Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, Transcripts

It is a well established scientific fact that all human beings are naturally disposed to be picky and choosy.

 

Michael Behe's testimony is probably going to be quite an eye-opener to many people, especially proponents of intelligent design. He was quite candid about how little ID actually claims, and how agnostic ID is about the designer and its abilities.

His October 19 PM testimony, which was originally posted in a damaged PDF, is available in [a repaired file] from the Thomas Moore website (the firm defending the Dover school board).

On page 81, during redirect examination by the defense, he is presented with a quote from the National Academy of Sciences that he included in one of his papers. It states, "Many religious persons, including many scientists, hold that God created the universe and the various processes driving the physical and biological evolution, and that these processes then resulted in the creation of galaxies, our solar system, and life on Earth. This belief, which sometimes is termed 'theistic evolution,' is not in disagreement with scientific explanations of evolution."

Later, on page 82, he contrasts this with his own position and what he means by intelligent design. Dr. Behe states, "As a matter of fact I'm claiming quite less than what the National Academy says is consistent with scientific explanations of evolution, that is that God created, the universe, and the various processes driving physical and biological evolution. In this section I'm actually contrasting my view to those who argue for design saying that they think that the universe and its laws were designed. I'm saying that in fact a design that I'm proposing actually is a, is something that would require perhaps less of an ability of a designer."

I think all ID proponents should ponder those words. Intelligent design, as Dr. Behe sees it, requires quite a bit less of the unnamed designer than theistic evolution attributes to God. ID is about a designer tinkering with certain molecular machines, making tiny motors on flagellum or systems for blood clotting. Theistic evolution, by contrast, affirms that God made the entire universe, and endowed it with the properties necessary to bring forth what God desires. With this in mind, one can see why some ID advocates do not state that the designer must be God. After all, advanced aliens could quite conceivably tinker with molecular machines, and perhaps even humans will be able to build them in the near future.

It's common knowledge that ID is not widely accepted in the scientific community. That's old news. What is fascinating is that, from Behe's own testimony, ID points to a much smaller designer than the God affirmed by theistic evolution. Scientifically, it is "quite less than what the National Academy says is consistent with scientific explanations". So, one can go with theistic evolution which is scientifically consistent and attributes to God the power and wisdom to make all that is, or one can go with intelligent design which is scientifically problematic and points to far less ability and knowledge on the part of the unnamed designer.

I can't see why any Christian would find ID as Dr. Behe presents it to be a viable alternative.

 

Intelligent designers generally have a purpose behind their design. Easter islanders made giant statues, presumably for the purpose of commemorating ancestors or filling the spiritual void in their lives.

The icon of intelligent design is the bacterial flagellum, portrayed as a motor that is so complicated it must have been designed.

Has anybody ever figured out a reason for the designer to invent such a machine? The present existance of that flagellum seems to give some advantage to some bacteria. I don't think that it makes any kind of sense to say that bacteria wouldn't exist and would't fulfill their current role in our ecosystem without them . . .

so why did the "designer" bother to design them?

 

I posted this in the NEWS forum but it works here too. I don't know if this really qualifies as a double post since the SCIENCE section isn't really a section on the board.

HARRISBURG, Pa.
December 20, 2005

In a blow to creationists today, the Pennsylvania State Supreme Court determined that the school district of Dover, PA was undermining biological science education by raising doubts about evolution and offering "intelligent design" as an alternative explanation for life's origins.

Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District was the first legal test for the intelligent design theory.

The lawsuit centered around these words that were added to the Dover school districts curriculum.

"Students will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin's Theory and of other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent design. Note: Origins of life will not be taught."

Intelligent design supporters maintain that Darwin's theory of natural selection can’t fully explain the complex origin of life and its diversity; a higher intelligence must have designed them.

Opponents of ID say the theory is only used as a wedge to introduce religion into the classroom and that it lacks scientific evidence.

Rob

 

Looks like the Pennsylvania State Supreme Court prefers the teaching of neo-Darwinist racial theories about human evolution in and out of Africa to Semitic genealogies of human origins.

 

With just a little editing, JC, you will have a true statement:

Here's what I reccomend to make your sentence true:

"Looks like the FEDERAL COURT prefers the teaching of Neo-Darwinst theories about human evolution in and out of Africa to Semitic geneologies of human origins IN SCIENCE CLASSES."

 

That was my fault; I mixed up who was presiding in my post.

It would be interesting to see if there would be similar results in a high school philosophy class.
...but I've never heard of a H.S. having one.

Rob

 

All neo-Darwinist ideas of human evolution ever since Darwin have been anti-Semitic in theory and application, and the genetic Out of Africa scenario which claims that 5 Billion Asians and Caucasians are descended from one African woman is also a racial joke perpetuated by the U.S. government on the American people.

 

Hi! I'm a new member here, as my profile will show. When you say "anti-Semitic", do you mean anti-Jewish in the sense of dislike or hatred of Jewish people? Or do you mean it differently, in the sense of ascribing the origin of modern humans to the descendants of Ham rather than Shem?

If you mean the latter, what about those Darwinists who don't consider the sons of Noah to be historical at all? Is it fair to call someone "anti-Semitic" (with the connotations this term entails) if they do not believe that all of earth's population descended from one of Noah's three sons and their wives?

The evolution I was taught in school asserted that evolution occurred in populations, not individuals. To the best of my knowledge, a mutation occurring in one person ("one African woman") is not sufficient to affect a whole population generations later. Doesn't the evolutionary proposal require genetic changes to occur in a group of people at roughly the same time?

Thanks for your insight. I hope this isn't too far off the message topic here.

 

Both.

If they deny the written genealogical accounts of Semitic history and descent from Noah, how would that be any different from denying the Holocaust?

As fair as it is to call Holocaust deniers anti-Semites.

That may have been the Multiregional Model of human evolution. Until recently, Out of Africa theorists were trying to push the African Eve Model of Asian and Caucasian descent from one anatomically modern woman in Africa.

To the best of my knowledge, genetic mutations can only account for extinct species since they are accompanied by a loss of genetic information and it is as difficult to envisage harmful mutations contributing to the advantage of one species over another as it is to see them even contributing to the continued survival of a species in a dog-eat-dog neo-Darwinist world.

Who knows? Neo-Darwinists continually modify their theories in order to survive in the marketplace of free associations and ideas.

Right on target if anyone asks me.

 

That is pretty easy. Select those areas where is is "Right". (Intelligent Design for example) and ignore the areas where he has made compromises with evolutionism.

He is a well respected scientist - not the "Pope" so no possibility of "putting your brain on hold and just following whatever he says".

In Christ,

Bob

 

That is partially correct. The solution "needed" by evolutionism is to show that the ENTIRE SYSTEM can be built up step-by-step without massive assumptions about gratuitous saltations!

Have at it.

Misdirection and obfuscation would be simply show that "a sick specimen" can survive, or to find a one-step-simpler system as if to say "nah-nah-nay you picked the wrong irreducable spot".

Wrong. Finding a more reliable point of irreducible complexity does not solve evolutionism's problem. It is just a "nit" pick against Behe's selected spot.

Hey - are you allowing yourself to be objective?!!

Way to go! If you will kindkly "follow this more important step" in your response to Behe's argument then indeed you have object cogent answer. Take EACH PART and show that the various combinations leading up to the irreducible point ALL have useful function in thriving species as found in nature!

What a wonderfully objective - scientific approach UTEOTW!!

Have at it. Show how many steps are necessary to complete the bootstrap sequence and then show that each one is available in nature.

That will surely do it for evolutionism and will sink Behe's example in the case of flagellum.

Go for it!

In Christ,

Bob

 

Since this thread on the subject of the activist judge and bias against objective science exhibited in the judge's decisions --

Lets review the facts.

#1. The "fact" is that the school board was NOT teaching ID - they were teaching ONLY Evolutionism!! Their statement said that all students would be REQUIRED to study (the myths and bogus doctrines of) evolutionism and ONLY that would be tested.

#2. They simply ADMITTED a microsecond of light into the room in a 1 paragraph preface that said that THERE EXISTS IN THE LIBRARY a book called of "Pandas and People" that documented ANOTHER theory for life that did not agree with Darwinian evolutionism. That (free thinking intellecutally curious students not satisified with limiting themselves to the brainwashing they were required to recieve) were free to go look it up if they wish.

But that statement HAD to be censored - COULD not be tolerated by the liberal activitist judicial system nor the liberal activitist protectionist, defensive priests of evolutionism.

It was ruled that SCIENCE ITSELF must be censored so that NO science fact must be allowed that appears to fail to completely support and endorse the myths of evolutionism.

Here is the "offense core" of that simple 4 paragraph statement that caused the defensive lashing out of evolutionism's storm troopers.

The district school board was "trying" to get a 4 paragraph statement ADDED that simply said that "There is a book called Of Pandas and People"

The need to censor this kind of open thinking is clear in the dogmatic halls of evolutionism - if we judge it based on the court's activist ruling.

In Christ,

Bob

 

So although this statement STILL requires that ALL students swallow the propaganda of Darwinian evolutionism - it allows a tiny bit of light into the room for just a microsecond.

It merely "informs" the student that IF they have some intellectual curiosity beyond the brainwashing being offerred in the course - they are free to go to the library and look up an alternative view - namely - ID.

And of course - freedom of thought that might possibly expose the flaws in evolutionism or might allow the READING of scientific data IN FAVOR of Christianity - must be "censored" for everybody's good!!

 

The issue for the SCHOOL is not the obfuscation and misdirection presented in UTEOTWS slavish defense of censorship in an "all for evolutionism" kind of mentality.

The issue for the SCHOOL is NOT the fact that blind devotees to the myths and doctrines of evolutionism MIGHT NOT LIKE the arguments in "Of Pandas and People" -- ID.

The ISSUE is whether to engage in rank censorship and DENY the BASIC FACTS that the TRIAL STARTED out ADMITTING. Which is that ID vs Darwinian evolutionism IS openly debated in science contexts - science forums - science journals - AND that BOTH Sides have their views reviewed AND BOTH sides are avaible for students to OPEN MINDEDLY consider when looking at the THEORYs currently being discussed in the REAL WORLD!!

The decision for rank censorship - INCLUDES the exclusion of ANY science data that is viewed as "unfavorable" to the myths, speculations, dogmas and doctrines of evolutionism!! (As might be seen in the book on ID).

That 4 Paragraphs statementa showing that the BOOK EXISTS and that is NOT in agreement with Darwinian models MUST BE CENSORED to protect the dwindling base of evolutionism!!

How sad that ANY Citizen would go for it - much less a Christian.

In Christ,

Bob

 

In the recent debate Over intelligent Design - some have "supposed" that this is a case where a School Board was denied the right to have their schools offer a class in ID to students in Pennsylvania. That is simply a lie. The school board was STUCK on teaching ONLY the fables of evolutionism!!

This activist judicial attempt to censor the schools is in fact a bold landmark decision to deny the right of local school disctricts to inform their students that "ID EXISTS" as a theory WHILE still towing-the-line and teaching Evolutionism as if it was science fact.

Instead of the school board "trying to teach ID" they were in fact "trying to teaching ONLY Evolutionism" - they simply wanted to open the students minds to the wider fact that the theory of ID exists!! (As in a 4 paragraph preface statement to the "Evolution indoctrination" that calls the students to be informed about the existence of other views)

Further it DENIES the school districts the right to allow science data into the classroom that might QUESTION evolutionism in any way - (even if it is just a 4 paragraph statement as the start of a class ON EVOLUTIONISM that tells the student that the theory still has some gaps in it.)

The decision claims that it is unconstitutional to QUESTION evolutionism AND ALSO to admit to the existence of ID.

The district school board was "trying" to get a 4 paragraph statement ADDED that simply said that "There is a book called Of Pandas and People"

Admitting to the existence of the theory and existence of the book was viewed as "inane" by the activist judge in this case.

The summary is in essence - that it is "unconstitutional" for Christians to express their view of nature AS IF that was real science instead of just stupid blind dark-ages superstition!

--Specific actions hidden behind the pretext of protecting first amendment rights of ALL (excluding objective thinking students, parents, scientists, etc - i.e. the majority of U.S citizens) --

When we recall that these draconian statements are being issued in response to that ONE paragraph that ADMITS to the EXISTENCE of "People and Pandas" and admits to the EXISTENCE of another theory called ID - it is easy to see that --

The constitution is being "bent" to oppose discoveries in science that SUPPORT the Creator's own statements on Nature, life, species or the Bible history of mankind's existence.

The constitution is being "bent" to oppose any discussion of scientific data that calls into question that humanist religion we know today as evolutionism.

Is Christianity really such a disgusting instiution that Science ITSELF must be 'censored' to abolish discussion of all data that might question evolutionism and favor Christianity??

Have we come so far from our own "Declaration of Independence"
http://www.cs.indiana.edu/statecraft/decl.html

that it is now "UNCONSTITIONAL" to speak of what we SEE IN nature - as having its origin in the Creator - who DID something that CAN BE SEEN as having been DONE by HIM - that SHOWS that He has an ounce of intelligence?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,

So at one time it was "SELF EVIDENT" for ALL - no matter what faith and was essential to the wellbeing of our nation -- but NOW it is "NO LONGER ALLOWED to be self-evident" unless you are in church or possibly studing mythology???

What is this sub-class this non-citizen that we call "Christian"? Such a low, despised creature that scientific data that may be seen as confirming the Creator's words must be CENSORED from the science class room!!

How did we fall BELOW the level of basic freedoms and protection provided by our nation's constitution?

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/3548.html#000000

[ December 28, 2005, 09:00 AM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

INSTEAD of the ruling arguing as UTEOTW tries to spin - that "SCHOOLS must be censored becuase the SOURCE OF FUNDING for the ID argument did not fit our preference" --

INSTEAD of ruling that "Schools must be censored because the defendants did not drag creationism into their arguments as fully as they really believe in it" --

The ruling simply appeals to the constitution has IF IT really did forbid the release of SCIENCE DATA that does not CONFIRM the myths of evolutionism!! AS IF to do so would be a violation of the establishment clause because SOME SPECIFIC religion would be holding church services in the LAB!!

The bogus - low-brow, closed-minded, dark-ages-stlye-inquisitor tactics used at the close of the trial in defense of censorhip of that 4 paragraph statement for enlightenment - is so rank, so egregious as to be exceedingly obvious to all thinking humans - not just American citizens and not just CHRISTIAN American citizens!

The fact that the the evolutionist mind is so darkened that even this extreme case does not rouse them from their deep comatose sleep - is a testament to the shadow lands in which we live.

In Christ,

Bob