"Waterloo in Dover" gear. Outfit yourself for the trial. (Links to Wesley's CafePress site. Proceeds go where Wesley thinks they will do the most good.)
2005/11/04: (Warning: approximate quotes ahead.) At close, Pat Gillen remarked to Judge Jones, "Your honor, by my reckoning we have been here 40 days. That seems an auspicious number." Jones replied, "So it seems, but it was not designed!" At which point the courtroom burst out in applause. Jones let that go on for about 15 seconds, then adjourned the court. And that finished off the testimonial, in-court phase of this case. During that last day, the cross-examination of Scott Minnich continued. Stephen Harvey explored a number of issues with Minnich, such as whether the "tests" that Minnich and Behe have proposed were actually being performed by anyone (they aren't), whether there could be multiple designers (there could be), and whether there might be an ... evil ... designer (yes, there could be). On that last, though, Harvey did not, at any time, hold his pinky up to the corner of his mouth. Following lunch, the lawyers plotted out the remainder of the issues, such as the schedule for briefs (two weeks for initial, one week for revisions/responses). Judge Jones mentioned that it was his intention to provide a ruling on this case this year, meaning that the lawyers would be held to a tight schedule. Exhibits... there were a number of exhibits entered into the record, including several things produced by Barbara Forrest that were not directly referred to in testimony. Among those items, one will find (once they go online) that in a draft of OPAP, there was an incomplete erasure of the word "creationist", with an insertion of "design proponents" into it, meaning that students might have had the opportunity to learn the position of "cdesign proponentsists" on these matters. This verbal intermediate fossil was uncovered through the patient digging of Dr. Forrest.The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board's ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents. Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs' scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator. To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions. The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy. With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom. Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources. To preserve the separation of church and state mandated by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Art. I, § 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, we will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID. We will also issue a declaratory judgment that Plaintiffs' rights under the Constitutions of the United States and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have been violated by Defendants' actions. Defendants' actions in violation of Plaintiffs' civil rights as guaranteed to them by the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 subject Defendants to liability with respect to injunctive and declaratory relief, but also for nominal damages and the reasonable value of Plaintiffs' attorneys' services and costs incurred in vindicating Plaintiffs' constitutional rights. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1. A declaratory judgment is hereby issued in favor of Plaintiffs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 such that Defendants' ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and Art. I, § 3 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 2. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 65, Defendants are permanently enjoined from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District. 3. Because Plaintiffs seek nominal damages, Plaintiffs shall file with the Court and serve on Defendants, their claim for damages and a verified statement of any fees and/or costs to which they claim entitlement. Defendants shall have the right to object to any such fees and costs to the extent provided in the applicable statutes and court rules. s/John E. Jones III John E. Jones III United States District Judge
— Judge John E. Jones
2005/10/26: Today, William Buckingham is set to testify. This is the highly controversial school board member who justified the ID policy by speaking about "someone" who "died on a cross 2000 years ago" and the need to "stand up for Him." 2005/10/25: Warren Nord withdrew as a defense witness. That leaves, who, just Scott Minnich remaining on the defense roster as an expert witness. (William Dembski, John Angus Campbell, Stephen Meyer, Dick Carpenter, and Warren Nord have withdrawn; Michael Behe and Steven Fuller have testified; and Scott Minnich is their only expert left who might yet testify.) 2005/10/25: Two major developments in the case. First, the judge has struck a brief filed by the Discovery Institute because it was an attempt to get the expert testimony of Stephen Meyer and William Dembski into the record without having to be cross examined in court. Both of them pulled out as witnesses before the trial began. Second, the defense called Steven Fuller to the witness stand yesterday and he proceeded to help our side immensely. He actually testified that ID should be taught in schools despite the fact that it was still on the "fringe" of science and did not have testable theories developed, because that would help them recruit young people to work on their ideas. He proposed a sort of "affirmative action" program for fringe ideas in science. Ed Brayton has more here. 2005/10/24: Yes, Dick Carpenter was withdrawn as an expert witness, so on Friday, the court got to listen to Richard Nilsen failing to remember much at all. The defense said that Carpenter's testimony was no longer needed, according to the ACLU blog. On Monday, the defense brought in Steve Fuller, to give the postmodernist version of why "intelligent design" should be taught in the classrooms of Dover, Pennsylvania. Did you hear about the mafioso who studied French deconstructionist philosophy? He goes around making people offers that they can't understand. Well, Fuller at least was comprehensible when he told the court that what science needed was "affirmative action for fringe ideas". Vic Walczak queried, "But is the ninth grade science classroom the right place to apply that affirmative action?" I've been told that Fuller's cross-examination was helpful to the plaintiffs' case on several issues concerning the status of "intelligent design" in the scientific community. Oh, yes, Fuller also made the inexplicable claim that no evolutionary biologist had been awarded the Nobel Prize. While the Nobel Prize doesn't have an explicit evolutionary biology topic under which it makes awards, there have been several awards under the "Physiology or Medicine" topic that concern findings that touch upon evolutionary biology, going back to Thomas Hunt Morgan, forward through Muller, then Watson and Crick, and most recently Hartwell, Hunt, and Nurse. On the Nobel site you will learn that Nurse's research establishes that cyclin dependent kinase is conserved during evolution. When one turns to the Crafoord Prize in the Biosciences, an award also administered by the Swedish Academy of Sciences, one finds such people as Daniel H. Janzen, Edward O. Wilson, William D. Hamilton, John Maynard Smith, Ernst Mayr, George C. Williams, and Carl Woese have won that prize. Judging a whole scientific field by the idiosyncracies of one social institution seems anomalous behavior for a social scientist, and especially one who casts himself as a champion of pluralism. 2005/10/21: The York Daily Record reports:In his deposition earlier this year, Buckingham said he did not know the source of the $850 donation to buy 60 copies of the book "Of Pandas and People" - an intelligent design textbook Dover students were referred to as part of the curriculum policy change. Then Harvey produced a cancelled check from Buckingham for $850 to a Dover school administrator clearly marked for the purchase of the textbook and Buckingham confirmed it came from his church. "You lied to me in your deposition didn't you Mr. Buckingham?" Harvey said. "How so?" replied Buckingham. "When I asked if you knew where the money came from," Harvey said. "I did not take a collection," he said. (The State (South Carolina))
So, is Carpenter just slipping back in the schedule (they'd need to put him up somewhere over the weekend), or has Carpenter bailed after noting Behe's cross-examination? 2005/10/19: "Is there a distinction to be made between science and science fiction?" Eric Rothschild asked Michael Behe. "Yes," responded Behe. "I have no further questions," said Rothschild. And with those words (or ones quite similar -- we'll get precision with the transcript release), Eric Rothschild laid to rest the remains of Behe's scientific credibility. Preceding that, there was a day full of cross examination, in which one would learn that Behe wasn't as familiar with the scientific literature on the immune system as one might hope for someone billed as an "expert", that rigorous peer review in "intelligent design" can be obtained in a ten-minute telephone interview -- without the reviewer even having to see the manuscript, that the blood-clotting system can be reduced to a "core" of four parts -- except that when one does so the result is claimed to be lethal, and much more. Why did the cross-examination of Behe sound so much like the lawyers were reading from the TalkDesign web site? Well, at least part of that would be due to the advice that the plaintiffs' lawyers received from NCSE Public Information Director Nicholas Matzke, aka "Nic Tamzek" from the early TalkDesign days and regular PT contributor. By almost all accounts*, the TalkDesign material on various issues concerning Behe's "irreducible complexity" was put to good use. Expect a more complete eulogy for Behe's scientific career -- and a post-mortem, as it were, of the terminal handling it received on Tuesday and Wednesday -- to be posted here later, after we have the transcripts in hand. What has to be considered for the future is whether the on-the-stand demolition of Behe will influence the remainder of the slate of TMLC experts. They had a pretty high withdrawal rate pre-trial, and now that the preparation of the plaintiffs' legal team has been shown, vividly, will all the rest of TMLC's scheduled experts actually show up for a big helping of what Behe had? * As one might expect, the DI thinks Behe weathered cross-examination without any trouble whatsoever, but when one's reports are apparently filed from Cloud Cuckoo Land, I think that we are permitted to "consider the source". 2005/10/18: A Philadelphia Inquirer article reports on cross-examination of Michael Behe. Eric Rothschild is apparently taking the time to have Behe address the inconsistencies within "intelligent design" advocacy. This could take a while to get through:The defense decided to continue with Dover Area Supt. Richard Nilsen's testimony this morning rather than call expert witness Dick Carpenter, an assistant professor of leadership, research and foundations at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs.
2005/10/16: A quick checkup on the last few days of the trial. First, the second part of Barbara Forrest's testimony is now available for download. The plaintiff's attorneys wrapped up their case with their last two witnesses testifying. Brian Alters, an expert in science education, broke down the school board's mandated statement phrase by phrase and showed why it undermines quality science education. Then Kevin Padian, a paleontologist, essentially gave a seminar on why we know evolution to be true and why many of the scientific claims in Of Pandas and People are false (reports here and here). The defense will begin calling witnesses on Monday. The defense needs to defeat the plaintiffs' arguments concerning both the purpose and the effect of the "intelligent design" policy. For the second, they are most likely to try to convince Judge Jones that "intelligent design", and specifically the policy adopted by the DASD, are scientific in character, and thus have a place in the science curriculum regardless of any secondary effect they might have in the way of having implications for religious belief. We heard at the outset the apparent defense strategy concerning dealing with "purpose": paint the outspoken religious statements of school board members as not having any appreciable effect upon the board's deliberations in adopting the "intelligent design" policy. It is difficult to imagine Judge Jones buying that given what has been presented by the plaintiffs so far, but it should be entertaining to see the defense give it a go. It is expected that the defense will call Discovery Institute Center forBehe also said intelligent design does not maintain that life began abruptly, and does not specify God as the unidentified designer. But plaintiffs' attorney Eric Rothschild produced documents, including Behe's own writings, that suggested otherwise.
Gillen also claimed that the DASD policy was a modest one, which rather goes against the content of a TMLC press release of 2005/01/18 that states, "a revolution in evolution is underway". Reports I've gotten from attendees have said that Ken Miller was "magnificent" and "a fabulous witness". In other words, Ken was having another ordinary day for him. Miller paid particular attention to Of Pandas and People, pointing out its deficiencies in terms of accurate reporting of biology and its clear creationist wellspring of arguments. 2005/09/27: Satire from Swift Reports: New Law Says Science Teachers Must Recite "Footprints in the Sand" 2005/09/27: PT: Blogging the Dover Trial, where Ed Brayton points out blogs of the ACLU of Pennsylvania and Jonathan Witt blogging for the DI. Ed also explains why ID advocates continue to be confused over the concept of "falsifiability". 2005/09/27: News Roundup: Stuck at Court, with no Circus in Sight, York Daily Record, Defense: It Isn't About Religion, York Daily Record, Dover's Test Begins, York Daily Record, Institute: Both Sides Wrong, York Daily Record, Media Views on Dover, York Daily Record 2005/09/26: News roundup: NCSE's Executive Director Dr. Eugenie Scott interviewed on Lou Dobbs, CNN (9:30 PM EDT, 6:30 PM PDT). Washington Post, York Dispatch, L.A. Times, WGAL, Collective Bellaciao, France, CivilRights.org, Orlando Sentinel, York Daily Record, York Daily Record, Family News in Focus, NC News and Observer, Minneapolis Star Tribune. 2005/09/26: Trial begins: opening arguments from both sides, then plaintiffs call Prof. Ken Miller of Brown University. Miller gives direct testimony, and part of the cross-examination by the defense. 2005/09/25: News roundup: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, York Daily Record, New York Times, LA Times, Independent UK, MSNBC, New Scientist, People's Daily Online. 2005/09/24: PT: Of Pandas and People: Creation Relabeled, reports on the oral testimony taken earlier that shows that "creation" and "intelligent design" share the same definition, going from a draft of Of Pandas and People to the published version. 2005/09/23: As of September 13, 2005, the Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District case was headed for trial in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania starting on September 26, 2005. Judge John E. Jones III denied the Thomas More Law Center motion for summary judgment in an order delivered on September 13, clearing the way for the full trial. This post will provide a convenient place for links to articles and commentary on the Kitzmiller v. DASD proceedings. Not since the 1981 McLean v. Arkansas trial has there been a legal case of this size and complexity on the subject, with a slate of expert witnesses on each side scheduled to give testimony. Back in 2004, the Dover school board held a series of meetings in which they discussed putting creationism into the science classes. Former board member Bill Buckingham was reported to have said, "Two thousand years ago, someone died on a cross. Can't someone take a stand for him?" Later, Buckingham vehemently denied making that statement in discussion of the science curricula. The school board first approved the acceptance of nearly sixty copies of the "intelligent design" textbook, Of Pandas and People (OPAP), for the school library. They then also adopted an "intelligent design policy", that was to inform the students in ninth-grade science classes about "intelligent design" and the availability of OPAP in the library. Following this, several parents sued the DASD over the "intelligent design policy". After several months of discovery, depositions, and other legal paperwork, the suit is now ready for trial. 2005/09/13: Judge Jones denies TMLC motion for summary judgement. 2005/08/11: PT: Sandefur on defense motion for summary judgment 2005/08/10: PT: Revelations in Dover 2005/08/06: PT: Design on Trial, reviews the state of play concerning KvD and OPAP93. 2005/07/16: PT: Creationist Credibility, reports on the FTE motion to intervene in KvD. 2005/06/25: PT: Dembski threatens to sue Dover defense, reports on Dembski delivering a $20K+ bill to TMLC for his services, which they are no longing using. 2005/06/20: PT: Conflicting Explanations for Withdrawal of Dover Experts?, reports on the start of differing explanations for the withdrawal of three DI Fellows as experts by TMLC. 2005/06/19: PT: ID Experts Withdraw from Dover Trial, reports on TMLC withdrawing three Discovery Institute Fellows as experts in the case because they insisted on having separate legal representation for themselves. 2005/03/28: PT: Dover, PA Experts Revealed 2005/03/20: PT: Dover Dithers Over Donations, reports on donations of science books to Dover school library and the DASD resistance to accepting those books. 2005/03/13: PT: New news from Dover, reports that the Rutherford Institute motion to intervene in KvD was denied, and that Of Pandas and People 1993 edition would not have been recommended to the Dover school board by its own publisher. 2005/01/28: PT: Dover science teachers take a stand, reporting on science teachers refusing to deliver the administration's prepared speech on "intelligent design" to 9th grade science classes. 2005/01/12: PT: This just in: Plaintiffs give up in Dover, comments on hilariously false religious reporting that confused the plaintiffs not having filed a motion to stop the DASD from implementing its "intelligent design" policy with their having dropped the KvD lawsuit. 2005/01/07: PT: Another twist on the Dover story, reports on the Dover science teachers' letter to the administration stating their intention to opt out of reading the "intelligent design" policy statement to children in science classes. 2005/01/06: PT: More PA scientists speak out against ID, reports on scientists at the University of Pennsylvania taking issue with the DASD "intelligent design" policy. 2004/12/21: PT: More Dover reports on the DASD and the likelihood that the Thomas More Law Center would represent them in the lawsuit. 2004/12/15: PT: Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District, reports on the filing of the lawsuit against DASD. 2004/12/11: PT: Doverian doings, reports on area responses to the DASD policy and criticism of OPAP93. 2004/12/07: PT: Analysis of Dover Biology Curriculum, looks at claims made by the DASD "intelligent design" policy. 2004/12/07: Panda-monium: NCSE Resources Page on Pandas, points to the NCSE resources page on OPAP. 2004/12/06: PT: Dover School Board Done to a Crispy Crunch, links to an op-ed by Paul Gross and Barbara Forrest concerning the Dover school board's "intelligent design" policy. 2004/12/05: PT: Science Teachers Balk at Dover Decision. 2004/11/23: PT: Dover School District Wades Into Troubled Waters, reports on the DASD adoption of its "intelligent design" policy and how that will very likely lead to a lawsuit. 2004/11/12: PT: Dover creationism update, reports on the legal liability that DASD will be taking on by adoption of its "intelligent design" policy. Comments in this thread are for pointers to KvD resources only; all others will be deleted at the PT administration discretion and convenience. Please utilize the After the Bar Closes forum area for wider-ranging comments.Yingling voted for the measure, but later said she did it only because she was called "un-Christian" and pressured to vote with the majority. (York Dispatch)
353 Comments
Bayesian Bouffant, FCD · 23 September 2005
Wesley R. Elsberry · 23 September 2005
I'm going to remind people that comments in this thread *must* be pointers to resources about KvD, and general commentary should be routed to this thread. I'll give people a little time to re-post comments made so far there before I delete them here.
Steven Laskoske · 23 September 2005
I think if you want some info on resources about KvD, one of the sources to consider is one of the local sources. The York Daily Record has a whole section devoted to the Dover case.
Of special interest are some of the recent arguements regarding attempts to question reporters from both the The York Daily Record and the York Dispatch.
Speaking now of the latter publication, the York Dispatch has a decent timeline leading up to the trial.
Wesley R. Elsberry · 23 September 2005
Steven Laskoske,
Yes, your comment is the sort that has a home in this thread. I've updated the top sidebar with that information. Thanks.
Steven Laskoske · 23 September 2005
Thank you. Living in nearby Lancaster, PA, I've been interested in this case. Since York is so close to Dover, the York papers are an invaluable resource.
Michael Hopkins · 24 September 2005
The Court's Kitzmiller v. Dover School District own web site
Pete Dunkelberg · 24 September 2005
Bayesian Bouffant, FCD · 25 September 2005
Michael Hopkins · 25 September 2005
Wikipedia entry for Dover case
Inch-colm · 25 September 2005
Did you see this piece in the Washington Post?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/25/AR2005092501177.html
Michael Hopkins · 26 September 2005
NPR story from this morning. The audio will appear sometime around 10 A.M. Eastern.
steve · 26 September 2005
This thread is about resources for news in Dover? For lies and distortions about Dover, there's always http://uncommondescent.com/
maurile · 26 September 2005
Ken Miller was the first witness called by the plaintiffs. The Discovery Institute's blog has a summary of Miller's testimony by Jonathan Witt: link.
SEF · 26 September 2005
The Grauniad is nicely scathing about the trial (in their education section). I think they've generally been good about reporting on the UK creationists too. I doubt they'll be in a position to uncover much which the US sources don't already have though.
steve · 26 September 2005
new MSNBC story:
HARRISBURG, Pa. - A school district is undermining science education by raising false doubts about evolution and offering "intelligent design" as an alternative explanation for life's origins, a biologist testified at the start of a landmark trial.
"It's the first movement to try to drive a wedge between students and the scientific process," said Brown University's Kenneth Miller, the first witness called Monday by lawyers for eight families suing the Dover Area School District.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9492208/
RBH · 27 September 2005
The Pennsylvania ACLU is blogging the trial.
(Hat tip to Splat on Infidels)
Bayesian Bouffant, FCD · 27 September 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 27 September 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 27 September 2005
Wesley R. Elsberry · 27 September 2005
Dover biology disclaimer.
bill · 28 September 2005
Here you go, Lenny. Luskin explains "intelligent design" in this DI press release:
Monsters from the ID
Bayesian Bouffant, FCD · 28 September 2005
Tim Broderick · 28 September 2005
That "big tent theory" mentioned today (9/28) in the trial may refer back to this from a 2001 National Post article:
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:3Ce7qDHkrXcJ:www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php%3Fcommand%3Dview%26program%3DCSCStories%26id%3D630+%22big+tent+theory%22+evolution&hl=en&client=safari
"That this theory could be immensely appealing to many people, there can be no doubt. Which is why, given the Bush presidency, and the fact that members of the Bush team were, last spring, extensively briefed on intelligent design, the battle has been joined in the popular press. Make no mistake, despite that East coast sheep's clothing, Bush is a big middle, red-state robust Methodist with evangelical leanings, who knows that any group with authority to tell a culture's creation story functions as a kind of priesthood. Intelligent design, because it travels light, is a big tent theory, which has begun to collect around itself such disparate groups as young earth creationists, Hare Krishna, Muslims and Jewish intellectual editors who write for Commentary.
Just how big tent, is not hidden by Dr. Meyer and his colleagues at the Discovery Institute. Intelligent design is nestled in that branch of the Discovery Institute called the Center for Renewal of Science and Culture, which claims that the materialism of the last 100 years has denied objective moral standards, claiming that right and wrong evolved to suit societal needs and personal preferences, that materialism undermined belief in personal responsibility, devised utopian political schemes, and advocated coercive government programs that promised heaven on earth, but produced oppression and genocide."
So they're going to try and show ID is a big tent theory that everyone can compromise around?
RBH · 28 September 2005
Michael Hopkins · 28 September 2005
Reporters avoid contempt charges
Wesley R. Elsberry · 28 September 2005
Please help out with comment maintenance here by entering discussion comments directly into the AE BB thread for them. Repeatedly entering commentary instead of resources in this thread may get you banned! Enough said.
Michael Hopkins · 29 September 2005
Petition for relevant scientists to be presented to the judge of the Dover trial.
Collin · 30 September 2005
I don't know if you have seen this yet.
"If Charles Darwin could have attended a meeting in Dover on Thursday, he would have been shocked by the disrespect shown his theory, according to his great-great-grandson Matthew Chapman.
Chapman was among about 150 people, including about 20 members of the media, who came to Dover Fire Station (6) for a presentation involving a video of "More Reasons Why Evolution is Stupid."...
http://ydr.com/story/doverbiology/87577/
The amusing thing is not the article, but the UFO in the background of the photo, lol.
Fly Guy · 30 September 2005
Dr. Dembski is already starting the post-mortem on the Dover trial at Uncommon Descent (http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/371). I don't think that he likes how well the Dover school board president Mr. Bill Buckingham connected the dots between creationism and ID.
Gerard Harbison · 30 September 2005
Wesley: I hope this is relevant. Surprisingly, I haven't seen it discussed elsewhere. This:
http://ydr.com/story/doverbiology/87576/
describes how a janitor in the Dover high school burned a mural depicting evolution because it offended him, with the full approval of two of the school board members.
First murals, then books, and eventually witches.
pondscum · 30 September 2005
Here is a link to the latest column from Mike Argento. Argento may be to the Panda Trial, what H. L. Mencken was to the Monkey Trial.
http://ydr.com/story/doverbiology/87612/
Pete Dunkelberg · 30 September 2005
Have you noticed Yorkblog? Try The Buckingham school: No civil liberties allowed.
Eric Murphy · 30 September 2005
I was looking at the DI's website, evolutionnews.org, where they report that Eugenie Scott makes "false claims" that there have been no peer-reviewed science articles that support ID. Of course, they're referring to Stephen Meyer's paper in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. Do they really want to go there? I wanted to trackback to Alan Gishlick, Nick Matzke, and Wesley R. Elsberry's paper "Meyer's Hopeless Monster" at http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Meyer.cfm, but of course there's no way to post a comment on the evolutionnews site.
I wonder why they didn't mention Behe and Snoke's paper in Protein Science? Is it because it's been so thoroughly dismantled by Musgrave et. al.? Or because B&S's paper actually makes clear (once you use realistic assumptions) that biological novelty can, in fact, evolve without the need for an intelligent designer?
kay · 30 September 2005
HOLD THE TRIAL!
http://science.slashdot.org/science/05/10/01/0140200.shtml?tid=14
They're evolving. Finally. :) Moot point now.
Mona · 30 September 2005
For trial transcripts of testimony, go here: http://www.aclupa.org/legal/legaldocket/intelligentdesigncase/dovertrialtranscripts.htm
Norman Doering · 1 October 2005
I found these websites if anyone is interested in the view from the other side:
Thomas More Law Cente
http://www.thomasmore.org/
The Foundation for Thought and Ethics
http://www.fteonline.com/
Wesley R. Elsberry · 1 October 2005
Norman,
It must have been tough finding those resources, since you'd have had to read the "Program" sidebar to get them here. In other words, this page has linked to "the other side" all week long.
Esteban Escalera · 1 October 2005
Harry Eaton · 1 October 2005
There's a good column on sfgate.com worth a read.
Wesley R. Elsberry · 2 October 2005
Wesley R. Elsberry · 2 October 2005
I go over the reasons why the "marker of intelligent agency" argument is unsound in the video. My Powerpoint file is linked from this post.
Gerard Harbison · 4 October 2005
The Discovery Institute claims today that 85 'scientists' have signed an amicus brief in the Dover trial in support of the contention "that protecting the freedom to pursue scientific evidence for intelligent design stimulates the advance of scientific knowledge." Looks like the usual suspects (Skell, Carlson).
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2907&program=News&callingPage=discoMainPage
Maybe time to get an amicus brief from 500 scientists called Steve?
Logicman · 4 October 2005
This is a very funny article concerning the Dover trial:
http://ydr.com/story/doverbiology/87427/
vhutchison · 4 October 2005
Isn't it very unlikely that the judge would at this time entertain an amicus brief?
There is an online petition at
http://shovelbums.org
that has 10,765 signatures of scientists against ID with a description of how the list will be checked and used - mainly for media purposes.
whatever · 5 October 2005
From the MSNBC article
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9492208/
"'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."
Since when does free inquiry rule out discussion about the origin of life, which the Dover statement explicitly rules out? Why is discussion about the origin of life blocked in Dover schools, if not for religious sensitivity?
Bayesian Bouffant, FCD · 5 October 2005
Bayesian Bouffant, FCD · 5 October 2005
RBH · 5 October 2005
tytlal · 5 October 2005
Oops!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9601689/
Now stay out of science class!
tytlal · 5 October 2005
Oops!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9601689/
Now stay out of science class!
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 6 October 2005
Discovery Institute's whining about Dr Barbara:
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/10-05-2005/0004160863&EDATE=
SEATTLE, Oct. 5 /PRNewswire/ -- Today, Southeastern Louisiana University philosophy professor Barbara Forrest testified in the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial that it is her opinion that intelligent design and creationism are essentially one in the same.
"I hope that the media will critically analyze Forrest's testimony and get our response to her allegations," said John West. "I would warn them to take what she says not with just a grain of salt, but with a shaker-full."
"The ACLU's entire case is built on misrepresenting what intelligent design is, and mischaracterizing it as creationism so we're not surprised they called Forrest as a witness," West added.
According to West, creationism is focused on defending a literal reading of the Genesis account, usually including the creation of the earth by the Biblical God a few thousand years ago. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text.
Instead, intelligent design theory attempts to empirically detect whether the apparent design in nature observed by biologists is genuine design (the product of an organizing intelligence) or is simply the product of chance and mechanical natural laws.
"The effort to detect design in nature is being adopted by a growing number of biologists, biochemists, physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers of science at colleges and universities around the world," said West. "Scientists engaged in design research include biochemist Michael Behe of Lehigh University and microbiologist Scott Minnich at the University of Idaho, both of whom will testify for the defense, and astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez at Iowa State University."
kay · 8 October 2005
http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/10/afa/72005f.asp [LAWSUIT]
I want a cookie. ^_^
bill · 9 October 2005
The expert witness reports are at the NCSE website. Check out item three.
NCSE Kitzmiller site
Bruce Thompson GQ · 10 October 2005
Via the Red State Rabble
Professor Steve Steve is misidentified in an Associated Press report photograph
in USA TODAY, by Martha Raffaele. He is identified only as a panda puppet, possibly in reference to the book Of Pandas and People.
Delta Pi Gamma (Scientia et Fermentum)
shenda · 10 October 2005
On Panda's and ID at Huffington Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nicholas-von-hoffman/pandas_b_8548.html
WJC · 11 October 2005
Why was Dembski withdrawn as an expert for the defense?
Steviepinhead · 11 October 2005
There are some earlier threads here which go into considerable detail. This is just my overall impressionistic response:
Originally, Dembski's withdrawal was excused on the basis that the Thomas More Law Center folks running the defense would not allow Dembski to have separate counsel (from the overall defense counsel) for his deposition.
It now looks like none of the originally-listed DI defense "experts" will be testifying. The DI spin on this is that they agree that ID is not yet sufficiently "ripe" for presentation at the (pre-college) class level, and that the Dover case was, um, evolving in a direction that threatened to inject a, ahem, particular designer into the mix...
My take: the DI sensed that this case was heading to the dumpster, and they made a strategic decision to bail. Since then, they have been working as hard as they can to distance themselves and their, um, "theory" from the looming disaster, while still perching on the sidelines and trying their darndest to diss any of the testimony currently running in plaintiffs' favor.
kay · 11 October 2005
problem is that as business, the DI and all the other more or less creationist outfits can make a good living just preaching (and selling stuff) to the choir.
Therefore, I propose a change of tactic -- SEND THE FAST FOOD NINJAS!
Henry J · 11 October 2005
What's a fast food Ninja? Is it teenaged? Turtle shaped? What?
RBH · 11 October 2005
Steviepinhead · 11 October 2005
[boinking sound of Steviepinhead banging his pointy little head against the nearest wall]:
RBH is, of course, correct. Not all of the DI-affiliated experts listed by the defense have been withdrawn.
So much for impressionism! And I posted that little quickie after I had reviewed the witness list that bill helpfully linked us to in comment #51673 above. Sigh.
Shawn · 11 October 2005
Check This Out!
Seminar at Lehigh Univ.
Prof. Miller is giving a talk at Prof. Behe's department, and it's tomorrow. They say its open to the public, so please, spread the word. I'm in CO, but I would love for someone to give me a heads-up on what happens at the talk. So if you are local and care; go! Then tell me what happened. Like does Prof. Behe show up? What questions are asked? Etc. Thanks!
improvius · 11 October 2005
Tailspin · 12 October 2005
Flint · 12 October 2005
The new YDR article dwells on an aspect of the case which is genuinely important: what the Constitution says depends on who's reading it. And Thompson's comments that once Roberts and O'Connor's replacement are seated, he has a 5-4 victory in favor of teaching one particular religious doctrine as scientific fact, is right on the money.
Scalia, the intellectual leader of the religioso, for the life of him can't see any religious motivation when it's his religion being inserted. His comment that the 'subjective motivations' of policy makers are invisible somehow doesn't seem to apply when he does NOT like their motivations. THEN it's clearly wrong. Clarence Thomas's head is by now permanently shoved up Scalia's butt. Roberts has in the past argued strongly for school prayer for his (oops, I mean the One True) religion.
All of this could easily mean our once-world-leading educational system retreats to the 18th century for at least a generation, while delirious people dance in the streets of the red states for decades to come.
South Korea seems to be doing some interesting work, though.
Ben Katz · 13 October 2005
Is it right to teach Intelligent Desin in school? Easy:
1. We can't teach it in school because most of its supporters actually believe the bible!
Additionally,
2. There's another topic we can't teach because most of its supporters actually believe the koran!
Additionally,
3. There's another topic we can't teach because most of its supporters actually are ATHEIST.
Hmm, we got a problem. In the interest of being fair, you either teach NOTHING, or else teach ALL the main theories.
Aureola Nominee, FCD · 13 October 2005
Hmmm, Mr. Katz...
WHICH "main theories" might you be referring to, I wonder?
You seem to imply that this "Intelligent Design" stuff is a theory; a "main" theory, no less.
Please tell us its main points, what research it's conducting, how it can be falsified... you know, run of the mill stuff for sacientific theories.
We're all ears.
kay · 13 October 2005
http://science.slashdot.org/science/05/10/13/1640200.shtml?tid=103&tid=219&tid=14
hey kitties, did you see this? "Top Advisory Panel Warns Erosion of U.S. Science".
can someone with permission post it as an article? :)
CJ O'Brien · 13 October 2005
"In the interest of being fair..."
Science isn't interested in being fair.
Bayesian Bouffant, FCD · 13 October 2005
Bayesian Bouffant, FCD · 13 October 2005
Michael Hopkins · 13 October 2005
Joe · 14 October 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 14 October 2005
Bayesian Bouffant, FCD · 14 October 2005
RBH · 14 October 2005
Valentine Pontifex noted on Infidels that the Discovery Institute is being very selective about what trial transcripts they're posting. They seem to have the cross-examination of Robert Pennock and Kenneth Miller available, but none of the transcripts of their direct testimony. Wonder why that is? Why would the Discovery Institute, a self-proclaimed "non-partisan public policy think tank", publish just one side of the expert testimony for the plaintiffs? Hmmmmmmm. I can't imagine. You reckon someone should ask Bill Gates, since he reportedly supplies a good-sized chunk of the DI President's salary?
RBH
Big Talk Theory · 15 October 2005
I seem to be reading the same old "evolution vs creation" commentary that goes on everywhere.
Why are these two topics always set against each other? The "XOR" proposition leads to endless sophistry. Perhaps an "AND" proposal would be the more sophic razor.
Creation is a biogenesis, seeking to explain the origin of life.
Evolution is science, seeking to explain the phenomena of life.
Like the Big Bang, Evolution does not and cannot explain the cause of the phenomena. Both acknowledge (and prove) the limits of scientific thinking.
The Big Talk theory of the Origin of Life parallels the Big Bang Theory, but seeks to integrate the origin with the phenomena. The biogenesis and the science.
Please see
http://www.geocities.com/bigtalktheory
for details.
jeffw · 15 October 2005
Andy · 16 October 2005
Check http://aclupa.blogspot.com/ , they've got a good summary of Kevin Padian testifying.
Michael Hopkins · 16 October 2005
A correction to RBH's comment 52329.
Yes, the DI is being very selective in what it puts up: Ken Miller cross with no direct testimony. And most witnesses are not none at all. However as for Robert Pennock, they have both the direct testimony and the cross (as well as redirect and recross).
The DI Pennock transcript appears to be the complete Day 3, AM session that is one of the transcripts not yet up on the sites of the good guys.
This transcript, like Day 6 AM, is another which Armstrong was the court reporter for. That means the PDF looks beautiful, but the file is large and one can't copy and paste usable text from it.
John · 18 October 2005
Slate has a weeklong series of dispatches from the trial.
FitzRoy · 19 October 2005
Jit Gill · 19 October 2005
I never thought I would say this, but my hat is off to The Christian Science Monitor for their resent article. Link below.. They said :
"That doubt is common to many Americans, 80 percent of whom believe in God and 42 percent of whom, according to a July Pew poll, believe in the creationist idea that "living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time."
But the Dover school board's argument that intelligent design is science, not religion, is found wanting. The statement for students seems to fault evolution for being a "theory." Yet a theory involves considerable evidence toward an accepted principle. As an explanation for biological life, evolution is gathering ever more evidence. Intelligent design is still a hypothesis, and vulnerable by its lack of evidence".
I am very impressed with this article, it's a must read, and I would hope more Christians will read it.
Shadowram
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1020/p08s02-comv.html
Gary Hurd · 20 October 2005
OH BOY! New transcripts are up onthe ACLU site.
Jit Gill · 20 October 2005
Well I will give you a few articles about the poll results. There are many and most Americans believe that ID should be thought in Science class. How did we fail the common American. Not sure, maybe because we thought we lived in the year 2005 and I for one thought that Evolution was a given, and the best support for the Origin of Species we have right now in the Scientific Community. Who knew that faith could overcome Science, and in turn be the laughing stock of the rest of the world. Read on. Do you not think it odd that the lower you educational level or income is the more likely you are to believe in ID?
http://www.livescience.com/othernews/ap_050901_evo_polls.html
http://www.etaiwannews.com/showPage.php?setupFile=showcontent.xml&menu_item_id=10&did=d_1129519844_10056_7f3144d01eab0713_20&area=taiwan&area_code=ww000
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2005-10-10-evolution-debate-centerpiece_x.htm?POE=TECISVA
If you need more Poll data ..look it up
Shadowram
Jit Gill · 21 October 2005
Some of you might have already seen these Videos, but I thought I'd repost the links. This is the famous presentation by Professor Behe and Professor Miller. This is the one that Professor Miller turns a mousetrap into other things. Professor Miller is a genius. Professor Behe on the other hand seems to just want to do his presentation and get the hell out of there before ANYONE can question him. These 2 videos are hilarious.
First Behe's Presentation
http://www.counterbalance.net/perspevo/presmb-frame.html
Now Professor Miller's Presentation and rebuttal to Behe's presentation
http://www.counterbalance.net/perspevo/preskm-frame.html
I hope they might play this in court..
Shadowram
Bob O'H · 22 October 2005
A pdf of day 12's morning transcripts are up at the Pennsylvania ACLU site, you can get them from here. As they say "It's surprisingly entertaining."
Bob
Peggy · 22 October 2005
The October 21st edition of NPR's Science Friday has coverage of the trial.
http://www.sciencefriday.com/pages/2005/Oct/hour1_102105.html
It has a bit about an administrator from a different school district who wanted to learn more about intelligent design, so came to hear Behe's testimony. He apparently came away convinced that ID was a good thing to teach in the classroom! (It's not clear if he attended the day Behe said his definition of "theory" would include astrology).
Michael Hopkins · 22 October 2005
The most complete list of availiable transcripts that I know of.
This list links to transcripts from the ACLU, NCSE, Talk.Origins Archive, and the Discovery Institute.
Being part of the Wikipedia, anyone can edit the document to link to more copies as they appear. Or help expand the table of contents.
Pete Dunkelberg · 23 October 2005
Don't forget the York Daily Record.
It looks like the reporters who tattled on Buckingham (remember Buckingham? The school board's leading creationist until he flew the coop) will testify next week, perhaps sooner than scheduled since creationist witnesses are off visiting Buckingham in the witness protection program.
Notes on Behe/Doolittle
Pete Dunkelberg · 23 October 2005
Missing Links? The Boston Globe has a four part article and asks for your input.
Sir_Toejam · 23 October 2005
in the continuing drive to laud at least decent press coverage of the issues surrounding the politicization of evolutionary theory, here's a decent article attempting to address specific claims of creationists, and outlining the overwhelming majority of scientific opinion on the ID scam.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2005/10/23/missing_links/
If you find the author's words useful, I suggest you write the paper with compliments to Peter Dizikes.
Alan · 24 October 2005
Dr K. John Morrow has responded to an email enquiry concerning his review of Behe's DBB here.
Pete · 24 October 2005
improvius · 24 October 2005
Steve S · 24 October 2005
Sure RBH http://home.entouch.net/dmd/moreandmore.htm
Michael Hopkins · 24 October 2005
New transcript:
Day 12 PM
Do note that this file is damaged as parts are unreadable. Now we know what the ACLU was referring to when it said it got damaged PDFs as its explanation for the missing PDFs. If someone knows how to fix this kind of problem, you have the chance to be a hero. I think the problem is a faulty embedding of fonts.
BTW, this file is in NCSE webspace. This entry tries to link to it but the link is broken. The file was saved as 2005_1018_day12_pm.pdf instead of 2005_1019_day12_pm.pdf.
Steve S · 24 October 2005
w/r/t Dover,
'New recruits' said needed for intelligent design
Witness says introducing theory in schools could make it more mainstream
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9805776/
DrFrank · 25 October 2005
From http://ydr.com/story/doverbiology/91142/
Evolutionary theory is a monolith of ideas that excludes other concepts from competing on a level playing field, Steve Fuller testified this morning
Yes, it's so unfair to expect other arbitrary hypotheses to produce evidence, isn't it?
Fuller said the concept's chief supporters "can't spontaneously generate a following" unless they get it in the schools first.
Odd that, I don't remember any other successful scientific theory having to be forced into schools politically in order to gain a following.
Fuller is a sociology professor from the University of Warwick in England.
Damn, I thought we Brits were relatively free from this crap. I personally apologise on behalf of the UK.
Alexey Merz · 25 October 2005
The Nobel Prize has, unambiguiously, been given for evolutionary biology: the 1969 Prize in Physiology or Medicine. Luria, Delbruck, and Hershey showed unambiguously in 1948 that mutations arise spontaneously in a population prior to selection, not in response to it. In other words, the 1969 Nobel was awarded for an experiment that addressed the very core of the modern synthesis.
K.E. · 25 October 2005
Gerard Harbison · 25 October 2005
I thought Mike Argento was flagging a bit last week, but his latest column is back to mid-season form. Classic line: "Fuller said intelligent design "needed to be mainstreamed," which I guess is a polite way of saying that in its current embryological state, it rides the short bus of science"
http://ydr.com/story/doverbiology/91282/
improvius · 25 October 2005
I know it's a repost, but this article on the Discovery Institute and Thomas More Law Center having a go at each other is a must-read regarding the witnesses dropping out.
RBH · 25 October 2005
Shadowram · 26 October 2005
Primate fossils shed new light on human evolution.
Just goes to show we have not found everything yet. But the pieces still fall into place
http://www.newkerala.com/news.php?action=fullnews&id=41973
SEF · 26 October 2005
Cynthia Yockey · 27 October 2005
Tracy, thanks for your comment. Let me try again with the link to Dr. Yockey's new Web site: www.hubertpyockey.com. There he gives a simplified explanation of why Behe and Intelligent Design are wrong.
I am the Webmaster and soon will be adding pages elucidating many aspects of his work. For example, there will be a page with copies of his papers as soon as I have permission from the original journals. I'll also be adding an FAQ--and the first question will be, "Whose side are you on?." (Answer: evolution.)
There also will be a glossary to ensure that readers of the site understand the scientific definitions of the terms used. One of the slickest tricks the IDers have pulled off is to hijack the vocabulary of science and redefine it. You can win any game if your first move is to change all the rules to favor your side. In politics, getting seduced by this tactic is called "accepting the premise of the question." Dr. Yockey's approach demolishes the IDers false premises. For example, on his Web site, Dr. Yockey summarizes points from his new book (Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life) showing why biology is not "irreducibly complex."
Alan · 27 October 2005
@ Ms Yockey.
Your link doesn't seem to work, but I can find your father's webisite here:http://www.hubertpyockey.com/
Jason Spaceman · 27 October 2005
Shadowram · 27 October 2005
I think this article sums up Behe's testimony nicely. Very Funny but true.
http://www.slate.com/id/2128755/
Shadowram
Michael Hopkins · 27 October 2005
Michael Hopkins · 27 October 2005
Bayesian Bouffant, FCD · 28 October 2005
DrFrank · 28 October 2005
Nice to see that Gary Mac has refused to give in to name-calling and is instead still providing lucid and detailed arguments promoting ID. Oh wait.
Gary reminds me a little of Homo floresiensis: not big, and not clever. Infantile insults really do just make you look like a joke, I'm afraid, and people certainly aren't laughing with you.
Right, I've got to get back to pimping the propaganda machine *toddles off*
Bayesian Bouffant, FCD · 28 October 2005
I'm sure going to stay away from OxyContin. Apparently it turns your memory into Swiss cheese.
Maybe when Buckingham gets convicted of perjury, they could have him do community service by going around to schools and presenting himself as an example of the perils of drug abuse.
Big kahuna · 28 October 2005
GOD IS DEAD! GOD IS DEAD! Thus Spake Behe.
Flint · 28 October 2005
The last transcripts the Pa. ACLU has posted are now 9 full days old. Are these procedings no longer being recorded?
ega · 28 October 2005
Has is struck you how dishonest these Christians are?
Don't these people have some sort of ethical code they are supposed to follow?
ega · 28 October 2005
Has is struck you how dishonest these Christians are?
Don't these people have some sort of ethical code they are supposed to follow?
JillK. · 28 October 2005
Thank you for summarizing the trial so succinctly and so well!
As for Intelligent Design: How could a useless pouch which can easily become lethally infected be part of any intelligent design? I refer, of course, to the appendix.
JW Tan · 28 October 2005
I enjoy reading TPT, and find your coverage of Kitzmiller v DASD the best around. Having read about William Buckingham, I find it hard to see how he reconciles lying with Christian behaviour.
Steve S · 28 October 2005
Steve S · 28 October 2005
now, be fair, we can't be sure Buckingham is lying. He could have just been whacked out of his mind on Oxycontin, which he's admitted being addicted to.
Sir_Toejam · 28 October 2005
this obviously makes it quite clear that we all need to pay a lot closer attention to the qualifications of people who run for school boards.
Sir_Toejam · 28 October 2005
Isn't oxycontin the drug Rush Limbaugh is addicted to?
Steve S · 28 October 2005
They failed with Irreducible Complexity, they failed with Complex Specified Information, Heddle failed with his Specificity jibber jabber.
I want to suggest the next Darwin-destroying ID theory: The Squinting Algorithm.
How do you tell something's designed? Look at it and squint. If it looks designed, it is. QED.
Steve S · 28 October 2005
Sir_Toejam · 28 October 2005
hmm. maybe the whole ID thing is just an oxycontin hallucination?
godarwin · 29 October 2005
I haven't seen this pointed out, but maybe that's because it is so obvious.
When Buckingham said:
"I had it in my mind to make sure not to talk about creationism. I had it on my mind."
...isn't that saying, quite plainly, that when he (and the DASD) talk about intelligent design, what they really mean is creationism? That's the case right there.
And does anyone but me find it ironic that Buckingham's Freudian slip, potentially the camel that broke the straw man's back, was captured by a FOX channel's news camera? Video clip: http://ydr.com/mmedia/multi/528/
Sir_Toejam · 29 October 2005
by jove i think you're on to something there. however, how does one "prove" a freudian slip?
sure, it sounds like he was coached on the exact terms to use/avoid using, one would still have to prove this to actually be the case for it to be useful in court.
moakley · 29 October 2005
"Oxycontin hallucination?"
Yeah, but it makes the pain of reality go away.
Sir_Toejam · 29 October 2005
exactly :p
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 29 October 2005
Ermine · 29 October 2005
Oxycontin? Bah!
Due to a nerve injury, I've been taking oxycontin (and for the last year or two Oxycodone, a faster-acting variant) for 5 years now. Why is this the first time I've ever hear anyone claim that it affected one's memory?
I believe he's just using Oxycontin as a convenient excuse - but a good 'christian' wouldn't do that, would he???
'It wasn't me, it was da booze!'
Uh-huh. Sure.
the pro from dover · 29 October 2005
if anyone is interested I have a theory which I call "oxycontinental drift". The parting of the red sea was the first step of intelligently designed sea floor spreading. Unfortunately that had the unintended consequence if pusshing Israel right into the middle east! D'oh!!!
Sir_Toejam · 29 October 2005
oxycontinental drift...
that's a gud un.
Greg H · 29 October 2005
It is amusing and appalling at the same time that we (the people) are the ones choosing these...hmm..what's the word I'm looking for..."people" to represent us at all levels of government. I read an article today on the CNN website (Science section) about whether American society is becoming more hostile towards science in general. No. Just the parts that contradict the "Truth."
Pardon me, I know I'm ranting here, but it burns me up that we have essentially an entire governmental structure that has usurped the American government and turned it into their own platform for remaking the world in their own image.
Back to our regularly scheduled discussion, already in progress...
William Buckingham, poster child for selective amnesia, should be the killing blow for this whole thing, but unfortunately, I dare say things won't be that simple.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 29 October 2005
Alexey Merz · 29 October 2005
Alexey Merz · 29 October 2005
I should add that a pile of new transcripts are available:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District_trial_documents#Transcripts_of_the_trial
Alexey Merz · 30 October 2005
Correction for comment 54365: the attorney leading questioning for the plaintiffs in the passage I quote above is Mr. Harvey, not Mr. Rothschild.
Just_a_layman · 30 October 2005
We interrupt this blogging to present to you a whine from someone who doesn't know science, but does know pdf generation and graphics.
I just spent a frustrating couple of hours trying to read the transcripts. Could someone please pass on to those creating the pdf's these couple of tips concerning pdf generation? Thx.
A note about the font issues in the pdfs:
Ever since the great Macromedia/Adobe fight in 2000-2001(? I am not quite sure about the time line-it was a few years ago) some fonts are copyright protected and cannot be embedded, due to extraction issues with Acrobat.
That means that any pdf created in Acrobat 6.0 or later has to have fonts subset not embedded.
If you try to embed a protected font, you get the generic MSTT31c29100 or T13 T14 fonts listed in your document fonts. Those are not real fonts, that's acrobat trying to substitute the nearest generic font it can find. It doesn't do that very well.
Use open type or true type fonts such as arial, Tacoma etc. Type 3 is a post script font which requires a screen and a printer font to work. If you only have half the font (the screen part) your pdf will not "print" to pdf correctly, also looking very much like the "damaged" file from Buckingham's testimony.
(The pdf will look fine on the creator's screen but when viewed on other machines, it will throw out the generic damaged file or font missing error MSG)
Thank you for listening to this whine.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled blogging.
Michael Hopkins · 30 October 2005
I put up some improvements to the TalkOrigins Dover Panda Trial page. There are new HTML transcript to six sessions. The table of contents now links to copies of off-site copies of transcripts with no HTML versions yet. These are by the court reporter who can't make proper PDFs. The offsite sources include the DI, NCSE, and ACLU. I also note the missing transcripts and days which had no morning session so it is clear what still needs to be done.
Just_a_layman, You know PDF generation? Sounds great. Do you know how to fix the problems with faulty PDF's?
Anyone knows if there is a way to, say, simply strip/change the font information from those PDF? Would this fix the problem?
Sir_Toejam · 30 October 2005
i bet it would. So long as the files are supported by acrobat 5, i could check them out and see if changing the fonts to more standard ones would fix the problem.
my email is attached to my handle.
Sir_Toejam · 30 October 2005
er, nevermind. i see they don't don't link email addys here any more.
here tis:
fisheyephotos@hotmail.com
Sir_Toejam · 30 October 2005
thinking further tho, i wonder if any private person fixes the transcripts whether that would invalidate their "authenticity"?
Hell, anyone could change the wording.
Sir_Toejam · 30 October 2005
Just_a_layman · 30 October 2005
I tried fixing the pdfs on my system. It didn't work :(
I'm 90% sure it's because a "broken" postscript font was used, where the creator has the screen font but not the printer font. (Which shows fine in applications such as word or publisher, but will be rejected in real publishing applications such as Quark, Indesign, Illustrator and Photoshop)
The term printer font is mildly misleading, because one can still print that document out in word, publisher etc and have it print out fine. Printer in this case means printing to a post script device such as Acrobat Distiller or a commercial printing postscript RIP.
As far as the embedding issue goes, Adobe isn't going to fix it.
The whole brouhaha was that in the older versions of acrobat (pre 6.0-not sure if the 5.5 patch messed with the embedding or not), if the font was embedded, one could extract the font from the document, and have the font without paying for it. (Major copyright violations and commercial infringement). That's when Macromedia put in the protection code into fonts, which allows one to subset (meaning it only embeds the characters used, not all the keyboard characters) fonts for viewing and printing. Adobe also tweaked something in Acrobat, but it's been so long, I forget what. It was a big deal at the time though.
When I was a kid, I was either going to be an archaeologist or a professional artist when I grew up. Life laughed at me and stuck me in printing, where I get to fix other people's messed up files for a living.
I got revenge by starting my own graphics company.
So yes, I know pdf generation. :)
Michael Hopkins · 31 October 2005
Fernmonkey · 31 October 2005
Surely the school board would have some sort of insurance against being sued though?
I really am horrified at the fact that the board was plaiing to buy Of Pandas and People after slashing the budget for actual required textbooks.
Michael Hopkins · 31 October 2005
improvius · 31 October 2005
RBH · 31 October 2005
I don't know about school boards, but my company carries "acts and omissions" insurance to cover our board members.
RBH
Greg · 31 October 2005
Not sure if this is linked to elsewhere, but there was a classic parody of IDers on ABC Australia's science show this week. The sketch is about 45 minutes in (before it is an excellent discussion of Fred Hoyle and an article about how unintelliegently designed humans are - the whole show is well worth a listen). Check it out (29th October show): http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ss/
The print version of the unintelliegent design article is here: http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/the-great-designer-mythology/2005/10/16/1129401142311.html
Greg · 31 October 2005
Some are so badly designed that they can't spell 'intelligent'.
Thomas Phinney · 1 November 2005
Sir_Toejam · 1 November 2005
K.E. · 1 November 2005
Maybe its the printers they use on site
Thomas Phinney · 1 November 2005
I just pulled down the problematic PDF. It does seem to be deeply messed up. The Type 3 fonts stored in this doc are bitmap fonts.
When Type 3 is used in PDF, it is most commonly used as a means of storing a bitmap font when, for whatever reason, an outline font is not available.
The only place one semi-regularly runs into Type 3 bitmap fonts these days is on some flavors of Unix. However, it looks like this PDF was produced on a Windows machine with Acrobat 6 and the PostScript driver (Psript.drv) 4.00. So that does not immediately make sense to me. But then again, messed-up PDFs aren't my specialty (though font embedding is).
I'll see if somebody else can diagnose this and/or fix it.
Cheers,
T
improvius · 1 November 2005
improvius · 1 November 2005
I would also speculate that, had the board used the "required" law firm, they would have been STRONGLY advised to settle.
improvius · 1 November 2005
K.E. · 1 November 2005
Would it be unethical to clone Mike and put Mikes into every media outlet ? (Irony... for pedants)
Fernmonkey · 1 November 2005
Holy guacamole, that's a lot of money out of the education budget.
Bayesian Bouffant, FCD · 1 November 2005
Gerard Harbison · 1 November 2005
Given the, ahem, discrepancies between the School Board members court testiomony and their depositions, I wonder if this thread shouldn't be retitled Of Pandas and Perjury?
Thomas Phinney · 1 November 2005
Thomas Phinney · 1 November 2005
And, I apologize for temporarily hijacking the thread. I really did just come here to read about the Dover trial. Honest. We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming. :)
ega · 1 November 2005
Of Pandas and Perjury?
OK, I'll write a web page with that tille. add it to my Useful FAQS section.
Anton Mates · 1 November 2005
Bayesian Bouffant, FCD · 1 November 2005
ChrisO · 1 November 2005
Shadowram · 1 November 2005
I don't think this will be a defeat for ID and the Discovery Int. They have been distancing themselves from this. And by the looks of it, the Judge might rule on the fact that the Dover Board tried to bring in ID prompted by religious needs, Thus not ruling that ID is in itself a religious concept. Only that religion was the board's motivation.
The discovery Int. will still press that ID is not religious, and will be back to fight again. Maybe with an all atheist board, trying to push ID in the class rooms. ID will go only away if or when the Supreme Court determines whether ID is a True Science or Faith Based. Until then there will be lots of news about schools all across the country trying to implement ID. And push the US into the 18th century.
Shadowram
geogeek · 1 November 2005
"will be back to fight again. Maybe with an all atheist board, trying to push ID in the class rooms"
Where on Earth do you think DI could find a bunch of actual atheists to push DI's ideas?
Or maybe not on Earth - they would have to be the "Aliensdidit" crew, I suppose....
Flint · 1 November 2005
This is if nothing else wonderfully entertaining. Buckingham testified that he never "asked" for the money. Instead, he stood up in front of his congregation and told them "the money is needed. You can make your contributions right here." But ask? Nope, not that! Notice also that (with one exception) he had them contribute CASH contributions. He didn't want the source of the money to be traceable - except, of course, it is collected in church. For purely scientific purposes, of course.
Donald Bonsell needed to buy the books because they were concerned about the audit trail if an active school board member actually made the purchase. So the official story was supposed to be: "Well blow me down, here are all these books! Where COULD they have come from? None of US bought them, and it WAS a cash purchase. Must be God was listening to us, because this is how God is known to operate." But they couldn't keep their story straight when the court, immersed in pathetic detail, started to dig into the source of the magic.
To make things even more delightful, these are the same people who spent their direct examination accusing every reporter (newspaper, radio, TV, the works) of lying in *every single report* they filed. Those despicable reporters lied in their original reports, in the notes they took on the spot, even in their videotapes (somehow). But all those reported lies, in all those news stories, somehow didn't get noticed or complained about by anyone until the implications sank in.
Is it any wonder Judge Jones tossed out Dembksi et. al's attempt to insert testimony without cross-examination? Cross is when the plaintiffs actually get to produce the reporters' notes and videotapes. Which must be really painful for the DI, who came in right after Buckingham was pronouncing about Jesus and induced mass amnesia among the creationists on the school board, which extended right to all of the actual minutes being, uh, misplaced somehow.
Creationists, it seems, do law about as well as they do science. They just can't seem to grasp that outside of their faith, things DO NOT become true just because they WANT them to be true or SAY they're true. A federal court just doesn't work the same way Dembski's blog does, and they just can't understand it.
morbius · 1 November 2005
Bayesian Bouffant, FCD · 1 November 2005
improvius · 1 November 2005
Actually, if an atheist school board were to push an atheist science program - in which they told students that "there is no god" - the ACLU would be all over them.
Gary Hurd · 1 November 2005
Douglas Theobald has found an apparently easy way to largely repair the damaged PDF files using his Mac & OSX. So, I suspect that the problem is also complicated by the use of (perhaps?) an older Mac by court reporter Wesley Armstrong.
Reading the full transcript of Mr. Buckingham's testimony (Day 16) revealed that the DI and the Thomas More Center were in close association with the Dover Board well before any votes.
Tevildo · 1 November 2005
Rilke's Granddaughter · 1 November 2005
MidnightVoice · 1 November 2005
I love the fact that the Judge (A Bush appointee, and hence probably not a Liberal) is suggesting that Buckingham committed perjury!!
morbius · 1 November 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 1 November 2005
Julie · 1 November 2005
Lemme get this straight. There's no room in the Dover high school budget for a calculus class?
Education Lite. Less math, less biology. This has gone past the mildly frightening and into the truly horrifying.
Steviepinhead · 1 November 2005
Less math is indeed a horrifying thing, and a high school that fails to offer calculus ought to be ashamed to call itself a high school. But inadequate public school funding can, at least arguably, force tough choices...
But Dover is proposing not simply to offer "less" biology, but fraudulent biology, promoted by perjurious rapscallions, without even the threadbare excuse of insufficient funds.
Of the two, fake biology sounds worse than lite math.
Rupertg · 1 November 2005
I notice that the Discovery Institute's response to the most recent events in the courtroom is to describe them thus: "The Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial continues, with the ACLU and its witnesses arguing that to briefly mention the theory of intelligent design just before spending several days teaching Darwinian evolution constitutes an establishment of religion and should not be allowed." That's certainly one way of looking at it, but one sadly not shared by any other outlet reporting on the case.
However, the DI post has more important things to present. "Even Religious Skeptics Skeptical of the ACLU's Dover Position" is the title of the response, and it goes on to quote one Dean Esmay - "self-proclaimed liberal and atheist" - as saying that banning the "completely harmless" book Of Pandas... is "censorship... period".
MInd you, this is the Dean Esmay who says on his web site that "I still believe that George W. Bush was the only progressive liberal running for President in 2000". I know I'm a Brit with somewhat skewed ideas of what actually constitutes a liberal, but, um...
R
Sir_Toejam · 1 November 2005
... and of course this is just another straw-man argument from the DI. NOBODY ever proposed banning the book in general, only that such drivel doesn't belong in a science class.
Well, one good thing about this trial for certain, is that it is creating a documented example of how much and often these creationists will lie and obfuscate in order to further their goals.
regardless of what happens afterward, it has been and will continue to be a great reference in that regard.
the pro from dover · 1 November 2005
Lenny, Lenny, Lenny, you poor misbegotten, unforgiven, satan-worshipping, liberal, homosexual, terrorist, pro-choice, Clinton loving, communist, probably-never-saw-passion-of-the-christ, heavy metal listening, Alec Baldwin worshipping,if-you've-got-a-blacklist-I-wanna-be-on-it, anti-american member of the intellectual educated segment of the east coast elite don't you understand that those fundies aren't lying...they're speaking in tongues! (possibly forked, but that would be an insult to lepidosaurs everywhere).
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 1 November 2005
K.E. · 1 November 2005
Pro from Dover you forgot "conspiracy theory debunker, identifier of weird sects"
Speaking of which Mel Gibson and his Father are a nasty bunch of anti-Semitic fundamentalists.
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2003_07_20_dneiwert_archive.html
Cynthia Yockey · 1 November 2005
Hubert Yockey (my father and author of Information Theory, Evolution and Molecular Biology, Cambridge University Press, 2005) read through Minnich's pre-trial expert testimony today and has just posted his answers to Minnich on his Website, http://www.hubertpyockey.com. (To find the new stuff you'll have to scroll down past the first table of answers and the definitions.)
As far as I know, Dr. Yockey is the only scientist to point out three important objections to Intelligent Design:
1. The genome is the engine of evolution. It evolves through a random walk and therefore has no need of an Intelligent Designer.
2. There are no gaps in the genome from the origin of life to the present and for all life yet-to-evolve. Therefore there is no need for an ad hoc Intelligent Designer to explain gaps in the fossil record or morphology.
3. Non-living matter requires an "Intelligent Designer" to function and evolve ONLY because it has no genome. In all the Intelligent Design scenarios, the "Intelligent Designer" takes the place that the genome holds in living matter. Since living matter has a genome programming its functioning and evolution, it does not need an Intelligent Designer.
He has some good points about "Of Pandas and People," too.
There's more on the Web site, http://www.hubertpyockey.com.
P.S. Remember, the genome is the non-material information programmed in DNA. "Genome" and "genetic code" are not synonymous (see the HPY Web site for the definitions).
Alan Fox · 2 November 2005
Robert Shapiro has commented further on peer review and Behe's DBB here.
Bruce Beckman · 2 November 2005
Tevildo, an clean copy of Behe's cross from 10/19 PM can be found at Thomas More's website
http://www.thomasmore.org/pdfs/Behe_10-19_Afternoon.pdf
Jeffery Keown · 2 November 2005
I looked for this Polonium Halo paper. I don't think it exists. If someone finds it, do let me know.
godarwin · 2 November 2005
Polonium Halos Web site
http://www.halos.com/
TalkOrigins'Polonium Halo FaQ
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/
tytlal · 3 November 2005
LOL! Did anyone else read today's Perry Mason moment:
http://dailykos.com/story/2005/11/3/0222/44353
Oh, the sweet irony!
Frank J · 3 November 2005
Bayesian Bouffant, FCD · 3 November 2005
kay · 3 November 2005
Offtopic, but here it comes: I wrote a little story about the whole debate.
http://www.spiritplumber.com/change_over_time/
Bob O'H · 3 November 2005
Flint · 3 November 2005
I can't help but wonder if any creationist school boards elsewhere will notice that the DI led the Dover dupes down the primrose path by hand UNTIL they were in over their heads, at which point the DI backed out and adopted a new "official position" opposite of what they talked the Dover dupes into, as though that had been their position all along.
Of course, in doing so the DI demonstrated exactly the sort of consistency and integrity creationists have become so famous for, but I do NOT expect any creationists to be able to see that pattern no matter what. I just wonder if a single creationist on any school board anywhere will think "Wait a minute, maybe we shouldn't lean quite so heavily on all the free assistance the DI offers..."
Alexey Merz · 3 November 2005
Shadowram · 3 November 2005
I just found a site with the FREE ID videos. I just forced myself to watch the full 52 mins of "Icons of Evolution". After watching it..I can honestly say I am scared S***Less. IDer's can win over true science. This is a slick video, and for the weak of mind..after watching the video, you may become an ID'er.
This link shows free video of almost all the ID media. I "dare" any one of you to force yourself to watch "Icons of Evolution" (53mins) . It scared me. It's VERY believable, and evolution is going to lose unless our scientist will step forward and tell the lay person what is going on, and the advancements we have made in our understanding of evolution. The huge strides we have made. The lay person does not read the journals. Promote the knowledge we have gained in science. The only thing I found to be a true statement in the video, was at the start...it says. "Evolution is not taught enough in high school".
http://www.theapologiaproject.org/video_library.htm
Shadowram
Peter Ellis · 4 November 2005
Hmmm - I don't suppose there's any mechanism by which you can get yourself called as a witness for the plaintiffs to say that you offered to host Gentry's stuff and were rejected? It might help make the point that scientists are not conspiring to suppress stuff.
Ron Okimoto · 4 November 2005
Slick videos are one thing, but reality is another. All they will get by scamming the rubes is another Dover. It may make people bolder to try the scams, but in the end all they have are ignorant incompents supporting them. What in the videos held up in Court? What was even put forward as evidence? Even the Discovery Institute knows that they can't trust Well's junk. Rubes like in Ohio have already been burned for trying to use it. Icons was part of the reference list in the draft lesson plan, but it and the various obvious lies got axed. How did the Wellsian lie about "no moths on tree trunks" get into the Ohio lesson plan? Why was it removed if it was legit?
Greg H · 4 November 2005
Ed Darrell · 4 November 2005
Wesley,
Gentry's claim is a slander to you, particularly since you did exactly the opposite of what he claimed in his slam. Were you to sue, it would not be a faux claim, a nuisance suit.
That last sentence contains one way scientists are superior to creationists ethically, in the latter part; and I suspect, in the former part it contains a way that scientists are superior in manners to creationists.
B Richardson · 4 November 2005
Bayesian Bouffant, FCD · 4 November 2005
ega · 4 November 2005
Dembski just barred me from his site.
godarwin · 4 November 2005
godarwin · 4 November 2005
Greg H · 4 November 2005
Bayesian Bouffant, FCD · 4 November 2005
Greg H · 4 November 2005
Shadowram · 4 November 2005
Minnich said it himself. "Science is not a democratic process,". Duh...It can't be..it has to be based on facts..not faith. Sorry if you do not like the outcome, disproved it. You can't take a vote on truth and evidence. I can't believe Minnich wants to turn Science into a "Democratic Process" I wish there was video of the trial. There is no way he can say that with a straight face.
"To endorse intelligent design comes with risk because it's a position against the consensus. Science is not a democratic process," University of Idaho microbiology professor Scott Minnich said under cross-examination.
The article
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1151AP_Evolution_Debate.html
Shadowram
Craig De Luca · 4 November 2005
I was born and raised Catholic and still carry my believes, but in no way would I ever place them above proven science. In the history of the Human Race there has always been those that were crucified and shun from there societies for proving evidence against the church and then later proven to be right. How can anyone be as foolish as to believe that we were created by some 1 HIGHER being? If there was such a creator of life than why is there no evidence shown. The religious freaks out there have all neglected that there are plenty of holes in the teaching from the bible, from the Old Testament to the new and that to follow the word of the lord is ludicrous, further more it is the same as believing in Santa Claus because it was written down by enough people over time. Science can date fossils and the time span of the planets and solar system, track DNA from one person to another and uncover all facts that can never be verified by the teachings of the bible. If there was also 1 HIGHER being the creator all of us, then why is it that all different religions have different views of the GOD. Is Catholicism the only right religion? Why it is the Catholic Church is the only religion that can't get along with science? You don hear of Buddhist or Jews preaching that science and evolution is wrong. I just can't believe that so many Americans are ignorant to something that can be proven like 2+2 = 4. I will agree that there are gaps in Evolution, given the inescapable missing link. But even with that there is still more proof of evolution being true. Even with science we see that certain chemical or substances in situations that create an outcome that was never imaginable. Is this the work of GOD? Is everything unexplainable Gods work? Catholic Church doesn't believe in Stem Cell Research or Abortion because it's killing life, but if we are able to give life back to some individuals than why isn't that seen as good for man kind? Why it is only viewed as evil and why will devout believers of religion blow up or sabotage Abortion and Stem Cell research facilities? Is that not wrong and taking life and hope away from people, is that not going against the bible? The people who believe that a Higher Being created them are trying to find an answer to a question that has no answer. The way the Big Bang theory is comprised illustrates that anywhere in the universe is a star that can exploded and form a world just like ours, and the chances of another planet in the universe that is able to harness life in one way or another like out planet is very probable. Are ID believers going to say that GOD created that also? Ignorance spreads like a rash as history has shown. What if they killed Columbus for saying the earth was round, would we still think that it's flat? Or if we didn't believe Copernicus about the sun, and believed the church that the universe revolved around Earth? History proves as it will, in this case that there is no possible way the church has any facts, as always the church goes by what was written 2000 years ago in the sand. If we believe these people, we might as well go back to living in Mud houses. The Egyptians believed there were Gods for different things, i.e...The Sun God Ra and Nut the Goddess of the Heavens and Sky. We would be just as foolish to believe these GODS in this day and age now knowing how what the sun and heavens are created. We can watch things happen in space and describe the process that takes place, the bible can't describe this. The bible will only say that god created it. The bible was made to give a answer to all the questions that had no answer before science could find one. And that was that a God made us and everything around us. When those ignorant people followed all of those believe it was fine but in this day and age to believe that God creates everything is for the ignorant.
Gerard Harbison · 4 November 2005
Does anyone know anything about this book?
I know at least one quote Barton included, attempting to show Madison opposed the separation of church and state, was apparently fabricated.
Russell · 4 November 2005
About Gentry. I wonder if he was confused by the title of your website: "Antievolution.org". Perhaps he took that to mean it was a forum where his claims would be disseminated without being subjected to much critical scrutiny.
Arne Langsetmo · 4 November 2005
God · 4 November 2005
Isn't this trial over yet? It's getting boring.
whatever · 4 November 2005
About Gentry and his fears of someone altering his papers: Has he heard of Adobe Acrobat? You can lock those files.
Shadowram · 4 November 2005
Boring..How can you say this trial is boring..This I think is the funniest trail in history...the cast of: Behe, Buckingham, Bonsell. I will be the first to watch the movie of the week when it comes out. It will be reality comedy at it's best...you can not make this stuff up.
Bayesian Bouffant, FCD · 4 November 2005
The closing statements were scheduled for this afternoon (Friday 4 Nov 2005). The decision may not be handed down until December.
Phil Karn · 4 November 2005
First, a simple question: doesn't the school board record their meetings? Weren't there any tape recordings or transcripts to resolve the simple question of what was said about creationism, when and by whom?
Like Buckingham, I suffer from chronic pain so I actually feel sorry for the guy. My doctors have treated me with various opioids, including OxyContin, and I can say from personal experience that they have absolutely no effect on memory. Nor have I found any such effects in the medical literature, and I read a lot of pain journals.
From the stories written about him, I get the strong impression that Buckingham is not an addict but a legitimate chronic pain patient. He has mistaken physical dependence, a normal and expected consequence of long-term opioid use, for psychological addiction, a remarkably rare complication of legitimate medical use. Used properly under medical supervision, opioids are both safe and effective for chronic pain. They improve functioning with remarkably few side effects. Even the addiction specialists will confirm this.
It's certainly possible that Buckingham's doctors are incompetent or misinformed and gave him bad advice. But given Buckingham's history of rejecting solid scientific theories like evolution, I think it more likely that he stubbornly rejected his doctors' advice, put himself through an unnecessary and unpleasant withdrawal, and is again suffering from untreated chronic pain.
I guess that just goes to show that willful scientific ignorance can be its own punishment.
CJ O'Brien · 4 November 2005
Shadowram · 4 November 2005
Oh OH it's Magic...
They are talking about magic..
"We infer design when we see parts that appear to be arranged for a purpose." said Dr. Scott Minnich
Sure the same way I infer that the magician cut the woman in half..I saw it..he cut her in half..but the reality is..well you know the rest of the story
Shadowram
improvius · 4 November 2005
Greg H · 4 November 2005
I would suppose that it is the same David Barton. *chuckles* I would be surprised if I was the first person to ask WTF?? in response to this crap.
morbius · 4 November 2005
Michael Hopkins · 4 November 2005
Greg H, Amicus Curiae are indeed filed in lower courts. There were several filed in the Cobb County disclaimer case before the district judge ruled. Dean Kenyon filed on in Edwards v. Aguillard long before it reached the Supreme Court. And indeed there are some filed in the current case.
There are clearly rules on such filings. Judge Jones rejected on by the Discovery Institute since it attempted to gets the withdrawn witnesses testimony on the record without exposure to cross-examination. You will need to consult a lawyer. I suspect that it is a bit too late to file for the District Court given that the trial is over.
Flint · 4 November 2005
godarwin · 4 November 2005
Suzyka · 4 November 2005
What's the story??
I've been following the trial and spent the past nights reading up on ID/creationism and the experts' statements and the trial transcripts and what not and am dying to know about Judge Jones' ruling. It's 5.30 my time (Germany) which means past "court hours" in the US in terms of November 4th... but nothing new either on "Panda's thumb" nor on the ACLU website.
(Have you checked http://www.meta-library.net/perspevo/presmb-frame.html ? It's a treat to SEE and HEAR these guys - Behe, Dembski vs. Miller et al.)
morbius · 4 November 2005
RBH · 5 November 2005
Shadowram · 5 November 2005
Finding out you are going to be sued, and if you lose you pay the lawyer bill : $1.5 million
Lying in court and having the judge question you directly, having to replace soiled underwear: $3
Closing arguments from plaintiffs: Priceless
Attorney Eric Rothschild, arguing for 11 parents who sued the Dover, Pennsylvania, Area School District and oppose the theory's inclusion in the curriculum, told the court that intelligent design was creationism in disguise.
He accused former school board member William Buckingham of lying when Buckingham testified he had mistakenly spoken in favor of creationism in a television interview because he had never been interviewed before and felt "like a deer in the headlights."
"That was no deer in the headlights," Rothschild said. "That deer was wearing shades and was totally at ease."
Too funny!!!!!!
Shadowram
godarwin · 5 November 2005
Phil Karn · 5 November 2005
Rose · 5 November 2005
Why wont the IDers just admit that they are really rooting for the Grand Old Designer?
Bayesian Bouffant, FCD · 5 November 2005
Bayesian Bouffant, FCD · 5 November 2005
Freud wore a slip? · 5 November 2005
This may be old news here, but I just ran across "The Psychology of Christian Fundamentalism" here.
The author is a professor, which we know in itself proves nothing about the validity of his argument, but it's a very interesting read.
Brian Spitzer · 5 November 2005
For those who haven't already read it, the closing argument by Eric Rothschild made me want to stand up and applaud.
The ACLU did a grand job in the courtroom. Three cheers for their hard work, and for everyone who helped 'em.
The text of the closing argument can be found here.
Bayesian Bouffant, FCD · 5 November 2005
Greg H · 5 November 2005
Steve S · 5 November 2005
Man, I just read that Closing Argument. It was so good I need a cigarette.
"It is not just Pandas that is faulty. It is the entire Intelligent Design project. They call it a scientific theory. But they have done nothing. They have produced nothing. Professor Behe wrote in Darwin's Black Box that if a scientific theory does not publish, it must perish. That is the history of Intelligent Design. As Professor Behe testified, there are no peer reviewed articles in science journals reporting original research or data that argue for Intelligent Design. By contrast, Kevin Padian, by himself, has written more than 100 peer reviewed scientific articles."
morbius · 5 November 2005
morbius · 5 November 2005
Actually, I should amend that. "design" does mean "To create or contrive for a particular purpose or effect", but "appear" means "to seem to be" and "seem" means "appear" -- a seeming comes down to a free standing belief. So Minnich said in effect "We infer design when we think there's design".
morbius · 5 November 2005
Tim · 5 November 2005
How I'm going to miss this entertaining trial! Don't suppose the Scool Board would agree to keep it going as defendants in a perjury trial....
godarwin · 6 November 2005
kay · 6 November 2005
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/11/closing_arguments_dover_plaint.html#more I love the Galileo quote at the end. :)
Freud_wore_a_slip? · 6 November 2005
If (when) Dover looses they presumably will have to pay the plantiff's legal fees which apparantly is on the order of $1.5M.
I wonder if any of the money behind the Thomas More Law Center is really interested enough in the science education of the Dover kids to pony up for those expenses so the school system won't have to pay them and thus be forced to drop additional courses.
K.E. · 6 November 2005
I wonder what advice the TMLC gave the board regarding the Boards collective/personal liabilities and what the TMLC would have said regarding any liability if they lost ?
It seems the board are off the hook financially, so something along the lines of "you have nothing to loose and everything to gain, don't worry someone else has to pick up the tab".
Its clear the TMLC didn't even consider they could loose, even so; they would have still said to the Board- "if in the extremely unlikely event we loose it's the opposition that will be left holding the baby"
If that's the case I can't see the board going after the TMLC for bad advice.
Have I missed a detail here ?
kay · 6 November 2005
"Oops, we don't have the money for the biology course, we'll have to drop it. Kids, ask your Sunday school teacher for now."
Troff · 6 November 2005
Hi all,
been following this with great, great interest (in spite of the fact I'm on the entirely wrong continent) and been involved (ha) in my own university's public-forum debate.
Would very much like to post Eric Rothschild's closing arguments to same forum, but I'm dead positive someone (probably even me) would like to see what arguments were offered by the opposing side.
Found the PDF of the plaintiff's closing arguments via the ACLU; does anybody know, please, where to get Gillen's closing argument?
Many thanks, if anyone knows...
Ken · 6 November 2005
Something interesting. The new scientific view of Genesis is a cosmic view. Well in the Bible in Hebrews Chapter 11 it says:
Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
So the Bible talks of worlds that are formed by God. That's planets so the bible confirms there are other planets.
Also that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear
That equation would be M=E/C(2) which is essentially fusion.
Now Einstein said that E=MC(2) which is fission.So, Einstein turned it around but used it to develop General relativity or E=MC(2). But always remember Einstein was thinking fusion when he developed general relativity and fission.
Again, Now Einstein said that E=MC(2) which is fission.
nitpick · 6 November 2005
Henry J · 6 November 2005
Re E=MC(2) = fission and M=E/C(2) = fusion
Not sure I follow that. The usual cases of both fusion and fision convert a bit of mass into energy - the exceptions are cases where an excess of energy forms things that can't form otherwise (such as heavy nuclei).
Henry
Scott · 7 November 2005
"THE POSITIVE CASE FOR DESIGN"
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=546
It's amazing how ID can so accurately "predict" things that have been known for decades or even centuries.
K.E. · 7 November 2005
morbius · 7 November 2005
Greg H. · 7 November 2005
morbius · 7 November 2005
Perhaps Ken thinks that a hydrogen bomb produces actual mushrooms.
Dean Morrison · 7 November 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 7 November 2005
godarwin · 7 November 2005
I went to review my county's proposed school science books today. In a county with a population of about 480,000, four people showed up -- which means I was representing 120,000. Two of them looked over a few books, wrote down their comments and left. I don't know what their observations were.
I went for the 9th grade biology books. While I was looking them over, another guy came in looking for the texts I was perusing, but contented himself with the 7th and 8th grade life sciences books. He started spouting off about factual inaccuracies, embryonic development photos, that Lucy was a chimp, circular reasoning (rocks dating fossils and fossils dating rocks), etc.
The scary part: He was also representing 120,000 people.
I found the books contained a good representation of mainstream science. The teachers present made it clear to me that they are on our side, but they need our help. Winning in Dover will not put an end to this nonsense. If they give you a chance, let your school system (and your state's D.O.E.) know how you feel. You know the anti-science crowd does.
Dean Morrison · 8 November 2005
Rich · 8 November 2005
I just wanted to say that I enjoy reading the posts on this site and I'm learning that debating a 'really scientific topic' with scientists, means that you have some work to do... It seems to me that the ID types don't seem to want to do the work... maybe because doing the research involved to speack 'intelligently' on the topic, only seems to support the opposing position......
I'm not a scientist... I'm a technology project manager, but it seems to me that George W wants to spend multi-billions of dollars to prepare for a bird-flu pandemic, which currently hasn't 'EVOLVED' (wouldn't that pre-suppose that EVOLUTION might occur???) yet..... while at the same time, he supports the instruction of ID as science.... Aren't those actions logically incompatible???
Maybe my reasoning hasn't advanced as far as ID'ers, or possibly it's not 'Intelligent Design...' being promoted, but 'Advanced Double-Secret Intelligent Design'... and I'm just not up to speed on those concepts yet....
I would appreciate it if other contributors could help me see the error of my ways.....
Just a normal guy named Rich....
Flint · 8 November 2005
Rich:
Bush is concerned not with logical compatibility but with political compatibility. The world of politics is all about balancing competing interests. By its nature, there is no right or wrong, only your preferences against mine. If there are two sides, those two sides are equal on the merits by definition. They are only (potentially) unequal in power base.
So Bush isn't "supporting the instruction if ID as science", he's modeling school classes as political bodies reconciling interests backed by a political power base. And in politics, it's pretty much a requirement to give a voice to anyone with political power; the consequences of silencing them are generally much worse than at least pretending to listen. Political equality isn't at all the same thing as scientific equality, but how would Bush know that? If half the voters were fanatical about teaching astrology as science, any successful politician would readily agree we should teach "both sides" on that as well.
Meanwhile, he's tuned into political concerns enough to know that the possibility of a pandemic has captured the public imagination in a big way. How likely or immediate the actual threat of bird flu actually IS doesn't matter, what matters is how many people THINK it's a huge threat, and how they vote. And without question, they represent enormous political power; enough to appease with over $7 billion in promised measures. And whether those measures even make sense doesn't matter either. When you hear a voice that powerful, you give it what it wants.
Dean Morrison · 8 November 2005
The IDers' response to bird flu is that they didn't say they didn't believe in microevolution.
Anyone who is any doubt that we share a great deal of our DNA with apes should check this out:
you can't make a monkey out of me.
...seems that the problem really may be one of microevolution?
jim · 8 November 2005
If Dover taught me nothing else, it's that I need to pay attention to the school board in my kids district. I plan to be a regularly attendee in the monthly meetings start next Monday!
I'm hoping they're a reasonable bunch or I might be forced to run for election to the board *groan*.
Sir_Toejam · 8 November 2005
yaay Jim!
You just made my day when you say that observing Dover motivated you. I think a lot of parents have simply forgotten (or are too busy working) to get involved at even the level of their local PTA's, let alone the school board.
I hoist a frosty one at ya.
cheers
Steve S · 8 November 2005
dre · 8 November 2005
msnbc says re kansas:
"In addition, the board rewrote the definition of science, so that it is no longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena."
man... how do i get on that board? i never knew how much power they had.
Michael Hopkins · 8 November 2005
Day 3 AM Transcript in HTML. This is Robert Pennock's testimony.
Michael Hopkins · 8 November 2005
Day 3 AM transcript in HMTL. This is Robert Pennock's testimony.
Michael Hopkins · 8 November 2005
Major smoking gun revelation for anyone who might had given Buckingham any benefit of the doubt over the perjury issue. Recall Buckingham's excuse to Judge Jones was that the reporter ambushed him -- took him by surprise. Well the reporter, Jennifer Sherlock of Fox 43, has a different version of events. She says that the interview was arranged hours in advance. What FOX affliate showed in its newcast was only the last few second of a ten minute interview which he used the term "creationism" several additional times.
Election won't affect Dover suit, lawyer says, (Patriot News Tuesday, November 08, 2005.)
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 8 November 2005
Shadowram · 8 November 2005
Rev Dr' Lenny Flank,
Let's not forget The Flying Spaghetti Monster, A letter has already been sent to the Kansas School board to have this Theory included. I sure most of you have seen this, but a another look at his "noodle appendage" is needed :). It's just brilliant
http://venganza.org/
The replies to the "Open Letter" from the school board are just as great.
Response from Mrs. Janet Waugh - District 1 - Received 6/25/05
From: JWaugh1052@[xxxxxxx]
To: bobby.henderson@gmail.com
Date: Jun 25, 2005 6:34 AM
Subject: Response from a member of the Kansas Board of Education
Thanks for your comments about the Flying Spaghetti Monster and all the supporters who have sent their support to members of the Kansas Board of Education. I am supporting the recommendations of the science committee and am currently in the minority. I think your theory is wonderful and possibly some of the majority members will be willing to support it.
Thanks again,
Janet Waugh
District 1
Response from Mrs. Carol Rupe - District 8 - Received 8/16/05
From: Carol Rupe
To: bobby.henderson@gmail.com
Date: Aug 16, 2005 8:19 AM
Subject: Kansas State Board of Education
Dear Mr. Henderson,
In the midst of the sad circumstances of having our science standards lowered, you and your legion of fellow FSM followers have offered wonderful comic relief. Rather than the form letters which we often receive on other topics, each FSM letter has been clever and unique. I responded to several at first, but now there have just been too many. I am a member of the Kansas State Board of Education and have voted repeatedly to maintain excellent science standards. Last week was the vote to send a new draft (written by the 6 conservative members) out for external review. The four of us on the board who are moderates were in the minority on the vote. The group of science teachers and university professors who had written the original standards (before they were changed) have now asked that their names be withdrawn from the document. The new version changes the very definition of science from "seeking natural explanations" to "seeking logical explanations". That is why I think FSMism is able to be included. It is as "logical" as any other theory.
The final vote on the standards will be in October. We will be in Lawrence, Kansas for that meeting. Those of us who are moderates on the board are trying to have the meeting in the Natural History Museum at the University of Kansas. We think that would be an appropriate setting for the occasion. We welcome you to be in attendance.
We have received thousands of emails from scientists around the world. At first, they all tried to explain good science to us. After the vote last week, however, they have resorted to calling us hillbillies and morons. And those are the nice letters!
Thank you for adding levity to this situation. You have developed quite a following. I was wondering if we could reverse the effects of global warming if we started breeding pirates.
Sincerely,
Carol Rupe
P.S. I ordered a Kansas Museum of Science t-shirt. I may just have to wear it to a board meeting
From: Mrs. Kathy Martin, District 6
"It is a serious offense to mock God."
I for one will be supporting FSM in Kansas schools, why not its just as believable as ID. My tee shirt is on the way
Shadowram
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 8 November 2005
Sir_Toejam · 8 November 2005
Michael Hopkins · 8 November 2005
Emily Gordon was able to restore some, but not all of the missing text from the faulty PDF for Day 16's morning session. I have put up an HTML version of the text which she provided. This is the session which Buckingham perjured himself.
Buckingham testimony at Dover (Day 16 AM)
Greg H · 8 November 2005
Well, once again Kansas has voted to reduce themselves to the least common denominator in education. It's a sad, sad day for the state of science education in the United States.
Shadowram · 8 November 2005
Humm there seems to be a message in the PA schoold board elections going on today. These are the results (Incomplete, all the votes are not in yet) from the York Dispatch,
These are the stats so far for the Dover district:
----- Dover -----
B Reinking Dem. 441
H Mc Ilvaine, Jr. Dem. 426
B Rehm Dem. 421
T Emig Dem. 437
A Bonsell Rep. 380
J Cashman Rep. 415
S Leber Rep. 406
E Rowand Rep. 404
2-Year Term
L Gurreri Dem. 413
P Dapp Dem. 425
J Mc Ilvaine Dem. 426
E Riddle Rep. 397
R Short Rep. 403
S Harkins Rep. 390
2-Year Unexp
P Herman Dem. 397
D Napierskie Rep. 394
1 Out of 6 precincts
Now it seems that the Democrats do not have a big lead, which they don't, the point I want to make, and you can see it at the site, most of the other districts, the republicans are whopping butt.
----- Central -----
M Wagner Dem. 623
M Snyder Dem. 614
R Weikert Dem. 608
K Peckmann Dem. 585
M Wagner Rep. 1049
M Snyder Rep. 1043
R Weikert Rep. 1033
K Peckmann Rep. 1004
6 Out of 12 precincts
It will be interesting if the Dems win mainly because they opposed ID, will the republicans in other School Boards in the country start to change their views?. The effects might not be limited to JUST school boards.
Shadowram
Shadowram · 8 November 2005
Opps forgot to add the Link
http://www.yorkdispatch.com/features/elections
Shadowram
Shadowram · 8 November 2005
I need to get me one of these beers..This is way too cool. It's real!!!
http://www.wasatchbeers.com/evopage.html
Michael Hopkins · 8 November 2005
Six out of six precincts have now been counted. The creationists will no longer in the school board once the new terms begin. And congrats to the perjerer for his last place finish.
H Mc Ilvaine, Jr. Dem. 2677
B Rehm Dem. 2625
T Emig Dem. 2716
S Leber Rep. 2584
E Rowand Rep. 2547
J Cashman Rep. 2526
A Bonsell Rep. 2469
Michael Hopkins · 8 November 2005
Congrats to the perjurer.
I have to to learn to click "check spelling" each time...
Shadowram · 9 November 2005
I just posted this on Dr. Dembski's Blog. http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/464
It is rather interesting that the Vise Strategy seemed to have a huge impact on the Dover case (sorry the Dover school board got voted out today, but at least Dover might now be able to save face in the eye of the world). I think it did, but Dr Dembski, it might have been prudent to have kept that a secret from the plaintiffs, and pushed that strategy more then you did on the defense. You did after all write that for the defense correct?
I think the ACLU hijacked that strategy, shame on them. They used it to discredit most of the defense's witnesses, to the point of perjury and even got Dr Behe to admit that under the proposed criteria that will allow ID into the scientific arena as a true scientific theory, Astrology would also qualify, as would a number of other concepts such as The Flying Spaghetti Monster.
It just sounds ludicrous, that the definition of science has to be changed to allow ID or FSM for that matter as a scientific school of thought.
I have nothing against ID at all, I only think that "hey you might have something there" but ID is still in its infancy, and has a long way to go. It might become a scientific theory one day, who knows, I doubt it, but you never know. I just do not understand why ID cannot play by the same rules that any other scientific theory has to play by. Why?. Why do you need to change the definition of science?
As Professor Ken Miller said. (Paraphrasing) "IF ID can prove itself to be a real scientific Theory, then automatically they will be placed in every science classroom in the world, without having to side step the whole scientific possess."
I have heard that unpopular post, like I'm sure mine is, are usually deleted on this site, I thought I would give it a try anyways and also post it on my blog. I do hope you can address my questions Dr Dembski.
Thanks and with respect
Shadowram
Newport News VA
http://www.myspace.com/shadowram
Comment by Shadowram --- November 9, 2005 @ 12:10 am
k.e. · 9 November 2005
Shadowram you have nothing to be worried about with "Vice" strategy.
Just remember one question
"Define the creator"
Bill/Casey and the whole cast of God Botherers no amount of weaseling is going to get you out of that.
Even if every single ID DIot has their tongue cut out so they can't utter the G word they will have to include ace spaliens,mind readers,FSM, Plutonians, LGM, in fact the infinite panoply of every single man, woman and child's imagination on God's Green Earth. Tough eh ?
Registered User · 9 November 2005
Kathy Martin
"It is a serious offense to mock God."
Can I mock the mysterious designer, Kathy? I mean, we can make fun of scientific theories without offending anyone, right? That's how we got to this point, isn't it?
Of course it is.
Don't forget to chew your food, Kathy.
bystander · 9 November 2005
shadowram,
Can't see your post. What got me about this is the strange world that Dembski inhabits. Why would he crow about a document that obviously didn't help in the Dover case.
k.e. · 9 November 2005
Shadowram · 9 November 2005
Sure enough when I checked my post on Dembski's site this morning, it has been deleted. My post was number 10 right after the Bombaldi post. Wow instead of answering my question, he just made it disappear, like magic..oh excuse me...Intelligent Design. Odd, I thought my questions to him was valid, non-abusive, and respectful. I feel sorry for the real Scientist that have to deal with him on a daily basis.
Shadowram
rupertg · 9 November 2005
One of Dembski's supporters on his blog is suggesting that "Considering the decision in Kansas, now may be a good time to try out The Vise on our friends at Pandas Thumb. A few less turns might be needed to make 'em pop". Presumably it's still experimental, so deploying it on Dembski's own blog has too high a risk of making the wrong thing go bang - or letting those cursed evolutionary critters escape and leave trails of awkward questions everywhere.
Reading through the Vise document reminds me of someone with whom I once worked. He too had an uncrushable belief on his intellectual superiority over anyone who disagreed with him and his unique access to The Truth (tm), only he avoided confrontation by saying that it was much stronger than we weaklings could manage and would ruin our lives if we knew too much.
Unfortunately, one aspect of The Truth (tm) was that he was unbearably attractive to women, who were thus all (and I mean all) involved in a titanic subconscious struggle to avoid admitting this to themselves. If I remember correctly, at one point the local constabulary were drafted in by one particular woman to help with her particular titanic subconscious struggle - that's how weak she was. So strong was his Truth (tm) that the forces of law and order were needed to battle its enormous Truthfulness.
It would all have been jolly fun except that how he ended up is something I wouldn't wish on anyone, no matter how barking.
Gerard Harbison · 9 November 2005
I feel sorry for the real Scientist that have to deal with him on a daily basis.
Dembski? Hahaha. How many real scientists do you think there are on the faculty of East Jesus Baptist Seminary?
Dembski's complete naivete about science was betrayed a couple of days ago when he posted a link to a wacko-fringe device claiming to get energy from the ground state of hydrogen. Evidently he isn't familiar with a little thing called the Heisenberg uncertanty principle. Or maybe, when he's finished refuting evolution, he's going to take on quantum mechanics.
Russell · 9 November 2005
Doug Sharp, Head IDiot · 9 November 2005
While Dover marches to its doom Kansas marches towards the Truth of IDio:
OPEN EPISTLE TO KANSAS SCHOOL BOARD
November 8th, 2005
I write with joy and thanks in my heart after having read of your bold decision to promote the Church of The Intelligent Designer and its one true God IDio. Finally, our Church needs no longer cower behind a façade of science.
Now that your blessed action on IDio's behalf has rendered the Constitution, with its irritating religious establishment clause, inoperative, we can proudly proclaim in every Kansas classroom, "There is but one Intelligent Designer and His name is IDio!" We thank the taxpayers of Kansas for donating their money to proselytize for His church. May IDio mutate you all intelligently.
www.godinabox.com
Dean Morrison · 9 November 2005
The wacko-fringe hydrogen thing got reported in the UK's 'The Guardian' Fuel's paradise? Power source that turns physics on its head ; though not as uncritically perhaps as it could have been. At least they have Dr Ben Goldacre and his excellent Bad Science column.
Gerard Harbison · 9 November 2005
The wacko-fringe hydrogen thing got reported in the UK's 'The Guardian' Fuel's paradise? Power source that turns physics on its head ; though not as uncritically perhaps as it could have been
British newspapers in general are even worse in their science coverage than American newspapers.
WAD still has the thing up, though he's temporized a bit in his comments section. Undergraduate physics and chemistry majors learn to solve the equation of motion of the hydrogen atom, and any one of them could tell Bill why you can't do what the aticle claims to do. One has to simply conclude he doesn't understand sophomore level physics, which is a bit sad for a Math Ph.D.
Gerard Harbison · 9 November 2005
The wacko-fringe hydrogen thing got reported in the UK's 'The Guardian' Fuel's paradise? Power source that turns physics on its head ; though not as uncritically perhaps as it could have been
British newspapers in general are even worse in their science coverage than American newspapers.
WAD still has the thing up, though he's temporized a bit in his comments section. Undergraduate physics and chemistry majors learn to solve the equation of motion of the hydrogen atom, and any one of them could tell Bill why you can't do what the article claims to do. One has to simply conclude he doesn't understand sophomore level physics, which is a bit sad for a Math Ph.D.
Gerard Harbison · 9 November 2005
The wacko-fringe hydrogen thing got reported in the UK's 'The Guardian' Fuel's paradise? Power source that turns physics on its head ; though not as uncritically perhaps as it could have been
British newspapers in general are even worse in their science coverage than American newspapers.
WAD still has the thing up, though he's temporized a bit in his comments section. Undergraduate physics and chemistry majors learn to solve the equation of motion of the hydrogen atom, and any one of them could tell Bill why you can't do what the article claims to do. One has to simply conclude he doesn't understand sophomore level physics, which is a bit sad for a Math Ph.D.
CJ O'Brien · 9 November 2005
rupert, that bit about The TruthTM is Very Funny.
Thanks for the laugh.
Steve S · 9 November 2005
Physics is not W.A.D.'s strong suit. see also Wavelengths, Infinitely Long
Tevildo · 9 November 2005
Quick information point - the NCSE have, at long last, managed to get hold of a clean copy of the Day 16 AM transcript (Buckingham's testimony).
Michael Hopkins · 9 November 2005
RBH · 9 November 2005
And you've done a very good job with the T.O. Dover page, Michael. Thanks!
RBH
morbius · 10 November 2005
k.e. · 10 November 2005
rupert, that bit about The TruthTM is Very Funny.
Thanks for the laugh.
Ditto CJ not only do we have (snigger) little "t" truth on our side but HUMOUR, Monty Python,Shakespeare,All the philosophers (except those humourless Postmodernists with howlers such as "sqr_root of minus every scientist who gets it, every theologian from any religion who gets it, the ancient Hindu Gods, that fat guy who sat under a Bhodhi tree,
Even Christ got it.
improvius · 10 November 2005
Someone should tell Dembski that arguments based on intellectual solopism aren't very effective.
improvius · 10 November 2005
Pat Robertson, witness for the... plaintiffs?
Dean Morrison · 10 November 2005
Michael Hopkins · 10 November 2005
Shadowram · 10 November 2005
Humm I think there might be a problem brewing with us Evo's in how we deal with the ID folks. If we are not careful we will turn them into martyrs. This is an interesting story by NPR. They even interview Eugenie Scott and Ken Miller. The attacks on ID'ers are not good, and "looks" like us Evos are trying to stifle open thought and discussion. We all know this is not true, we are just trying to keep these crack pots out of our schools, but perception is what counts.
Listing to the Audio portion, the link is on this page. It is a very interesting story.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5007508
Shadowram
John Tweedie · 10 November 2005
I read about the ID folks making waves in Kansas in the news today.
First of let me say thank you to the school system here in Ireland. Mediocre as it may be and Catholic to the core, no one would seriously propose that this nonsense be taught as a viable alternative to evolutionary science.
Seems fairly discriminatory to me, what will Muslims be taught? What about Buddhists?
Will a Scientology version have to be taught as well?
Anyway - if anyone is in any doubt about Robert V. Gentry's pseudoscience, a straightforward rebuttle can be found at the address below.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html
Happy evolving ! :-)
kay · 11 November 2005
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1520019/posts Here we go...
Residents have said they just want this election to be over, similar to the sentiment of many Americans after the 2000 presidential election.
But in the Dover Area School District, Tuesday's election is a bit more complicated.
There are no "hanging chads," but York County election officials are inspecting a faulty voting machine at Friendship Community Church on Fox Run Road that counted only one vote for incumbent school board candidate James Cashman.
John Scott, York County director of elections, said this morning that officials are looking into it, but declined further comment. "There's obviously something wrong," Cashman said yesterday.
The machine registered "001" votes for Cashman, who said other candidates running on the same platform received about 100 votes at the machine.
Tuesday, Cashman and seven other board
incumbents were narrowly defeated by eight members of Dover CARES (Citizens Actively Reviewing Educational Strategies).
Dean Morrison · 11 November 2005
re: The Intelligent Designer fools with lab experiment for laughs;
-perhaps the ID community don't need to look too far to find who has been playing tricks with th voting machine: or perhaps they want to look for a naturalistic explanation first?
Dean Morrison · 11 November 2005
.my theory, which is mine, that belongs to me is this:
God (whoops start again...)
The Intelligent Designer took a lot of trouble to cover his tracks - otherwise people that believed in him wouldn't need 'faith' - they'd have hard evidence of his existence. Everyone would be a beleiver, everyone saved: result: overcrowding in Heaven; unemployment in Hell and Southern Baptist Churches (from an idea of Douglas Adams')
But now Dembski and the lads are onto him; so now he's involved in desperate attempts at cover-up; "why oh why did I leave that smoking flagellum lying around?" - he's got to do something to hold back these ID sleuths somehow: slip them some Oxycontin? No, tried that, plant cash on them?, bad idea: brainwave! - do the voting machine trick - why not? it worked before: however he gets too keen so the results in one ward betray intelligent design!!!!.
Oh No! - the only thing to do now is to get on the phone to his agent on earth, Pat Robertson, to pave the way for some devine vengance to destroy the evidence (plague of frogs/locusts, tempest, earthquake etc - universal flood being ruled out of course)- that way no sane person will believe its the ID when it happens!
I'm confident that the 'missing votes' affair will blow his cover and the whole thing will come to be known as "Cashmangate" or "Frogate" or "Dembskigate" or something.
Now who says the far-right have the monopoly on conspiracy theory? - and where did I leave my happy pills?
Greg H · 11 November 2005
Brian Foley · 11 November 2005
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-evolution9nov09,0,416642.story?coll=la-home-nation
THE NATION
Vote by Kansas School Board Favors Evolution's Doubters
The divided panel urges that 'controversy' over the theory be taught. Science groups call it a bid to inject religion in the classroom.
By Nicholas Riccardi
Times Staff Writer
November 9, 2005
TOPEKA, Kan. --- The state Board of Education approved curriculum standards Tuesday that question evolution and redefine science to include concepts other than natural explanations.
The board, in a 6-4 vote, recommended that schools teach the "considerable scientific and public controversy" surrounding the origin of life --- a dispute most scientists contend exists only among creationists.
National science groups opposed the measure, and critics contended it was an effort to inject religion into the classroom.
But its advocates said they were interested only in improving science.
"This is a great day for Kansas," board President Steve E. Abrams said. "This absolutely raises science standards."
...
improvius · 11 November 2005
Sir_Toejam · 11 November 2005
Kip Sprinkle??
that's almost as bad as Sir Toejam
oh wait...
Bayesian Bouffant, FCD · 12 November 2005
Tevildo · 12 November 2005
Transcripts for Day 2 AM (Miller Cross, Kitzmiller), Day 4 PM (Carol Brown Direct), Day 11 AM (Behe Direct) and Day 16 PM (Buckingham Cross, Bernhard-Bubb Direct) are now available at the NCSE site. The record is now complete up to the end of Day 18 - we still need transcripts for Days 19 and 21.
Over to you, Michael! Thanks again for the HTML versions.
Stuart Weinstein · 12 November 2005
"WAD still has the thing up, though he's temporized a bit in his comments section. Undergraduate physics and chemistry majors learn to solve the equation of motion of the hydrogen atom, and any one of them could tell Bill why you can't do what the article claims to do. One has to simply conclude he doesn't understand sophomore level physics, which is a bit sad for a Math Ph.D."
Maybe we can sell Waldo on the exotic virtues of Hydrogen Dioxide.
improvius · 12 November 2005
God · 12 November 2005
There's no shaum in bein a bad spella. Eienstein was maent to have been a bad spella. Of curse chronic mizzpellings could be a sign of someting more sirus.
Gawd · 12 November 2005
Surry, I wade a misteak riting thut privious commet. It twas suposed to be claer thot it wus in riply ta dis.
"Some are so badly designed that they can't spell 'intelligent'."
Gawd · 12 November 2005
Surry, I wade a misteak riting thut privious commet. It twas suposed to be claer thot it wus in riply ta dis.
"Some are so badly designed that they can't spell 'intelligent'."
Sir_Toejam · 12 November 2005
er, not that i advise dancing in the streets or anything, but here's a nice spin on the vote in dover:
http://villagevoice.com/news/0546,zeliger,69964,2.html
Dean Morrison · 13 November 2005
Michael Hopkins · 16 November 2005
The T.O. Dover Intelligent Design Trial now has all transcripts up in HTML. Do note that one should be able to link to every paragraph in the trial. All stuff like "Q:", "THE COURT:", "MR. WHOEVER" should all be links that will look like links if one puts one's mouse pointer over them. Click them (they link to themselves) and the address window will have the URL. Other paragraphs without any all-caps can be tabbed to. (Tab will send you from one link to another.) The vast majority of times the links are in order: #day4am333 will be followed by #day4am334. If all else fails, one can always view the HTML source.
Sir_Toejam · 16 November 2005
nice job, Michael!
thanks
Philip Bruce Heywood · 17 November 2005
Once again, sorry to screw up a perfectly good page by introducing logic & observation. My compliments to those contributors who do their bit to make the world both a happier and more enjoyable place. Doubtless there are contributions above that fall into that category. Correct me if I am mistaken: your heading, which attracted my attention, is provided by someone classifying himself as, quote, "a scientist". As I have previously brought to the attention of our gentle viewers, Lord Kelvin says that science is honour bound to investigate every question fairly presented to it.
1). Species were unrolled in sequences, yet each species is reproductively self-contained. Explain the role of devices such as the immune system, DNA/RNA, and the reproductive system, in this phenomenon. Presumably we have to do with a species lock, and information input that trips the lock.
2). Describe the chain of events involved in a species transformation - say, from one member of the horse-series to another. Account for re-programming of DNA with discreet new species information. Account for birth and rearing of the first members of the new species.
3). Either provide the reference(s) to, or provide, yourself, the detailed mathematically-based model which conclusively shows that selective environmental pressure adds new information to any random collection of organic chemicals.
4). Such a model obviously can be built if it is assumed that environmental pressure acts merely as a trigger. It relies however upon the organic chemicals either containing latent information within themselves (which the trigger activates) or upon the triggering of a bonding with information-carrying devices which already exist in the biosphere. Can you add to this?
5). Are you willing to discuss the rational, mathematically-based processes of species actuation? Will you do so?
Things not to do: Don't say, "Evolution did it." The universe is mathematical, not mystical. Don't say there can be no mathematically-based model of species actuation. Apart from the life aspect, a species is an expression of maths-statistics. We are dealing with information technology. Don't say, "We don't have enough information." We have very little information, but the little we have clearly points the way. And don't say, "Scientists are Darwinists". History speaks another language.
We have from here to the end of Cyberspace - if some of the more verbally volumetric havn't already filled it - to show the world the calibre of this "science" we keep hearing about. Yours etc., P.H..
k.e. · 17 November 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 17 November 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 17 November 2005
Philip Bruce Heywood · 18 November 2005
Most contributors to this site are capable both of pressing on a link and of thinking, so I won't waste cyberspace pointing out the obvious. -- However, in response to what Lord Kelvin would think of a pontifical council -- bless them all -- Kelvin being now left us, and not in the way of being able to answer for himself -- Forgive me, Sir William, if I get you wrong here -- him being a good protestant and all, a man of the Word, he might say, Bless them all.
Anyone else got any ideas, what Kelvin might make of a pointifical council? I'm bushed. P.B. Heywood.
limpidense · 18 November 2005
Mr. H. Jabloumee,
One of the most painfully dull experiences is the one you seem to be attempting to specialize in: being a self-admiring, self-described "wit." You must be able to kill parties within a 50-mile radius must die faster than an entire accounting firm could ever hope.
To retort with wit at your own, borrowed, level: if your [sic] so smart why aint' [sic] you rich?
===================================
Dear others,
What's the worst kind of creationist?
The plain nutcases (all YECs and Bible-literalists, as well as all "lonegunmen" theorists) of course have their charm, when they are neither neighbors nor elected officials at least.
The bores (like Heywood here: three times self-awarded winner of the "Wile E. Coyote: Super-genius" Prize) are easily recognized, tagged, and released back into the wilderness of obscurity. No real harm, no foul.
The professional politicians who chime in on these issues are despicable, but they are despicable in every other possible way as well.
It's the "intellectual" farts that presents me with something I can find neither humor nor a moral lesson worth learning. Hearing people like WD, SM, and MB say things they clearly do NOT believe, flat-out lying, evidently because they enjoy the attention and filthy lucre, really makes me feel that a certain percentage of humanity is rotten by choice, rather than by nature or nurture.
What awful people they present themselves as being! I wish them every minor unhappiness, and such wishes are bound to come true.
Other amusing opinions?
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 18 November 2005
Philip Bruce Heywood · 19 November 2005
I wish to take this opportunity to commend and thank the founders and organizers of this Page. Democracy relies on free speech, which you maintain. You are leading the world in this arena, at least partly by practicing free speech. (Free speech in its political sense, not the personal sense.)
"The Reverend Doctor" is a free speech man who may well have been on the right side at Galileo's trial - I can't say which side I would have been on - to partially quote the Doctor, "Who the --- is Luskin?" I'm bushed again. Not familiar. If he said anything usefull about DNA or the geologic column, fill me in. You are doing something right if you maintain (political) free speech. P.H..
k.e. · 19 November 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 19 November 2005
godarwin · 21 November 2005
Latest doings in Dover...
School Board member Napierskie says let's drop ID statement and offer $1 in damages as new Board won't require statement anyway. Board denies motion..
Judge John E. Jones III said the election results don't figure into his ruling...
Board's attorney Thompson says dropping suit would "short-circuit the entire legal strategy that was put in place by the Thomas More Law Center," as they want to appeal to the Supreme Court...
Thompson accuses DI of pushing Napierske...
Napierske says he talked with DI, but they didn't influence his decision. He got his advice from another attorney who said he saw a substantial risk that the judge would rule against the Board...
http://www.ydr.com/doverbiology/ci_3223198
godarwin · 21 November 2005
Clarification: By "dropping suit" I meant "filing a motion to dismiss suit."
George Nelson · 20 December 2005
You got your wish in the recent trial today, we can't teach creation. But where in the constitution does it say that we should teach evolution? The constitution never mentions the phrase "separation of church and state", but it is interpreted to clearly mean complete separation. I will not delve deep into your hypocrisies. I will eat you in your sleep! Bwahahahahahahaha... Run you stupid little commies, run.
Paul Christopher · 20 December 2005
drakvl · 20 December 2005
Anyone hear what Bill O'Reilly had to say on the matter? Apparently he feels that Judge Jones is yet another of those damnable liberal activist judges, trying to stifle freedom of speech! In spite of the fact that, at least according to the CNN scroll, Judge Jones is personally a supporter of ID. But hey -- CNN is just part of that crazy liberal media, after all!
Ritchie Annand · 21 December 2005
Dimon · 28 December 2005
"WAD still has the thing up, though he's temporized a bit in his comments section. Undergraduate physics and chemistry majors learn to solve the equation of motion of the hydrogen atom, and any one of them could tell Bill why you can't do what the article claims to do. One has to simply conclude he doesn't understand sophomore level physics, which is a bit sad for a Math Ph.D."