Science and Culture Today | Page 1453 | Discovering Design in Nature

Larry Caldwell is a parent in Sacramento who has fought to improve the teaching of biology in his children’s high school. We’ve reported on his efforts (here, here, and here) and their consequences (here, here, and here) in the past.

Now the Sacramento Bee has a very good profile on Caldwell. It opens with an excellent summary of Caldwell’s approach to the debate over teaching evolution.”

One of the most rhetorically effective portions of evolutionist Kenneth Miller’s testimony in the Dover trial was his PowerPoint discussion of pseudogenes. As Ted Davis describes it here, “For evolution, he gave several such examples, esp. the recent discovery of pseudogenes in identical locations for humans and some other primates–a “fact” that favors the “theory” of evolution over a theory of a common design plan, since the genes have no known functions and thus a designer would have no reason to give them to all of these organisms.”

The Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial has generated much talk on the internet about Darwinism and the theory of intelligent design, some of it trenchant, much of it stimulating. The American Scientific Affiliation is discussing it here.

One ASA member, Ted Davis, a friendly critic of intelligent design interested in more open debate on the question of origins, provides a favorable review of evolutionist Kenneth Miller’s expert testimony, describing it as “superb testimony … on all counts.” He also provides intriguing if less flattering analysis of Friday’s expert testimony here:

85 Scientists Join Together in Urging Court to Protect Academic Freedom and Not Limit Research into Intelligent Design Theory

Harrisburg, PA – Eighty-five scientists have filed an Amicus Brief in the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial asking the Judge to “affirm the freedom of scientists to pursue scientific evidence wherever it may lead” and not limit research into the scientific theory of intelligent design. Not all the signers are proponents of intelligent design, but they do agree “that protecting the freedom to pursue scientific evidence for intelligent design stimulates the advance of scientific knowledge.”

Design theorist William Dembski reports that “last spring The Thomas More Law Center (TMLC) hired me as an expert witness in the Dover area school district case regarding ID (Kitzmiller v. Dover)” and that “because the focus of that case and trial is a book titled Of Pandas and People and because I am the academic editor for the publisher of that book (i.e., The Foundation for Thought and Ethics [FTE]), when FTE tried to intervene in the case, TMLC decided to drop me as an expert witness, citing a conflict of interest.” Before that occurred, however, Dembski prepared “an expert witness report as well as a rebuttal of the opposing expert witness reports.”

As I noted in a previous post, this week philosopher of science Dr. Robert Pennock testified at the Dover trial that scientists must assume that there are no influences other than those which exist in the material world then they practice science. Pennock called this methodological naturalism (MN), and emphatically told the Court that this is the way science has worked, does work, and ever will work, at least since we became enlightened during the enlightenment. The reality is that the consensus among philosophers of science is that there is no consensus among philosophers of science on the definition of science. The one exception seems to be Darwinist philosophers of science recommending MN as a definition for science when they Read More ›

Having been at the federal courthouse for three days watching Kitzmiller vs. Dover unfold from the press side of the gallery, let me just say that this is so accurate it isn’t even funny. On the first day I spotted biologists Kenneth Miller and Michael Behe, expert witnesses for the two sides of the lawsuit; they were approached now and again by some member of the media. But who was this, during the break, mobbed by cameras and reporters outside the courthouse? Some Nobel Laureate called in to testify for the ACLU? Philosopher Antony Flew fetched over from England to testify for the defense? Who could this slight, intelligent-looking older man possibly be to generate such excitement? It turned out Read More ›

Today CSC Director Dr. Stephen Meyer debated Dr. Eugenie Scott of the NCSE on MSNBC. Dr. Scott claimed that there have been no peer-reviewed science articles which support intelligent design. This claim has also been made by plaintiffs’ expert witnesses at the Dover trial. MSNBC host Dan Abrams had also been misled into believing this false claim. Meyer, who authored a peer-reviewed science article supporting intelligent design, made a clear rebuttal. Yet Scott persisted in saying that his article did not support intelligent design. Meyer should know — he wrote the article. Judge for yourself. Here is what Meyer’s article actually says: “An experience-based analysis of the causal powers of various explanatory hypotheses suggests purposive or intelligent design as a Read More ›

UPDATED 9.29.05/5:38pm (by Rob Crowther): Interestingly, we recently stumbled across this surprisingly prescient interview with Dr. Forrest, and in light of her recent notoriety due to her “expert” testimony for the Dover trial we thought that readers would like to read the transcript.

Two weeks before the Dover trial began, the Judge in the case skewered the “expert” witness report submitted to the Court by Louisiana professor Barbara Forrest, a long-time board member of the New Orleans Secular Humanist Association. Forrest’s report is mostly a rehash of the innuendos and conspiracy-mongering found in her book with Paul Gross, “Creationism’s Trojan Horse.” While Forrest’s potpourri of smears and overheated rhetoric is typically accepted uncritically by reporters, Judge John Jones has put the ACLU on notice that significant portions of Prof. Forrest’s expert report may be declared

Methodological Materialism and What If

The third morning of Kitzmiller vs. Dover found philosopher of science Robert Pennock testifying for the plaintiffs that science is a search for natural explanations of natural phenomena — a limitation known as methodological naturalism (or methodological materialism).

Pennock presented this as the definition of science, and said proponents of intelligent design are “trying to overturn” it, but later he conceded that there was a controversy among philosophers of science concerning whether methodological naturalism was essential to the definition of science.

Earlier in the trial, the ACLU led its first expert witness, biologist Kenneth Miller, through some counterfactual (or “what-if”) reasoning, an investigative tool often used by philosophers. I wish one of the attorneys had led Pennock through the following ”what if” scenario (in this case, a counterfactual that might be actual): What if something in the natural world was the product of design — say, the origin of the first life, or the fine tuning of the physical constants for life?

Now, a materialist might respond, “Well it wasn’t,” as if the mental exercise is some sort of sneaky, schoolyard trick: “Will you pretend for a minute that I’m cooler than you?” “All right, why?” “Ha! You admit it. I’m cooler than you.”