Science and Culture Today | Page 1448 | Discovering Design in Nature

The major media coverage of the lawsuit against the Dover School District is predictably thin on content. So as a public service, Evolution News and Views is going to try to post selected transcripts from the trial so that you can read for yourself what’s going on at the trial, unfiltered by the reporters and pundits. (Of course, we’re going to continue to offer our own analysis of what’s happening at the trial!) Because of the prohibitive expense in purchasing transcripts, we unfortunately won’t be able to provide a complete daily transcript of the trial. But we are going to try to post transcripts for some of the highlights.

Today at the Dover Trial, plaintiffs’ expert witness, philosopher of science Dr. Robert Pennock, focused on 4 topics: (1) methodological naturalism, (2) methodological naturalism, (3) his Avida paper, and (4) methodological naturalism. Additionally, he also talked about methodological naturalism and his Avida paper. Today I will address only two of these many topics: Dr. Pennock’s Avida paper and in another post, methodological naturalism (MN). First I will address the Avida Paper The “Avida paper” was published as “The Evolution of Biological Complexity,” in Nature, 423:139-144, by E. Lenski, Charles Ofria, Robert T. Pennock, and Christoph Adami (May 8, 2003). Pennock and his other co-authors claim the paper “demonstrate[s] the validity of the hypothesis, first articulated by Darwin and supported today Read More ›

Harrisburg, PA — At the end of yesterday’s testimony in Kitzmiller vs. Dover, the plaintiffs’ team highlighted for reporters a key plank of their argument against the Dover Policy calling student’s attention to a book in the school library about intelligent design. Plaintiffs reiterated evolutionist Dr. Kenneth Miller’s testimony that whereas design theorist Dr. Michael Behe’s irreducible complexity argument is testable and, therefore, scientific, “Irreducible complexity is just a negative argument against Darwinism, not a positive argument for design.” Thus, while irreducible complexity is a scientific hypothesis, the design inference supposedly is not. Miller insisted this holds for all intelligent design hypotheses. None of them, Miller argued, contains positive evidence for design. But in fact, design theorists do provide a Read More ›

Scrappleface.com is bravely bucking the trend to stay mum on the shocking opening to the Dover intelligent design trial.

Harrisburg, PA — The plaintiffs in the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial are arguing that intelligent design sprang up in the wake of the 1987 Supreme Court decision against creation science, and the National Center for Science Education’s Nick Matzke is repeating the talking point to reporters: “Intelligent design is just a new label for creationism,” Mr. Matzke noted. “It is just the latest legal strategy for creationism. It evolved in 1987 right after the Supreme Court ruled against creationism and said that that was unconstitutional.” The assertion is demonstrably false. The idea of intelligent design reaches back to Socrates and Plato, and the term “intelligent design” as an alternative to blind evolution was used as early as 1897. More recently, Read More ›

Harrisburg, PA – In the second morning of testimony in the ACLU’s lawsuit against a Dover, Pennsylvania school district, Darwinist Kenneth Miller conceded that in one sense he was a creationist, since he attributed the laws of physics and chemistry to an “author of all things, seen and unseen.” He read back a portion of the testimony he gave when he served as a fact witness in the Cobb County, Georgia textbook sticker case, in which he defined creationism in its narrow, contemporary sense as a view arguing for a young earth (6-10,000 years) , six 24-hour days of creation by a supernatural being, and a geological record largely explained by a global flood. In this morning’s testimony, Miller conceded Read More ›

Good Morning America today aired a story by reporter Dan Harris about Discovery Institute and its role in the national debate over evolution. More than a month ago ABC News approached Discovery Institute with a request to sit down and interview CSC Director Stephen Meyer. We were hesitant based on previous run-ins with other ABC News crews, namely Nightline. They’ve done rather poor jobs on reporting about evolution and intelligent design in the recent past. So, we spoke at length with the producers about what sort of story they were doing and what their focus was and what Meyer’s role would be.

HARRISBURG, PA — The first day of testimony in the ACLU’s lawsuit against the Dover, Pennsylvania school district ended today with the defense beginning their cross-examination of leading Darwinist Kenneth Miller.

How long has it been since a leading evolutionist subjected himself to cross-examination on the witness stand? In the infamous Scopes Monkey Trial in the 1920s, the Darwinist, Clarence Darrow, used a procedural trick to cross examine his opponent while himself avoiding cross-examination. The vast majority of Darwinists routinely duck full and fair exchanges. Kenneth Miller should be applauded for bucking this duck-the-debate tactic.

Harrisburg, PA — A question at the heart of the first day of testimony in Kitzmiller vs. Dover is whether it is illegal to teach intelligent design in the public school science classroom. That’s the question legal expert Francis Beckwith tackles here.

HARRISBURG, PA — The ACLU’s lawsuit against a Dover, Pennsylvania school district began today with biologist and evolutionist Kenneth Miller taking the stand as the first witness. The school district’s policy calls for administrators to read a brief statement to biology students indicating that Darwinism is a theory, and that if students want to learn about a contrary explanation for the origin of living things, they can find a supplementary science textbook, Of Pandas and People, in the school library. The plaintiff is arguing that this violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibiting the establishment of a religion because intelligent design is merely the creationism that was on trial in the Supreme Court decision, Edwards vs. Aguillard (1987), where the court ruled that Louisiana could not mandate equal-time teaching of biblical creationism.