public school science class as science. She insists that the evolutionary biology that has withstood scientific testing now for 150 years be taught.
Dr. Dembski and his associates in the intelligent design movement are asking that their view, which is, at its essence, a religious view, be offered to children as science. So that is not what Eugenia Scott is doing.
BY MR. THOMPSON:
Q. Well, I don't want to keep on going around as to whether intelligent design is a religious view or a scientific theory. But you will agree, will you not, that any analysis must clearly make distinctions between religious motivations of the ID proponents and the religious implications of intelligent design theory?
A. What I am talking about is the essence of intelligent design, and the essence of it is theistic realism as defined by Professor Johnson. Now that stands on its own quite apart from what their motives are. I'm also talking about the definition of intelligent design by Dr. Dembski as the Logos theology of John's Gospel. That stands on its own.
Q. Well, didn't the president of Americans United for Separation of Church and State also use the Logos theology by saying, God could have said, evolve?
A. You're talking about the director, Barry Lynn?
Q. Yes.
A. Barry Lynn said this in a jovial way. He was certainly -- he certainly recognizes the difference between science and religion. I know Barry. And he was making a jovial comment.
Q. Were you there when he made that statement?
A. I was -- I was not present when he made the statement.
Q. Do you agree with Dr. Ken Miller's testimony that not everything a scientist says is science?
A. Scientists say many, many things. They talk about lots of things in addition to science.
Q. And that could also be true of the intelligent design theorists, is that correct?
A. I would ask that you give me something specific to evaluate, but I'm sure they talk about lots of different things, too.
Q. They may talk about their personal religion, correct?
A. Yes, they do quite a bit.
Q. Their philosophy of life, correct?
A. Yes.
Thank you for posting that example of Forrest refusing to get caught in Thompson's lawyerly web of confusion. She clearly held her own and bested Thompson during the cross.