Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District

Below are excerpts from some notes I used during a book release event for Traipsing Into Evolution on May 16, 2006. (Jonathan Witt previously posted his notes here): As I first read the Kitzmiller decision, I kept having this strange sensation of déjà vu: Where had I heard all these types of arguments before? Then I remembered: I’d heard them during plaintiffs closing arguments which I witnessed live on the final day of the trial–arguments which were based upon a false, straw definition of ID, and misconstrued much evidence about ID. We could spend hours talking about this, so in 4 minutes, here are the primary problems with what Judge Jones said about science in the decision. First Judge Jones Read More ›

What do you get when you declare intelligent design unconstitutional? You get your photo on the cover of Time Magazine and get called one of the top 100 most influential people! In an article by science writer Matt Ridley (the one who said, “Our minds have been built by selfish genes, but they have been built to be social, trustworthy and cooperative”…except, I might add, for when people aren’t social, trustworthy, or cooperative), he says that Judge Jones “proved to be the answer to Darwinians’ prayers”: “Jones, 50, the grandson of a golf-course developer of Welsh ancestry, whose previous claims to fame were a failed attempt to privatize Pennsylvania’s state liquor stores as chairman of the Liquor Control Board–and banning Read More ›

(Part II, Version 1.0)By Casey LuskinCopyright © 2006 Casey Luskin. All Rights Reserved. The entire article can be read here …Yesterday, I posted Part I of this response. To reiterate, there are three primary problems with Judge Jones’s ruling that Ken Miller refuted Michael Behe’s arguments that the bacterial flagellum is irreducible complex: Yesterday I posted sections addressing parts (A) and (B). Today I will continue with the response, expanding on Part (C): (C) Miller’s Incorrect Characterization of Irreducible Complexity To repeat Miller’s assertion, he testified that irreducible complexity is refuted if one sub-system can perform some other function in the cell: “Dr. Behe’s prediction is that the parts of any irreducibly complex system should have no useful function. Therefore, Read More ›

(Part I, Version 1.0) By Casey Luskin Copyright © 2006 Casey Luskin. All Rights Reserved. The entire article can be read here AbstractIn Kitzmiller v. Dover, Judge John E. Jones ruled harshly against the scientific validity of intelligent design. Judge Jones ruled that the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum, as argued by intelligent design proponents during the trial, was refuted by the testimony of the plaintiffs’ expert biology witness, Dr. Kenneth Miller. Dr. Miller misconstrued design theorist Michael Behe’s definition of irreducible complexity by presenting and subsequently refuting only a straw-characterization of the argument. Accordingly, Miller claimed that irreducible complexity is refuted if a separate function can be found for any sub-system of an irreducibly complex system, outside of Read More ›

139 pages of judicial overreach, ignoring important facts, scientific error, and logical fallacy (but other than that, it’s great!–why all the fuss?) have given the blogosphere much material to discuss. Richard Cleary has an extensive review of the Kitzmiller decision at Viewpoint. Cleary clearly highlights a fallacy in the argument ID is creationism repackaged: “The first claim, that ID must be religious, even though it doesn’t appear to be, because it evolved from (forgive me) creationism, is silly. Because one theory emerges from the embers of another doesn’t entail that it necessarily bears all or even many of the traits of the other. Modern theories of the atom are all descendents of Democritus’ belief that such entities exist, but the Read More ›

Nick Matzke and Kevin Padian have posted a celebratory rant at the NCSE website against ID and Discovery Institute. But their rant is so extreme that it gives me reason to leap for joy. If there were any doubts that some people get over emotionally involved with this issue, Padian and Matzke’s gloat-parade makes it clear. With the lights shining brightly this rainy afternoon in Seattle, I offer the following comments: Thanks for Your Support! I’ll start with a short e-mail I received recently from a professor at a large state university, and also a movie quote. Recently a professor responded to question about why he recently chose to join Discovery Institute: “Actually, if you must know, after reading Judge Read More ›

You know you’re fighting a media war when you jump for joy simply because a news article accurately characterizes your theory. Well, I’m jumping for joy right now because an AP article by Martha Raffaele in the Philadelphia Inquirer has an excellent definition of intelligent design: “U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III is expected to rule Tuesday on whether the Dover Area School Board violated the Constitution when it ordered that its biology curriculum must include “intelligent design,” the notion that life on Earth was produced by an unidentified intelligent cause.” (“School district awaits judge’s decision on ‘intelligent design’” by Martha Raffaele, Philadelphia Inquirer, Dec 20, 2005) By using the term “intelligent cause,” this article accurately characterizes how ID Read More ›

Here are my very brief, quick and dirty Top 10 problems with the Kitzmiller decision. Some of these will be elaborated more in future posts by various Evolution News & Views posters. 10) It mischaracterizes ID as a supernatural explanation even though it isn’t and even though both pro-ID expert scientists testified it wasn’t (Day 11 PM, pg. 95; Day 20 PM pg. 45, 135). In short, it lets the critics define ID rather than the proponents. 9) It overreaches the judicial arm by ruling that the nature of science is characterized by methodological naturalism and that intelligent design is not science (pg. 65).** 8) It overreaches the judicial arm by ruling that evolution is compatible with religion (pg. 136).** Read More ›