rationalskepticism.org

Calilasseia wrote:The beauty of the Dover ruling is that the movement's history does count as evidence, because Judge Jones permitted the admission of this evidence, and used it to formulate his 139 page ruling. In case you're unaware of the hilarity ensuing therefrom, I direct you to Judge Jones's 139-page summing up at the end of the Dover Trial, in which he not only destroyed the IDists propaganda, but effectively accused the proponents of ID of perjury.

Now, before any creationist tries peddling the "Expelled" Kool-Aid here, and tries to claim that Judge Jones was chosen specifically to skew the verdict against creationism & ID, the real world facts destroy this nonsense utterly. Judge Jones is a conservative Republican, was appointed by George W. Bush to his post, and is a religious believer, specifically, a Lutheran Protestant. The idea that this man was chosen to be part of some "atheist/evolutionist conspiracy" is laughable. Indeed, Judge Jones also served time as an advisor to Tom Ridge, who at the time was the Republican governor of Pennsylvania. What did Tom Ridge say about this man? Before the trial, Tom Ridge described Judge Jones thus:

"I can't imagine a better judge presiding over such an emotionally charged issue... he has an inquisitive mind, a penetrating intellect and an incredible sense of humor."

Indeed, when it was announced that a conservative Republican was going to sit on the bench during the Dover Trial prior to the trial commencing, many in the IDist camp were rubbing their hands with glee because they thought he would swing the trial their way. But some others were less than happy at having IDist nonsense exposed as such - indeed, three prominent IDists, namely William Dembski, Stephen Meyer and John Campbell, withdrew their depositions before the trial under direct instructions from the Discovery Institute and left Michael Behe to be their stool pigeon. Presumably because they didn't want to be caught out lying on oath. Fortunately for defenders of reality, the various members of the Dover school board were not only unable to escape scrutiny in court, and unable to escape rigorous cross-examination, but were too stupid to realise that lying for Jeebus is still lying, and when done under oath in court, constitutes the criminal offence of perjury. Creationists and IDists have only their own combination of stupidity, arrogance and venal discoursive criminality to blame for their epic failure at Dover.

Now, let's move on to the actual 139 page summing up of the case, shall we? We have, for example:

[1] Footnote 7 on page 46:

Throughout the trial and in various submissions to the Court, Defendants vigorously argue that the reading of the statement is not “teaching” ID but instead is merely “making students aware of it.” In fact, one consistency among the Dover School Board members’ testimony, which was marked by selective memories and outright lies under oath, as will be discussed in more detail below, is that they did not think they needed to be knowledgeable about ID because it was not being taught to the students. We disagree.

[2] Top of page 84:

Plaintiffs’ science experts, Drs. Miller and Padian, clearly explained how ID proponents generally and Pandas specifically, distort and misrepresent scientific knowledge in making their anti-evolution argument.

[3] Page 89:

Moreover, ID's backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that thecontroversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard.

[4] Page 93:

The disclaimer’s plain language, the legislative history, and the historical context in which the ID Policy arose, all inevitably lead to the conclusion that Defendants consciously chose to change Dover’s biology curriculum to advance religion. We have been presented with a wealth of evidence which reveals that the District’s purpose was to advance creationism, an inherently religious view, both by introducing it directly under the label ID and by disparaging the scientific theory of evolution, so that creationism would gain credence by default as the only apparent alternative to evolution, for the reasons that follow.

[5] Pages 96 & 97:

Apart from two consecutive Board retreats, Bonsell raised the issue of creationism on numerous other occasions as well. When he ran for the Board in 2001, Bonsell told Jeff Brown he did not believe in evolution, that he wanted creationism taught side-by-side with evolution in biology class, and that taking prayer and Bible reading out of school was a mistake which he wanted reinstated in the Dover public schools. (8:48-49 (J. Brown)). Subsequently, Bonsell told Jeff Brown he wanted to be on the Board Curriculum Committee because he had concerns about teaching evolution and he wanted to see some changes in that area. (8:55 (J. Brown)). Additionally, Nilsen complained to Jeff Brown that each Board President had a new set of priorities and Bonsell’s priority was that of creationism. (8:53 (J. Brown)). It is notable, and in fact incredible that Bonsell disclaimed any interest in creationism during his testimony, despite the admission by his counsel in Defendants’ opening statement that Bonsell had such an interest. (1:19). Simply put, Bonsell repeatedly failed to testify in a truthful manner about this and other subjects. Finally, Bonsell not only wanted prayer in schools and creationism taught in science class, he also wanted to inject religion into the social studies curriculum, as evidenced by his statement to Baksa that he wanted students to learn more about the Founding Fathers and providing Baksa with a book entitled Myth of Separation by David Barton.

[6] Page 102

After Barrie Callahan asked whether the Board would approve the purchase of the 2002 edition of the textbook entitled Biology, Buckingham told Callahan that the book was “laced with Darwinism” and spoke in favor of purchasing a textbook that included a balance of creationism and evolution. (P-46/P-790; 35:76-78 (Baksa); 24:45-46 (Nilsen); 3:135-36 (B. Callahan); 4:51-52 (B. Rehm); 6:62-63 ©. Rehm); 7:25-26 ©. Brown)). With surprising candor considering his otherwise largely inconsistent and non-credible testimony, Buckingham did admit that he made this statement.

[7] Page 131:

Finally, although Defendants have unceasingly attempted in vain to distance themselves from their own actions and statements, which culminated in repetitious, untruthful testimony, such a strategy constitutes additional strong evidence of improper purpose under the first prong of the Lemon test. As exhaustively detailed herein, the thought leaders on the Board made it their considered purpose to inject some form of creationism into the science classrooms, and by the dint of their personalities and persistence they were able to pull the majority of the Board along in their collective wake.

[8] Page 136 (First part of Conclusion):

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.

[9] Much more damning though is this on page 137:

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.

As if we needed any more examples of malfeasance on the part of creationists from the same trial, we have:

[1] Pages 40-41:

The second paragraph of the disclaimer reads as follows:

Because Darwin’s Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.

P-124. This paragraph singles out evolution from the rest of the science curriculum and informs students that evolution, unlike anything else that they are learning, is “just a theory,” which plays on the “colloquial or popular understanding of the term [‘theory’] and suggest[ing] to the informed, reasonable observer that evolution is only a highly questionable ‘opinion’ or a ‘hunch.’” Selman, 390 F. Supp. 2d at 1310; 14:110-12 (Alters); 1:92 (Miller). Immediately after students are told that “Darwin’s Theory” is a theory and that it continues to be tested, they are told that “gaps” exist within evolutionary theory without any indication that other scientific theories might suffer the same supposed weakness.

As Dr. Alters explained this paragraph is both misleading and creates misconceptions in students about evolutionary theory by misrepresenting the scientific status of evolution and by telling students that they should regard it as singularly unreliable, or on shaky ground. (14:117 (Alters)). Additionally and as pointed out by Plaintiffs, it is indeed telling that even defense expert Professor Fuller agreed with this conclusion by stating that in his own expert opinion the disclaimer is misleading. Case 4:04-cv-02688-JEJ Document 342 Filed 12/20/2005 Page 41 of 139

In other words, even an expert witness called by the defence in the case agreed, that the disclaimer that the defendants wished to append to textbooks was MISLEADING.

[2] Page 28:

Moreover, in turning to Defendants’ lead expert, Professor Behe, his testimony at trial indicated that ID is only a scientific, as opposed to a religious, project for him; however, considerable evidence was introduced to refute this claim. Consider, to illustrate, that Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God. (P-718 at 705) (emphasis added). As no evidence in the record indicates that any other scientific proposition’s validity rests on belief in God, nor is the Court aware of any such scientific propositions, Professor Behe’s assertion constitutes substantial evidence that in his view, as is commensurate with other prominent ID leaders, ID is a religious and not a scientific proposition.

[3] Pages 28-30:

Dramatic evidence of ID’s religious nature and aspirations is found in what is referred to as the “Wedge Document.” The Wedge Document, developed by the Discovery Institute’s Center for Renewal of Science and Culture (hereinafter “CRSC”), represents from an institutional standpoint, the IDM’s goals and objectives, much as writings from the Institute for Creation Research did for the earlier creation-science movement, as discussed in McLean. (11:26-28 (Forrest)); McLean, 529 F. Supp. at 1255. The Wedge Document states in its “Five Year Strategic Plan Summary” that the IDM’s goal is to replace science as currently practiced with “theistic and Christian science.” (P-140 at 6). As posited in the Wedge Document, the IDM’s “Governing Goals” are to “defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies” and “to replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.” Id. at 4. The CSRC expressly announces, in the Wedge Document, a program of Christian apologetics to promote ID. A careful review of the Wedge Document’s goals and language throughout the document reveals cultural and religious goals, as opposed to scientific ones. (11:26-48 (Forrest); P-140). ID aspires to change the ground rules of science to make room for religion, specifically, beliefs consonant with a particular version of Christianity.

In addition to the IDM itself describing ID as a religious argument, ID’s religious nature is evident because it involves a supernatural designer. The courts in Edwards and McLean expressly found that this characteristic removed creationism from the realm of science and made it a religious proposition. Edwards, 482 U.S. at 591-92; McLean, 529 F. Supp. at 1265-66. Prominent ID proponents have made abundantly clear that the designer is supernatural. Defendants’ expert witness ID proponents confirmed that the existence of a supernatural designer is a hallmark of ID. First, Professor Behe has written that by ID he means “not designed by the laws of nature,” and that it is “implausible that the designer is a natural entity.” (P-647 at 193; P-718 at 696, 700). Second, Professor Minnich testified that for ID to be considered science, the ground rules of science have to be broadened so that supernatural forces can be considered. (38:97 (Minnich)). Third, Professor Steven William Fuller testified that it is ID’s project to change the ground rules of science to include the supernatural. (Trial Tr. vol. 28, Fuller Test., 20-24, Oct. 24, 2005). Turning from defense expert witnesses to leading ID proponents, Johnson has concluded that science must be redefined to include the supernatural if religious challenges to evolution are to get a hearing. (11:8-15 (Forrest); P-429). Additionally, Dembski agrees that science is ruled by methodological naturalism and argues that this rule must be overturned if ID is to prosper. (Trial Tr. vol. 5, Pennock Test., 32-34, Sept. 28, 2005). Further support for the proposition that ID requires supernatural creation is found in the book Pandas, to which students in Dover’s ninth grade biology class are directed. Pandas indicates that there are two kinds of causes, natural and intelligent, which demonstrate that intelligent causes are beyond nature. (P-11 at 6). Professor Haught, who as noted was the only theologian to testify in this case, explained that in Western intellectual tradition, non-natural causes occupy a space reserved for ultimate religious explanations. (9:13-14 (Haught)).

In other words, the attempt to present ID as "scientific" was a BARE FACED LIE and KNOWN TO BE SUCH BY ITS PROPAGANDISTS WHEN THEY SET OUT TO DO SO.

Once more, with respect to the Wedge Strategy document cited above, which the IDists themselves published, we have this interesting revelation:

Wedge Strategy Document wrote:The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a "wedge" that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the "thin edge of the wedge," was Phillip ]ohnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.

In other words, in the highlighted parts above, the "fellows" of the ID movement openly admit that they are seeking to destroy science as currently constituted (first boldface highlight above) and replace it with a bastardised version that is subservient to a particular religious ideology (second boldface highlight above).

It is also interesting to note that William Dembski, one of the "Fellows" of the incongruously named "Discovery Institute" (whose only "discovery" thus far seems to have been the level of gullibility of American religious believers - this organisation certainly hasn't made any scientific discoveries) also blew the cover of the ID movement in his book Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science And Theology, whose title alone should be revealing. I'll provide the following quotes, which are apposite with respect to the real agenda of this organisation and its propagandists:

William Dembski wrote:My thesis is that the disciplines find their completion in Christ and cannot be properly understood apart from Christ ... The point to understand here is that Christ is never an addendum to a scientific theory but always the completion.

William Dembski wrote:Not only does intelligent design rid us of this ideology, which suffocates the human spirit, but, in my personal experience, I've found that it opens the path for people to come to Christ. Indeed, once materialism is no longer an option, Christianity again becomes an option. True, there are then also other options. But Christianity is more than able to hold its own once it is seen as a live option. The problem with materialism is that it rules out Christianity so completely that it is not even a live option. Thus, in its relation to Christianity, intelligent design should be viewed as a ground-clearing operation that gets rid of the intellectual rubbish that for generations has kept Christianity from receiving serious consideration

William Dembski wrote:I think at a fundamental level, in terms of what drives me in this is that I think God's glory is being robbed by these naturalistic approaches to biological evolution, creation, the origin of the world, the origin of biological complexity and diversity. When you are attributing the wonders of nature to these mindless material mechanisms, God's glory is getting robbed. [...] And so there is a cultural war here. Ultimately I want to see God get the credit for what he’s done — and he's not getting it.

Again, all independently checkable facts from the real world.

With evidence of this sort in circulation and in print, the idea that ID can be peddled as science is a non-starter, and the moment any court case begins in Missouri, all of the precedents set in the Dover Trial become applicable, not to mention all of the precedents arising from previous cases, such as Edwards v. Aguillard (1987).

Incidentally, Moonwatcher, if you've never encountered first hand, the hilarity ensuing from the Dover Trial, the actual trial transcripts make hilarious reading, unless you're a creationist of course. Not least, because Michael Behe had his arse handed to him on a plate in the witness box. The full Dover Trial transcripts, which can be downloaded from here, and if you check Michael Behe's evidence, you can see him being systematically dismantled over his canards. In particular, referring to:

Behe Evidence In Chief Day 10 AM Session

Behe Evidence In Chief Day 10 PM Session

Behe Evidence In Chief Day 11 AM Session

Behe Evidence In Chief Day 11 PM Session

Behe Evidence In Chief Day 12 AM Session

Behe Evidence In Chief Day 12 PM Session

Notice that in the following, I provide precise page and line numbers, so that the instances of Behe being completely owned by the cross examining counsel can be located with ease.

Good places to look are:

Day 11, PM session, where Behe is forced to admit under cross examination that his attempt to widen the definition of "science" to admit "intelligent design" would also result in astrology being admitted as a "scientific" discipline. Scroll down the PDF document to Page 36, Line 18 - all pages and lines are conveniently numbered - and read on to Page 39, Line 19 ... take note where he says that "incorrect theories are nonetheless theories" at the end ... then continue reading to Page 41, line 17, where the cross-examining lawyer quips that he didn't taken Behe's deposition in the 16th century

Day 12, AM session, where Behe is taken apart slowly over flagella and blood clotting. Scroll to Page 101, Line 7, read on, and see Behe admitting that no one in the ID movement ever bothered to put the "irreducible complexity" of the bacterial flagellum to empirical test. He was also forced to accept that 3½ billion years was ample time for the bacterial flagellum to evolve by natural processes at Page 108, Line 23, followed by being forced to admit that the "test" he proposed for invalidating "irreducible complexity" in the case of the bacterial flagellum was as unreasonable as asking a scientist to grow a bird wing in a petri dish. Likewise, Behe is also forced to admit that any demonstration that the flagellum could arise by natural processes would be "a real feather in the cap of people who think Darwinian theory is correct" at Page 112 Lines 13-15. Additionally, Page 112 Line 16 moves on to the blood clotting cascade, and the fact that various Puffer Fishes manage to do without some of the "irreducibly complex" components of Behe's description of the cascade - Page 120, Line 16.

Day 12, PM session, in which the cross examination of Behe continues with respect to the blood clotting cascade, and on Page 6, Lines 5-7, Behe himself says that the Type 3 Secretory System might not be "irreducibly complex" (oh dear, because Nick Matzke later found homologies between the T3SS and - you guessed it - the bacterial flagellum). Behe is then introduced to a particularly awkward question by the cross examiner at Page 8 Line 24 that is well worth savouring. Then, on Page 10, comes the crunch about the immune system, where Behe's statement "the scientific community has no answers to the question of the origin of the immune system" from his book Darwin's Black Box is presented in open session in the court, and from the start of Page 11, the cross examiner begins listing the papers and textbooks that contain precisely the "answers" that Behe claimed didn't exist ...and also demonstrates that Behe, like so many IDiots before, has his knickers in a twist over the meaning of natural selection. On Page 16, line 17, we have the part where Behe claims that the peer reviewed literature on the molecular evolution of the immune system "isn't good enough", whereupon at Page 17, Line 6, the cross examiner reveals that he has fifty eight peer reviewed papers covering the subject, the earliest of which was written in 1971, with the list including new papers that were being prepared for publication at the time of the trial.

Then we reach Page 20, where college textbooks on the evolution of the immune system are presented, which Behe is forced to admit he hasn't read, doesn't know the contents of, but he still persists in trying to claim that these texts and these papers aren't good enough because they don't show the entire evolutionary process right down to the atomic level or some such nonsense. Then Behe is hoist upon his own petard on Page 25, Line 23 onwards, when his statement from his book that "if the natural mechanism is to be accepted, then its proponents must publish or perish" is displayed before the court ... read on from this point for some pure comedy gold.

Basically, the Dover Trial dropped a multi-megaton thermonuclear bomb on IDist assertions, and exposed the entire ID movement, as nothing more than a duplciitous political lobbying front for religious creationism. The fact that the IDists admitted this themselves in their own Wedge Strategy document, which I've already mentioned above, was little more than the sprinkling of hundreds and thousands onto the icing on the cake. But, in case you're not familiar with the Wedge Strategy document in detail, you can find a downloadable copy here, and peruse some of its more interesting revelations in detail. Such as these juicy little titbits:

Wedge Strategy document, page 1 wrote:The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles upon which Western Civilisation was built. Its influence can be detected in most, if not all, of the West's greatest achievements, including representative democracy, human rights, free enterprise, and progress in the arts and sciences.

The fact that representative democracy was invented by Classical Greek civilisation something like five centuries before Christianity existed, is one of those inconvenient historical facts that the authors of this screed chose to ignore when penning the above absurdity, as is the fact that the struggle for human rights in the modern sense, that began with the Enightenment, was much more secular in nature, and progress in science was frequently stifled by the very religion the DI claims above was purportedly responsible for its "progress". Indeed, religion continues to posture as being in a position to dictate to science what it can and cannot know, and has yet to learn properly the lessons from the Galileo episode. But, I digress. Moving on, the Wedge Strategy document continues with:

Wedge Strategy document, page 1 wrote:Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies

The simple fact that materialism as an ideology has never been properly practised, is another of those inconvenient facts from history to be ignored.

On page 2, we find other interesting statements, such as:

Wedge Strategy document, page 2 wrote:Governing Goals

To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.

To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.

Any pretence at science here is well and truly thrown out of the window, and once again, points inexorably to the creationist origins of ID, which once again leads to the question of just how much of the relevant orthodoxy lies at the heart thereof. But I shall continue ... among the Five Year Goals of the DI stated in that document is this:

Wedge Strategy document, page 2 wrote:Major Christian denomination(s) defend(s) traditional doctrine of creation and repudiate(s) Darwinism

And one wonders exactly what detailed form of this "traditional doctrine of creation" the DI seeks to see "defended" takes. Moving on, we have on page 4, this interesting revelation:

Wedge Strategy document, page 4 wrote:Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.

And once again, one is tempted to ask which "Christian and theistic convictions" are in mind here. It doesn't take a genius in the field of detective work, to determine that this is simply the basis from which to convert "teach the controversy" into "enforce the orthodoxy".

Furthermore, if IDist claims that their ideas constitute "science" are true, why do they even bother mentioning "apologetics seminars" at all? The reason, of course, is that they are not interested in science, indeed they seek to destroy science as currently constituted, because it destroys their assertions wholesale, and stands as an Everest-sized obstacle in the path of those who want to enslave minds to a religious dogma.

Which brings us on to the question of what will happen if the creationist wet dream ever comes to fruition, because history has taught us, that once supernaturalists have the power to enforce conformity to their fantasies, they have a habit of launching internecine wars over doctrine and orthodoxy, with the losing rivals expunged as "heretics". It's instructive to ask whether ID itself will constitute one of those "heresies" to be expunged during such internal warfare over doctrine, not least because of the existence of Ken Ham's little outfit, known to many here as Arsewater in Genesis. Ham is one of those seeking to position himself as an enforcer of orthodoxy, and indeed, if you peruse the AiG website at length, you'll find instances where "instructions" are issued to this effect. Such as, for example, the list of prohibited apologetic arguments that should purportedly be avoided by the true believers. The discussion of whether or not ID constitutes a "heresy" in the eyes of what might be termed "orthodox" creationists, is a separate matter worthy of its own thread, of course, and I've posted on this subject once before, but it's worth pondering on, not least because it provides another source of entertainment.

Anyway, have fun with the above little lot. Treat it as your one-stop shop for all things Dover Trial related, and how it's likely to apply to future cases.