Dover Penn ID trial

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Invisible astral enzymes, the explanation for UD.

I'm really liking this.

~~ Paul

[petre]

Invisible astral enzymes, the explanation for UD.

I'm really liking this.

~~ Paul

Shhhh...they're really Flying Spaghetti Enzymes, but I'm trying not to give away my secret theistic agenda, since teaching about FSE's would be against the constitution.

[ohms]

You need to get the word 'Quantum' in there to make it truly believable ;)

The transcripts have been very interesting and suprisingly amusing too. I'm looking forward to the next batch going up.

[H'ethetheth]

For some odd reason, I woke up last night and suddenly had this thought:

ID claims that there is some intelligent entity (or entities, assuming singular for this paragraph) that was responsible. ID refuses to make any specific claims about this entity beyond that it was intelligent (they're trying to keep it simple to avoid looking like theism I imagine).

My question is, why does it even have to be an intelligent entity? Maybe there is a whole dimension of invisible astral enzimes that tend to mutate DNA strands to produce new, advantageous structures. Perhaps this dimension occasionally collides with our own plane of existance, and results in such events.

So I hereby proclaim that if evolution is not correct, then I believe it is some unintelligent entity or entities that actually caused the creation of certain forms of life. I refuse to make any further claims about this unintelligent entity beyond simply that I believe it is unintelligent. This new UD (Unintelligent Design) theory is every bit as valid as ID.
I had a very similar thought a few days ago. I was thinking more along the lines of Douglas Adams' improbability drive. These irreducibly complex things don't have to happen by chance if they can simply happen by improbability.
What if there were (what indeed, mr. Worf) fluctuations or possibly even reversals of the improbability field :eek:. What if these fluctuations aren't as rare as some of us usually think they are?
Evidence of improbability is of course all around us. For example, what are the odds that you'd turn up at exactly the point in the universe where you are right now? And let's not forget that flagellum, people! That is the kind of structure I call "undeniaby improbable".
I was going to write a highschool textbook about it and of course critically review this book, and get rich. But I felt I had to intervene on this. You're on the right track, but not quite at the right station.

Hail Adams, the visionary.

P.S: I won't speculate about the properties of the improbability field, because IF theory simply isn't that kind of theory.
P.P.S: Maybe we should make a compendium of theories that are both equally valid and equally silly as ID.

[Mojo]

Another gem (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day11pm2.html#day11pm717) from Behe's cross-examination that I don't think has been posted yet: Q Back to my original question. What is the mechanism that intelligent design proposes?

A And I wonder, could -- am I permitted to know what I replied to your question the first time?

[CFLarsen]

Another gem (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day11pm2.html#day11pm717) from Behe's cross-examination that I don't think has been posted yet:
STOP! STOP!! YOU'RE KILLING ME!!

:dl:

[Moose]

Another gem (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day11pm2.html#day11pm717) from Behe's cross-examination that I don't think has been posted yet:

Behe is the defense's star witness, isn't he?

. o O ( They're screwed. )
:D

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Would it have been okay if Rothschild had responded:

Q. Nothing of any substance that I could see.

~~ Paul

[Dr Adequate]

There's only one Michael Behe
ONE Michael Behe
ONE Michael BEH ... E
There's only one Michael Behe
ONE Michael Behe...

[Mojo]

Would it have been okay if Rothschild had responded:

Q. Nothing of any substance that I could see. Near enough! Q (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day11pm2.html#day11pm719) I don't think I got a reply, so I'm asking you... :D

[Flo]

I read some of the transcript and it reminded me of the saying:

"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with b******t" :rolleyes:

[headscratcher4]

More fun from Penn. From the AP wire on the trial:

Ex-School Trustee 'Misspoke' on Evolution

A former school board member who denied saying creationism should be taught alongside evolution in high school biology classes changed his story Thursday after being confronted in court with TV news footage of him making such comments.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051028/ap_on_re_us/evolution_debate;_ylt=AuqKXaTR2.dYFpcJc7b32mWs0NUE ;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MjBwMWtkBHNlYwM3MTg-

Damn those cameras! Instruments of Satan!

[Mojo]

A former school board member who denied saying creationism should be taught alongside evolution in high school biology classes changed his story Thursday after being confronted in court with TV news footage of him making such comments.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051028/ap_on_re_us/evolution_debate;_ylt=AuqKXaTR2.dYFpcJc7b32mWs0NUE ;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MjBwMWtkBHNlYwM3MTg-

Damn those cameras! Instruments of Satan!I had it in my mind to make sure not to talk about creationism. It's all a bit like Basil Fawlty trying not to mention the war.

[Upchurch]

Slight tangent:

Intelligent design loser in moot court (http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051028/NEWS21/510280359)

In a mock courtroom case that revolved around the concept of intelligent design, a fictitious junior high school teacher likely would have lost his bid to teach the controversial theory.
The case, which is similar to actual court cases, including one federal trial being held in Pennsylvania, involved an eighth-grade teacher who taught intelligent design despite a school district policy prohibiting the concept.
However....
But Judge Carr stressed that their decision was not an indication on how they would rule if an actual case involving intelligent design or creationism versus evolution came before any of them.
Which makes it sound like their decision was based more on the quality of the presentation rather than the quality of the facts presented.

For what it's worth.

[drkitten]

Which makes it sound like their decision was based more on the quality of the presentation rather than the quality of the facts presented.


Well, that's always the case in any legal proceeding.

For example, my reading of the transcript suggest that Behe crashed and burned on the witness stand (and the rest of the experts are bailing out precisely for that reason). My opinion might be tempered slightly if I had seen the actual testimony, but most likely, if I had seen Behe hemming and hawing and adjusting his collar and stammering as he got backed further and further into a corner, it would only have been strengthened.

But let's give credit where credit is due. Behe has successfully testified before in other cases without going down in flames. Rothschild is demonstrably brilliant at cross-examination. Given the same witness, the same environment, the same depositions, and the same facts, I don't think I could have done the same job. If the ACLU had been dumb enough to retain me, I would have lost the case for them....

[headscratcher4]

It's all a bit like Basil Fawlty trying not to mention the war.

Which, of course, points up one of the great and interesting facets of this whole thing...the willingness of the other side (i.e. the creationists) to lie and dissemble to make their case. Beginning witht he premise that it is acceptable science (so acceptable that the football game between the sides would be like the University of Michigan playing the University of Alaska, Nome in U.of M. stadium). Then they have to hide the real agenda...which is to re-introduce religion into the science curriculum via the science of "ID" which is just a cleaned up version of creationism. I guess what I am trying to get to is that it is politics and poltical strategy (a'la the civil rights movemtn) not scientific discovery or research that is driving this cart...

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Jump ship! Jump ship! This is so much fun I'm getting the heebie-jeebies.

Is that cruel of me?

~~ Paul

[delphi_ote]

But it's worse than just "not science." These are supposedly "Christians..."

Do not make false statements to one another; because you have put away the old man with all his doings... Colossians 3:9
But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your heart, don't boast and don't lie against the truth." James 3:14
I have not written to you because you don't know the truth, but because you know it, and because no lie is of the truth." 1 John 2:21

And most importantly...
DO NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS
(Which was apparently literally written in stone at one point...)

Why is it they never seem to read their own book? Why do their fellow Christians never condemn them for this behavior? They seem to be willing to flush all of the teachings of their religion just to make sure nobody contradicts a fairy tale.

[Mojo]

But it's worse than just "not science." These are supposedly "Christians..."

Why is it they never seem to read their own book? I was wondering about this. I know that there was a 1631 edition of the Bible that accidentally had the word "not" omitted from the seventh commandment, so I've just checked the Authorised Version (AKA King James Bible) to make sure it's there in the ninth commandment. It is. Maybe they just don't consider non-creationists to be their "neighbours."

Incidentally, why did these clowns decide that a seventeenth century English translation was inerrant?

[Dr Adequate]

Former Dover Area School board member Bill Buckingham struggled to clarify Thursday how he raised $850 at his church for copies of the textbook "Of Pandas and People" even though earlier he gave a deposition saying he didn't know how the books were donated to the high school. I love this guy.

[Dr Adequate]

Incidentally, why did these clowns decide that a seventeenth century English translation was inerrant? And why didn't the seventeenth century translators notice that they were inerrant and mention it?

[Mojo]

From another column (http://ydr.com/story/doverbiology/92062/) by Mike Argento: It was like he had a Homer Simpson moment. He was thinking "Don't say creationism. Don't say creationism. Don't say creationism." And then he opens his yap and says "creationism."

D'oh! :D

[Dr Adequate]

So where are the transcripts?

I guess the people at talkorigins are laughing too hard to type.

[hammegk]

But it's worse than just "not science." These are supposedly "Christians..."
Perhaps. Which suitable studies that test your hypothesis do you find most convincing?


Evidence of improbability is of course all around us. For example, what are the odds that you'd turn up at exactly the point in the universe where you are right now? And let's not forget that flagellum, people! That is the kind of structure I call "undeniaby improbable".

My question is, why does it even have to be an intelligent entity? Maybe there is a whole dimension of invisible astral enzimes that tend to mutate DNA strands to produce new, advantageous structures. Perhaps this dimension occasionally collides with our own plane of existance, and results in such events.
I find out-of-the-box thinking more interesting than regurgitation of liturgy.



Who is the Anthropic Principal? Some senior figure at your High School?


Oh, and appearances can, of course, be deceptive.
Agreed, yet appearance via perception is all we have to work with sfaik.


The current Theory of Evolution does not require any "striving for complexity" or any striving at all,
No, it doesn't.


Natural selection is anything but random! You might want to clarify.
Timing of specific environment & timing of rna-dna available for mutation is not random?

Or does environment specify and direct mutation? LOL. :jaw-dropp




And for the pedants, yes it should have been "principle" not "principal". ;)

[Dr Adequate]

Hey, hammy, you've gatecrashed this party.

I can tell you don't belong here because the invite said "huge smug grins to be worn", and you're the only person here not wearing one.

[Bronze Dog]

Timing of specific environment & timing of rna-dna available for mutation is not random?

Or does environment specify and direct mutation? LOL. :jaw-dropp
Once again, I get the feeling that hammy doesn't know what random means.

[drkitten]

Once again, I get the feeling that hammy doesn't know what random means.

Why should "random" be unique in this regard?

[hammegk]

Once again, I get the feeling that hammy doesn't know what random means.
Do you, in the sense you've actually contemplated the implications of the word?


Why should "random" be unique in this regard?
Oh! You made a funny! :D :D :D ;)

[Bronze Dog]

Do you, in the sense you've actually contemplated the implications of the word?
Implications... such as?

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Pastor Bentonit
Natural selection is anything but random! You might want to clarify. Timing of specific environment & timing of rna-dna available for mutation is not random?

Or does environment specify and direct mutation? Sorry, Hammy, but another of your strawmen is showing. That's not what the Pastor said. Mutation and natural selection are not the same process. Mutation is random; the process of natural selection which acts on the results of those mutations is driven by environmental pressures.

[hammegk]

Mutation and natural selection are not the same process.

The depth of your understanding defies belief. :rolleyes:



Implications... such as?
That's where the "thinking" comes in ... yours, not mine.

Does Cramer's Transactional Interpretation (or even Sum_over_all_paths) seem random recalling that no time elapses during the event?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Timing of specific environment & timing of rna-dna available for mutation is not random?
This bit of logic is used by many creationists. Indeed, the timing of specific environmental pressures is random with respect to the rest of the universe. But that doesn't matter, does it? What matters is that that environmental pressures last for a long time, long enough to nonrandomly select the more-or-less random mutations that occur in genomes embedded in that environment.

Or does environment specify and direct mutation? LOL.
It might to some extent, but what does it matter?

~~ Paul

[delphi_ote]

Perhaps. Which suitable studies that test your hypothesis do you find most convincing?

For future reference, I recommend:

a) Reading the post you are responding to.
b) Making sure you understand all the words used in that post.
c) Making sure you understand all the words used in the post when you string them together in the same way the author of the post strung them together.
d) Trying to incorporate some thoughts about that post in your response to it.
e) Making sure your response actually makes sense to other native English speakers (as opposed to being a meaningless jumble of incoherent nonsense unrelated to anything anyone is talking about.)

I also note you didn't take issue with my post about Genetic Programming being un-designed despite the fact that humans obviously designed genetic programming. Could it be that you don't understand the subject at hand? Or can you not define "design" sufficiently well? Or both?

[delphi_ote]

Timing of specific environment & timing of rna-dna available for mutation is not random?

RNA available for mutation? Go find a biology textbook. You need to do some reading.

[delphi_ote]

This thread is meant to be about the ID trial. Hasn't it been split once already to provide a suitable receptacle for hammy's incontinent drivel?

Good point. Hammy is boring. The trial is endlessly entertaining.

So to kick this thread back onto topic, why on Earth did the defense put Buckingham on the witness stand?

[drkitten]

So to kick this thread back onto topic, why on Earth did the defense put Buckingham on the witness stand?

Because they had to.

Buckingham's statements, as reported in the press, using words like "creationism" and statements about "two thousand years ago, somone died on the cross for us; won't someone take a stand for Him?" (I apologize if that's a misquote; I didn't bother to cross-check.) are direct and clear-cut evidence about the religious motivations of the government officials who made the policy. By extension, it's clear-cut evidence that the government policy itself is motivated by religious, not secular, purposes, violating the first prong of the Lemon test.

Without some way to refute those newspaper reports, the game is as good as over. And the only person who can credibly testify about what Buckingham said is Buckingham himself. (Imagine if the defense tried to refute those statements without Buckingham's testimony. Wouldn't you find that a little suspicious?)

I suppose another strategy might have been for the entire board to try to distance itself from Buckingham -- "Well, he may have had religious motivations, but I agreed with the proposal for sound pedagogical reasons, which I am inexplicably unable to articulate at this moment due to an acute confusion between whether my foot belongs in my shoe, or my mouth." However, I really doubt that dog would hunt either; the judge is demonstrably no fool.

Other than that, I think that all the defense can really hope for is to muddy the waters enough to make a credible case on appeal. I honestly don't see (from my reading of the transcripts) how the trial judge could make any finding other than for the plaintiffs.

[delphi_ote]

Other than that, I think that all the defense can really hope for is to muddy the waters enough to make a credible case on appeal. I honestly don't see (from my reading of the transcripts) how the trial judge could make any finding other than for the plaintiffs.

It just seems like nobody did their homework or got their stories straight (in Behe and Buckingham's cases, it seems like they didn't even bother getting their stories traight with themselves!) It couldn't be any more obvious these people are dishonest. I really don't see how they could hope to get an appeal at this point.

What were they thinking? Does it really just simply boil down to their being blinded by faith?

[hammegk]

RNA available for mutation? Go find a biology textbook. You need to do some reading.
Pedants are so interesting ... I tossed in rna to cover all terran life as it's usually defined by y'all.

For future reference, I recommend:

a) Reading the post you are responding to.
b) Making sure you understand all the words used in that post.
c) Making sure you understand all the words used in the post when you string them together in the same way the author of the post strung them together.
d) Trying to incorporate some thoughts about that post in your response to it.
e) Making sure your response actually makes sense to other native English speakers (as opposed to being a meaningless jumble of incoherent nonsense unrelated to anything anyone is talking about.)
I asked what peer-reviewed studies you based your "all Christians" thought on. Was I too quick for you?

note you didn't take issue with my post about Genetic Programming being un-designed despite the fact that humans obviously designed genetic programming. Could it be that you don't understand the subject at hand? Or can you not define "design" sufficiently well? Or both?
So much to repond to, so few of me. Sorry to keep you waiting.

I do like that "designed un-designed design" concept.;)

It might to some extent, but what does it matter?
IIRC there are some studies that imply microbes mutating at faster rate when stressed (er, and at pre-selected specific locales as well), yet the idea seems a bit too Lamarchian for The Theory.



And to all now dancing in the streets in glee, Scopes won the day and held it for The Theory many decades. Assuming ID losses this trial, how long this time until the next assault as Religion(vs. Science) tries again. :)

[Ed]

The history of science is the history of dead religions"

....Oscar Wilde

...

[delphi_ote]

I asked what peer-reviewed studies you based your "all Christians" thought on. Was I too quick for you?

Yes. You were too quick to lie and try to stuff words in my mouth. Like I said, read the original post before you respond. I never said "all Christians," but you still quote me as saying exactly that.

Buckingham and Behe are most certainly self described Christians and are most certainly liars. How do they justify this to themselves? Why is there not an uproar from the Christian community about these people who purport to represent the religion in public?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

IIRC there are some studies that imply microbes mutating at faster rate when stressed (er, and at pre-selected specific locales as well), yet the idea seems a bit too Lamarchian for The Theory.
If mutation and selection can conjure up something diabolical, it will. I won't even be surprised if things slightly Lamarckian are discovered. All you need is some mechanism to modify sex cells in a "controlled" manner. I believe there is already evidence that structures in sex cells other than DNA carry information inherited by offspring.

~~ Paul

[Dan Beaird]

...So to kick this thread back onto topic, why on Earth did the defense put Buckingham on the witness stand?
It's my understanding that Buckingham was called by the prosecution (hostile witness rules and all) out of turn becuase he was unavailable when they presented their case and allowances were made for just this sort of thing.

I think the defense would have been happier to have him spend the trial buried under a rock on some remote planet. I think everyone ought to get together and sign thank-you cards to the defense counsel and witnesses for shredding every vestige of credibility that ID claimed to have. Maybe we can give them some Darwin fish for their cars too.

[H'ethetheth]

I find out-of-the-box thinking more interesting than regurgitation of liturgy. Though I tend to agree with this basic message, out-of-the-box thinking should stop where unsupported and unfalsifiable speculation starts, especially where the latter is combined with lots of grossly inappropriate finger pointing.

[drkitten]

It's my understanding that Buckingham was called by the prosecution (hostile witness rules and all) out of turn becuase he was unavailable when they presented their case and allowances were made for just this sort of thing.


According to the rather-garbled transcripts available from the NCSE (http://www2.ncseweb.org/wp/), he was called as a defense witness.

Not that that means much.

[Spidey13]

Hey guys. There's a really funny article at Slate (http://slate.msn.com/id/2128755/?nav=tap3) by William Saletan comparing Dr. Behe's testimony to a Monty Python sketch.

Last paragraph:

So, this is my theory, which belongs to me, and goes as follows. All intelligently designed things are brought about by an intelligent designer through a process of intelligently conducted design. If it's good enough for Monty Python, it's good enough for biology class.

[CFLarsen]

Miss Anne Elk! :D

[Euromutt]

Miss Anne Elk! :D
... who is an expert on elk-- dinosaurs!

[Euromutt]

Phooey. You are the author who neglected to use any qualifier. Got peer-review to support even "most" or "many" Christians? That is, actually back up your statement.Where did delphi_ote use terms like "most" or "many"? He noted that Behe and Buckingham are self-professed Christians, that Christian scripture contains several prohibitions on telling falsehoods, and noted the apparent discrepancy between Behe and Buckingham's self-professed adherence to Christianity and their failure to avoid activity prohibited by scripture. The evidence to back up that statement is there for all of us to see, in the trial transcripts for starters.

Stop trying to be clever, hammy; you haven't got what it takes to pull that off.

I might add that your instruction to Chipmunk Stew to "either add something, or stfu" is the height of chutzpah coming from someone the majority of whose posts add exactly zero value to the conversation, consisting of messages to the effect that "you're wrong, but I'm not going to argue why; instead, you have to come up with the arguments I can't produce myself."

[bagtaggar]

Hammy, can you prove to us that Creationism and Intelligent design qualify as science, and belong in the science curriculum for high school students?

[headscratcher4]

"I find out-of-the-box thinking more interesting than regurgitation of liturgy."

How does that work when the "out of the box" thinking is designed specificallly to get you back to dogmatic regurgitation of liturgy...for the expressed motives of the ID movment isn't scientific, it is to bannish
"materialist" science and to return to education founded in religious dogma...and than they can, once again, turn on each other like they've done for thousands of years.

[Pastor Bentonit]

Egads! I´m away for a couple of hours and it´s troll heaven! Oh how fun these internets are! However, natural selection keeps on being anything but random. Oh, and there are many mutational mechanisms, all of them not strictly random either...and of course, there is no known mechanism of ID, short of those guided by humans, apes, crows etc, i.e. living organisms of the natural world. Now, let´s get ourselves a couple of fresh Kitzmiller vs. Dover transcripts and laugh our collective guts out. And btw, Hammegk, why not join us? It´s great fun!

[delphi_ote]

It's my understanding that Buckingham was called by the prosecution (hostile witness rules and all) out of turn becuase he was unavailable when they presented their case and allowances were made for just this sort of thing.

That would explain a lot. Any idea where you heard that, Dan?

Also, can anyone explain to me why Buckingham can't get in trouble for perjury for this? I'm definitely not Mr. Law, but his false statements seem to be a little too convenient to not be deliberate.

[bagtaggar]

Hammy... can you please demonstrate how ID qualifies as science? Pwease?

[hammegk]

Hammy... can you please demonstrate how ID qualifies as science? Pwease?
Of course not. I can offer some others' words regarding the ongoing debate, which as I see it, is not that specific question anyway.


Today, some read the evidence of nature and find no evidence for the existence of a Deity. Richard Dawkins, the contemporary biologist, notorious atheist, penned a book with the title "The Blind Watchmaker". He argues that "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference". In the context of the warfare between evolution and creationism in the United States, the problem is perhaps less with believers who read the Bible as a literal account of Creation and more with believers who read Richard Dawkins as a literal account of evolution.


The history of the anti-evolution debates in the United States is less about biology and more about morality. Going back to the 1925 Scopes Trial, the progressive politician, William Jennings Bryan, got involved largely because of his objections to Social Darwinism and Eugenics, which at the time were widely used to justify any number of social injustices. Thirty states had eugenics laws. Indeed, the "science" most used to justify Nazism was first published in the peer-reviewed journals of the United States.

Today, the anti-evolution arguments are quite similar -- evolution equals materialism equals atheism equals nihilism equals immorality. The last Supreme Court case to examine this question, the 1987 case Edwards v. Aguillard ruled against Creation Science not on the basis of the science, but that it was a sectarian religion and thus could not be taught in the public schools. The anti-evolution forces regrouped, reorganized, and united around a "science-only" tactic - calling evolution "just a theory" and requesting equal time for Intelligent Design Theory. The old Creation Science arguments have been resurrected, but without mention of the Bible or officially naming the reputed designer.


The problem, however, is not with the term "intelligent". The "intelligence" of nature is not in the eye of the scientific beholder, it is in the phenomena themselves. This "intelligibility" is the precondition for science. The metaphor of "design", however, is much more problematic. Besides, God is either everywhere present in all processes of creation or God might as well be nowhere.


source http://www.metanexus.net/metanexus_online/show_article.asp?9284

[Dr Adequate]

Hammy... can you please demonstrate how ID qualifies as science? Pwease? That was a "no".

Back on topic, does anyone know where I can find the latest transcripts on a normal webpage instead of this pesky .pdf?

I'm getting serious withdrawal symptoms.

[Mercutio]

Yes, please, more transcripts!

[Ed]

Of course not. I can offer some others' words regarding the ongoing debate, which as I see it, is not that specific question anyway.


the problem is perhaps less with believers who read the Bible as a literal account of Creation and more with believers who read Richard Dawkins as a literal account of evolution.



The difference is that one is completely justified in saying to Dawkins "prove it" and he would have to comply or retire. I would love believers in absolute truths and omnipotant beings to be as self assured and not have to resort to verbal legerdermain.

[hammegk]

I see. And you find that Dawkins has proved "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."?

And more to the point, you also find it so, provably?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I hadn't run across that thinking before. I'd need to know more, but at first glance it might make more sense than 'natural selection' as y'all define it.
Here you go:

http://www.the-scientist.com/news/20050323/01

Any such non-DNA inheritance is still under the influence of natural selection, of course.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Back on topic, does anyone know where I can find the latest transcripts on a normal webpage instead of this pesky .pdf?
Pesky, you say?

Talkorigins has them in HTML format:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover.html

~~ Paul

[Dr Adequate]

Behe plays it dumb, loses:Q: And that's not what the Darwinian theory suggests, correct? It does not project that the sequence is in that order, liner, tuna, frog, turtle, chicken, horse, correct? That's not what Darwinian evolution states, correct?
A: You'll have to help me and tell me what Darwinian evolution does state.

... (agonising minutes later) ...

Q: But when Pandas says: "to use the classic Darwinian scenario amphibians are intermediate between fish and the other land dwelling vertebrates", that's not a correct characterization of the theory of evolution, is it?
A: No, that isn't, no.I like this bit:Q: But archeologists are involved in human design, so...
A: So he would have to conclude it had a human designer, correct?
Q: Not necessarily.
Mr Muise: Object. I believe counsel just testified.
Q: It seemed like so much fun I wanted to. :dl:

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

This is getting surreal. Dr. A., where is the transcript with those bits?

~~ Paul

[CFLarsen]

You'll have to help me and tell me what Darwinian evolution does state.

Behe didn't say that. He did not say that.

Show me where he said that.

My head is exploding....

[hammegk]

Any such non-DNA inheritance is still under the influence of natural selection, of course.

~~ Paul
Damn. I'd just been taken to task elsewhere for mentioning rna & mutation, too. delphi_ote: Interesting, huh?


So 'natural selection' is what is occurring even when higher powers (here, homosap) are messing about? ;)

[delphi_ote]

It just gets better and better!

Heather Geesey, a Dover Area School Board member, said she came to believe intelligent design was a scientific theory based on the recommendations of Alan Bonsell and William Buckingham - both members of the board's curriculum committee.
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=15475356&BRD=2212&PAG=461&dept_id=465812&rfi=6

[Mojo]

More from Geesey: “You can teach creationism without its being Christianity,” the Dover Area school board member wrote in a letter to the editor in the June 27, 2004, York Sunday News. The judge seems to be on the ball: Geesey testified that she recalled Buckingham and fellow board member Alan Bonsell discussing intelligent design at the June 2004 meetings. That contradicted her sworn deposition, in which she said board members hadn’t named what alternatives should be presented to balance evolutionary theory.

When Walczak questioned the discrepancy, Geesey said her letter to the editor, along with Eveland’s, had jogged her memory.

At the end of cross-examination, Jones was not satisfied and he began to question the witness himself.

Saying he was confused, Jones asked her to explain specifically how the letters triggered her memory. “I ask you because intelligent design is not mentioned in either letter,” he said. http://ydr.com/story/doverbiology/92176/

[CFLarsen]

Just out of curiosity, but has anyone noticed any howlers from the Evolutionist side?

It can't merely be the Creationists who mess up...

[delphi_ote]

Just out of curiosity, but has anyone noticed any howlers from the Evolutionist side?

It can't merely be the Creationists who mess up...

Always tell the truth. That way, you don't have to remember what you said.

The Evolutionist science side isn't trying to cover up facts, so they probably have it easier.

[69dodge]

http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day8AMSession.pdf, p. 15:

A. He had asked us more than once if we teach man comes from a monkey. In response to that in utter frustration I looked at Mr. Buckingham and I said, "If you say man and monkey one more time in the same sentence, I'm going to scream." He did not do that, and I didn't have to.

Q. And that's because you're Italian, Mrs. Spahr, is that right?

A. Sicilian.

Q. I'll remember that.

A. Let's clarify that.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

So 'natural selection' is what is occurring even when higher powers (here, homosap) are messing about?
That would depend entirely upon whether you are counting human effects as selection pressure. We are part of nature, after all.

Now you guys are starting to make this transcript stuff up. There is no way that it's really this absurd. We're through the looking glass for sure.

~~ Paul

[69dodge]

Just out of curiosity, but has anyone noticed any howlers from the Evolutionist side?

It can't merely be the Creationists who mess up...http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12am.html#day12am490

cross examination of Behe

Q. And so in the case of prokaryotes, which you said was a good example of what you were studying, 10 to the 16th in one ton of soil?

A. Yes.

Q. So a few tons of soil, and we've gone past that 10 to the 30th?The lawyer apparently thinks that 1030 is roughly double 1016. oops.

And there's a long exchange starting at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12am2.html#day12am1087. Too much to quote, but I can't figure out the lawyer's point. I don't think he knows what his own point is. He ends up saying, at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12am2.html#day12am1197:

Q. Sounds like a bigger mistake than Dr. Doolittle made, Professor Behe?

A. I'm not sure what you are referring to.

Q. Well, you spent a lot of time trashing Dr. Doolittle and his work, his article in the Boston Review. Your mistake here is quite a bit more substantial than misinterpreting a mice study, isn't it?

A. I'm not even quite sure what you are referring to as my mistake.

Q. I'll withdraw that question, Professor Behe. [...]

[delphi_ote]

The lawyer apparently thinks that 1030 is roughly double 1016. oops.

He might not be mistaken if doubling the amount of soil squares the number of prokaryotes for some geometric reason.

ETA Actually reading the transcript there makes it clear it probably doesn't! ;)

[ShowMe]

Pesky, you say?~~ Paul

I imagine, if you are a proponent of ID as scientific, that those .pdf transcriptions would be damn pesky.

Then again, converting them to html isn't going to help in that respect....

[Dr Adequate]

This is getting surreal. Dr. A., where is the transcript with those bits?It can be found in this damaged .pdf file (http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/trans/2005_1019_day12_pm.pdf), much of which is legible.

[Ed]

I can't copy it but read the first Q&A on p. 73 wherein Dr. Behe uses Science Fiction as a rationale.....odd man.

[delphi_ote]

I can't copy it but read the first Q&A on p. 73 wherein Dr. Behe uses Science Fiction as a rationale.....odd man.

Finally, someone who agrees with me that Star Trek Design Theory should be taught in the classroom!

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Another fun article on the trial:

http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2005/10/11/65535

~~ Paul

[Ed]

In following a link concerning tax protesters I found this quote which is particularly germane, I think:

In this FAQ, you will read many decisions of judges who refer to the views of tax protesters as "frivolous," "ridiculous," "absurd," "preposterous," or "gibberish." If you don't read a lot of judicial opinions, you may not understand the full weight of what it means when a judge calls an argument "frivolous" or "ridiculous." Perhaps an analogy will help explain the attitude of judges.

Imagine a group of professional scientists who have met to discuss important issues of physics and chemistry, and then someone comes into their meeting and challenges them to prove that the earth revolves around the sun. At first, they might be unable to believe that the challenger is serious. Eventually, they might be polite enough to explain the observations and calculations which lead inevitably to the conclusion that the earth does indeed revolve around the sun. Suppose the challenger is not convinced, but insists that there is actually no evidence that the earth revolves around the sun, and that all of the calculations of the scientists are deliberately misleading. At that point, they will be jaw-droppingly astounded, and will no longer be polite, but will evict the challenger/lunatic from their meeting because he is wasting their time.

That is the way judges view tax protesters. At first, they try to be civil and treat the claims as seriously as they can. However, after dismissing case after case with the same insane claims, sometimes by the same litigant, judges start pulling out the dictionary to see how many synonyms they can find for "absurd."

The frustration of judges is well described in the following opinion of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, responding to an appeal raising some of the ridiculous constitutional claims described in this FAQ:

"We are sensitive to the need for the courts to remain open to all who seek in good faith to invoke the protection of law. An appeal that lacks merit is not always--or often--frivolous. However we are not obliged to suffer in silence the filing of baseless, insupportable appeals presenting no colorable claims of error and designed only to delay, obstruct, or incapacitate the operations of the courts or any other governmental authority. Crain's present appeal is of this sort. It is a hodgepodge of unsupported assertions, irrelevant platitudes, and leglistic gibberish. The government should not have been put to the trouble of responding to such spurious arguments, nor this court to the trouble of 'adjudicating' this meritless appeal." Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417, 1418 (5th Cir. 1984).
The court not only ruled against Crain, but imposed a damage award against him (essentially a fine) of $2,000 for bringing a frivolous appeal. Id at 1418.

So, when a judge calls an argument "ridiculous" or "frivolous," it is absolutely the worst thing the judge could say. It means that the person arguing the case has absolutely no idea of what he is doing, and has completely wasted everyone's time. It doesn't mean that the case wasn't well argued, or that judge simply decided for the other side, it means that there was no other side.. The argument was absolutely, positively, incompetent. The judge is not telling you that you that you were "wrong." The judge is telling you that you are out of your mind.
http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#purpose

[delphi_ote]

Another fun article on the trial:

http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2005/10/11/65535

~~ Paul

Has anyone ever nailed Behe on his stupid mountain/Mt. Rushmore nonsense?

"So the mountain range wasn't designed? The designer didn't make these mountains? Oh he did make the mountains? How can you tell?"

[Jeff Corey]

I thought this might be relevant. If not, its still funny.
http://www.uclick.com/client/wpc/nq/

[Mercutio]

Thanks for that, Corey--I thought the same when I read it this morning.

[bagtaggar]

I know it's a little off topic, but:

I think we can all safely say (except for hammy), that evolution qualifies as science whether or not you personally believe it.

It has all the componants of the scientific method.

I'd like to ask hammy again, can he point out how ID is science? Or rather, who has ever demonstrated that it is?

A laundry list of nitpicky complaints against a robust scientific theory doesn't make ID science.

[Mojo]

A laundry list of nitpicky complaints against a robust scientific theory doesn't make ID science.Well, ID isn't really any more than this itself. The basic argument seems to be "If Darwinian evolution doesn't explain this, it must have been designed." See Behe's first answer in this recent interview (http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1567967,00.html), for example: So that if Darwin's theory doesn't explain it we're left with no other explanation than maybe it really was designed. That's essentially the design argument.

[Mojo]

I wonder if anyone ever said something along the lines of "if Lamarck's theory of evolution by inheritance of acquired characteristics doesn't explain it we're left with no other explanation than maybe it really was designed."

[Mojo]

I've just noticed that Talk Origins (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover.html) has transcripts of days 13 to 15 (Nilsen and Fuller) and a damaged pdf of day 16 am (Buckingham).

Fuller's cross includes (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day15pm.html#day15pm94):A. Let me see if I understand what I said. :D

[Darat]

I've just noticed that Talk Origins (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover.html) has transcripts of days 13 to 15 (Nilsen and Fuller) and a damaged pdf of day 16 am (Buckingham).

Fuller's cross includes (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day15pm.html#day15pm94)::D

I am being serious but why has he been put forward? The man seems incapable of answering questions even in his area of expertise.

(ETA)


Q. You would agree that methodological naturalism has worked well for science?

A. Yes.

Q. And you would agree that it's largely responsible for most of the scientific progress we've seen?

A. No.

Q. If you could turn to Page 175 of your deposition. I'm going to read your answer there starting on Line 23. You say, I'm not doubting that methodological naturalism has worked for science and that it's largely responsible for lots of science that we've got, maybe even most of that we've got. Did I read that correctly?

A. Yes. I said maybe



Q. And is it fair to say that you think the National Academy of Science's definition of a scientific theory is too static and too restrictive?

A. And this is -- remind me again. I'm sure I've commented on it, but can you remind me what that definition is?



Q. And your counter-definition is a little bit different, and it would be an explanatory conception --

A. Can you direct me to a page? You just want to tell me? Okay.

Q. An explanatory conception of a range of phenomena and also that could serve as a basis for a research program, for an empirical research program.

A. Yes. That sounds good, yeah.

[Mojo]

I guess he's the best they can manage.

Most of their other "experts" seem to have run away.

[Darat]

And the judge has a great sense of humour:


Q. And what you're saying is that it's got no chance in the scientific community, the only chance it has is for a federal judge to order that it be taught in the schools?

A. Look, I'm --

MR. GILLEN: Objection to the characterization of his testimony, Your Honor.

THE WITNESS: Well, I am going to disagree with it. Sorry.

THE COURT: The best thing you can do when Mr. Gillen objects is not answer the question.

THE WITNESS: Sorry, sorry.

THE COURT: That doesn't help him. So we'll let that pass and we'll move on.

MR. GILLEN: I'll withdraw the objection.

THE COURT: I guess so. Mr. Walczak can proceed. That's known as the too-helpful witness.

THE WITNESS: Sorry.

THE COURT: But who you're helping depends on your answer. Mr. Walczak, you may proceed.

[Darat]

Q. I'm going to start reading with the question on Line 2. Quote, But what is your understanding of these counter-examples? Is it that they have -- that critics have taken these counter-examples and used some probabilistic method to determine what happened to them, or have they been raised as examples that Dr. Dembski needs to apply his method to to show that it works at all? And your answer is, Yes, the latter. I mean, but is this damning? Yes, I mean, I agree with you.

A. No, no, I'm not referring to that it's damning. I mean that the latter -- I'm not saying that the fact that they have raised counter-examples to -- suggests his method doesn't work at all. I am agreeing that that's the nature of the counter-example. I am not agreeing to it being damning.

Q. But you're saying that Dembski needs to apply his method, and he hasn't done that to the counter -- he hasn't applied his method to the counter-examples, and that's damning?

A. Let me just read this. Can you restate the question now? I've sort of -- restate the question, please, now that I've understood what I've said.

:D

[Darat]

I'm meant to be doing some work but...


Q. And then, therefore, intelligent design is better?

A. Well, I don't know. Does he exactly say that?

Q. Well, I think that's what you said.

A. Well, I mean -- did I say that?

Q. Why don't you turn to Page 168 of your deposition. If you'll look at Line 21.

A. Yes.

Q. The question, Therefore, intelligent design is the best explanation? Answer: Yes, that's roughly what's going on.

A. Yes, I see. So the idea being that I'm saying -- he's saying it's -- you know, if it's not natural selection, it's therefore intelligent design. Okay. But Miller does the same thing in reverse when he tests Behe's experiment.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I've been having a conversation with an ID proponent via email. The usual cruft, but we've also been discussing Schneider's Ev program (she contacted me because of Ev). She asked a question that prompted me to run a different sort of model, and I thought the results were interesting.


> So, Ev is evolving a new function. Yet, during
> ‘stasis’, at no given time the same configuration
> (sequence) for the gene (and, so, for the protein) is
> reached across the population (and, certainly, neither
> for the corresponding DNA binding sites). Rather, most
> organisms in the population have different sequences,
> which also keep changing in time for all organisms. In
> nature, basically all members of any given population
> have identical configurations for any given function
> (the corresponding genes, etc., are identical). This
> fact alone should invalidate the model, which simply
> predicts something that does not happen in nature.
> Just as expected from the evolutionist model for
> evolution, isn’t it?

Not all members have identical genes. There are a few different alleles. The reason this doesn't happen in the standard Ev model is because the mutation rate is orders of magnitude higher than it is in nature.

However, I ran a model with a large chromosome (2,048 bases) and few binding sites (8). This reduces the mutation rate per base. Here I am looking at generation 18,130 and I have a sequence logo of TTG_CC. Now let me step a bit ... the same creature remained the best for 37 generations. Now the new best creature has a sequence logo of TTG_Cc. That's an allele, wouldn't you say? More stepping ... that creature only lasted a few generation, but the new best one has TTG_CC. Same allele as the first one. ... Next creature, same allele. He lasts for a long time. ... Next creature, TTG_Cc. Two alleles so far. Let me step many generations ...

In about 2,000 generations I saw four alleles: TTG_CC, TTG_Cc, TTG_cC, and TtG_CC. Pretty cool, huh?

~~ Paul

[sphenisc]

But it's worse than just "not science." These are supposedly "Christians..."





And most importantly...

(Which was apparently literally written in stone at one point...)

Why is it they never seem to read their own book? Why do their fellow Christians never condemn them for this behavior?

Romans 8:1 Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

[CFLarsen]

STOP! STOP! MY HEAD IS EXPLODING!!

This is pure torture...(of a perversely funny kind...)

[Mojo]

In his redirect examination, Fuller and the School board's lawyers are employing the "persecution" fallacy: Q. (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day15pm2.html#day15pm973) Earlier Mr. Walczak asked you some questions which looked at other sorts of scientific revolutions or paradigm shifts, and there was a suggestion that the case with intelligent design could be the same.

Do you see the situation confronted by intelligent design proponents as different from that of, say, the proponents of plate tectonic theory?

A. Well, I think there's a lot more opposition at the moment to intelligent design theory in terms of being able to get the institutional resources to be able to reach the critical mass to mount a research program. We also have Fuller trying to turn the whole thing on its head and saying (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day15pm2.html#day15pm980) that ID should be taught because it isn't a properly developed scientific theory: But I think at the moment, because it's so -- there's such restricted access to it and there are so few people who have an incentive to work on it, that it isn't able to develop those kinds of connections. And so that's why I would say it does need to be mainstreamed. They really ought to try to make up their minds...

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

In other words, if we could indoctrinate a bunch of high school kids into ID, they might go to college and do research on it. That way we could get more research done.

I propose we do the same thing for Flying Spagetti Monsterism. It needs research, doesn't it?

~~ Paul

[Pastor Bentonit]

In other words, if we could indoctrinate a bunch of high school kids into ID, they might go to college and do research on it. That way we could get more research done.

I propose we do the same thing for Flying Spagetti Monsterism. It needs research, doesn't it?

~~ Paul
At least it needs some of this grated Parmesan cheese...mmmmmm, Parmesan :D

[Dan Beaird]

That would explain a lot. Any idea where you heard that, Dan?...

Sorry it took so long to get back to you on this. Been a busy weekend. I've heard it a few places, here's one source:

http://www.stcynic.com/blog/archives/2005/10/buckingham_lies_under_oath_in.php


Update: It turns out there's good reason for my bafflement - Buckingham was not a defense witness but a prosecution witness called out of turn. Apparently for scheduling purposes they could not get him to Pennsylvania to appear during the plaintiff's case, so they had to interrupt the defense case and call him as a plaintiff's witness. So that clears up the confusion there. I certainly understand why we called him to the stand.

[Euromutt]

Also, can anyone explain to me why Buckingham can't get in trouble for perjury for this? I'm definitely not Mr. Law, but his false statements seem to be a little too convenient to not be deliberate.I'm not a lawyer, so don't quote me, but perjury charges resulting from civil suits are exceedingly rare, mostly because the only alternative is they be ridiculously common. Most civil suits are a matter of one party's word against the other, so obviously only one can be telling the truth in court; the upshot of this is that, logically, every party who loses a civil suit could be charged with perjury, and it's generally thought that that would be excessive.

That said, Buckingham is arguably lying under oath concerning actions performed in his capacity as a public official (namely, an elected member of a school board), so there's a case to be made that it would be in the public interest to investigate him for perjury. After all, if a public offiicial feels he needs to dissemble about his performance, it's a safe bet he hasn't been doing his job properly, and the public deserves to know.

[drkitten]

I'm not a lawyer, so don't quote me, but perjury charges resulting from civil suits are exceedingly rare, mostly because the only alternative is they be ridiculously common. Most civil suits are a matter of one party's word against the other, so obviously only one can be telling the truth in court; the upshot of this is that, logically, every party who loses a civil suit could be charged with perjury, and it's generally thought that that would be excessive.


My understanding is also that they're incredibly difficult to prosecute. As I read the various reported details, although I certainly get the idea and the impression that Buckingham is a lying cheese-weasel, I don't think I can actually prove that any given statement is a lie. Almost everything he says is attributed to simple mis-remembering, backed up by an acknowledged and provable drug problem.

Do I believe that it's likely that he really has that poor a memory, while still being able to function in normal society? No. Can I prove it to the standards required in a criminal trial? Probably not? Would prosecuting him for perjury be seen as unnecessarily vindictive? Probably so. Would I recommend it if I were the local DA? Almost certainly not.

Would such a prosecution be in the best interests of justice? Possibly so -- at the very least, if he were tried, convicted, and sent up the river for a few years, that would definitely send a message to any other school boards that are thinking of lying their way out of the Lemon test. But the benefit is so small, and the chance of it happening it so remote -- and the chance of the local citizens putting up with it before voting the DA out of office -- are such that I doubt it will, or should, happen.

[Euromutt]

I couldn't agree more with your assessment, drkitten, with the exception that, as an owner of a highly adorable ferret who will eat damn near anything he sees humans eat (he's kind of dog-like that way), I object to your characterisation of Buckingham as a "cheese weasel" on the grounds that this insulting to mustelids.
But other than that, spot on!

[drkitten]

I just found how the Discovery Institute (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2879&program=News&callingPage=discoMainPage#Testimony) is presenting the Dover trial, and it's rather interesting.

The ACLU is presenting all the testimony (in rather broad terms; they are not especially quick off the block, and some of the transcripts are garbled). The DI, by contrast, is specifically presenting only the direct examination of their own witnesses, and only the cross-examination of the plaintiffs'. They're also presenting the text of their various amicus briefs, not bothering to tell anyone that one of the briefs was rejected, and they're presenting Dembski's expert witness report, without bothering to mention that Dembski is no longer testifiying, and is therefore irrelevant.

If anyone wants to know just how dishonest the DI is, this may be a good way to show it....

[chipmunk stew]

I just found how the Discovery Institute (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2879&program=News&callingPage=discoMainPage#Testimony) is presenting the Dover trial, and it's rather interesting.

The ACLU is presenting all the testimony (in rather broad terms; they are not especially quick off the block, and some of the transcripts are garbled). The DI, by contrast, is specifically presenting only the direct examination of their own witnesses, and only the cross-examination of the plaintiffs'. They're also presenting the text of their various amicus briefs, not bothering to tell anyone that one of the briefs was rejected, and they're presenting Dembski's expert witness report, without bothering to mention that Dembski is no longer testifiying, and is therefore irrelevant.

If anyone wants to know just how dishonest the DI is, this may be a good way to show it....Unfortunately, if DI's regular readers are anything like my relatives, they are regular readers because DI presents only what they are looking for, the affirming view, which appeases their discomfort with dissent. They will be suspect of any claims of DI's dishonesty and will accept any spin DI puts on such claims.

[delphi_ote]

Romans 8:1 Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
http://www.orlyowl.com/orly.jpg

2 Timothy 4:2-4 Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage--with great patience and careful instruction. For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.

2 Corinthians 11:13-15 "God's messengers?" They are counterfeits of the real thing, dishonest practitioners masquerading as the messengers of Christ. Nor do their tactics surprise me when I consider how Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is only to be expected that his agents shall have the appearance of ministers of righteousness--but they will get what they deserve in the end.
Deuteronomy 18:20-21 A prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death. You may say to yourselves, 'How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the Lord?' If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken.

[delphi_ote]

Sorry it took so long to get back to you on this. Been a busy weekend. I've heard it a few places, here's one source:

http://www.stcynic.com/blog/archives/2005/10/buckingham_lies_under_oath_in.php


Thanks for that, Dan. It's always good to have the facts at our fingertips. In light of this information, Buckingham's confused testimony makes a lot more sense.

I have to ask, though... why couldn't he take the 5th?

[Euromutt]

I have to ask, though... why couldn't he take the 5th?Because it's a civil trial, and the Fifth Amendment states that on person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself."

[delphi_ote]

Because it's a civil trial, and the Fifth Amendment states that on person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself."

Seems logical enough then that perjury is right out in a civil trial.

[rwguinn]

Unfortunately, if DI's regular readers are anything like my relatives, they are regular readers because DI presents only what they are looking for, the affirming view, which appeases their discomfort with dissent. They will be suspect of any claims of DI's dishonesty and will accept any spin DI puts on such claims.

Does the phrase "There are some things Man is not meant to know" ring a bell with anyone?
That, to me, is the thrust of ID. GODDIDIT, so there is no reason to investigate further. Let's stop meddling in "Things man is not meant to know"

"saints preserve us!":D

or, my favorite bumper sticker: "Lord, protect me from your followers"

[Dan Beaird]

Thanks for that, Dan. It's always good to have the facts at our fingertips. In light of this information, Buckingham's confused testimony makes a lot more sense.

I have to ask, though... why couldn't he take the 5th?

He couldn't take the fifth unless the questions were couched in such a way that a truthful answer could be used to convict him in a criminal trial. Since nothing he's done is a crime per se there is no protection under the fifth.

I think the smart thing to do would be to have the defense call the witness and severely limit the lines of questioning. Isn't cross examination limited to subjects covered under direct? Maybe I'm thinking of re-direct...I'm no lawyer either, but I've seen one on TV.

[Mojo]

It appears that Dover school board member Alan Bonsell got into a little trouble with the judge yesterday: http://ydr.com/story/doverbiology/92434/

And here's (http://ydr.com/story/doverbiology/92406/) Mike Argento's take on Bonsell's testimony.

Another transcript to look forward to.

[Flo]

On the one hand, school board members can use this to defend against the charge that they were motivated by religious belief in introducing intelligent design or creationism into the biology curriculum. If they were motivated by religion, how come none of them ever heard of the Ninth Commandment — you know, the one about bearing false witness?

On the other hand, it's really a sad day for America when public officials can no longer lie convincingly enough to get it past a federal judge.

I blame the public schools. I mean, just look at some of the bozos in charge of them.


Beautiful, just beautiful :D

[EvilSmurf]

I think the smart thing to do would be to have the defense call the witness and severely limit the lines of questioning. Isn't cross examination limited to subjects covered under direct? Maybe I'm thinking of re-direct...I'm no lawyer either, but I've seen one on TV.

I'm not a lawyer, I haven't played one on TV (I have on the stage, but that's another matter) but this is what I seem to remember.

Direct Examination - you answer questions from the lawyer who called you to the stand, the lawyer who called you can not ask leading questions (unless they are entered as a hostile witness, where the rules of cross examination apply, as Buckingham was). The standards for relevance are a bit heavier too.
Cross - The other lawyer gets to question you, the stands for relevance are pretty lax, really, under cross, we could have asked him if he's ever been convicted of grave-robbing and said it spoke towards the character of the witness.
Re-Direct - The lawyer who calls you gets to ask you more questions, with the same rules as direct examination. This usually means that something has come up in cross that was unexpected and your lawyer wants to ask another question to clear things up.

[DavidJames]

I was expecting him to say, "I did not have sex with that panda."classic

[tsg]

This was my favorite bit:

That was when the judge started asking him to try to explain — um, how should I phrase this? — certain gaps and problems with his testimony.

[Upchurch]

And here's (http://ydr.com/story/doverbiology/92406/) Mike Argento's take on Bonsell's testimony.The Dover Panda Trial. Now that's good marketing. Much better than Scopes Monkey Trial II: Electric Boogaloo.

I still anxiously await the 36 part made-for-TV mini-series.

[CFLarsen]

The Dover Panda Trial. Now that's good marketing. Much better than Scopes Monkey Trial II: Electric Boogaloo.

I still anxiously await the 36 part made-for-TV mini-series.

...starring...?

[Dr Adequate]

When a judge starts grilling a witness about inconsistencies in his testimony, and asks him if he knew he was under oath --- that's quite unusual, isn't it?

Kind of like a big flashing neon sign over the man's head saying "PERJURY".

[Mojo]

It's certainly not good...

[CFLarsen]

A case of perjury per jury.

[Upchurch]

Of Pandas and People (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0914513400/qid=1130875138/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-8984643-2537509?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)

I enjoyed the user reviews, pro and con.

[Blondin]

...starring...?
Well, both Spencer Tracy and Henry Fonda are out...

[CFLarsen]

Well, both Spencer Tracy and Henry Fonda are out...

James van Praagh disagrees.

[Euromutt]

A case of perjury per jury.I dunno about perjury, for the reasons stated earlier, but I suspect a couple of school board members may be skating dangerously close to getting slapped with contempt of court charges.
And fortunately, this is a "bench trial"--no jury involved.

[delphi_ote]

How did they expect to get away with this lie? They're amoral and stupid.

[CFLarsen]

How did they expect to get away with this lie? They're amoral and stupid.

Paranormal beliefs compels you to lie.

[rjh01]

I am just trying to work out what the judge will say if he says the ID people win. Am finding this task very hard. I mean how do you decide for a side that appears to be not very honest?

[Darat]

I'd have to say the quality of the transcripts is superb, the prosecutors are excellent and the judge has a very dry sense of humour. Why isn't this trail televised? I'd pay-to-view it!

[Ed]

...starring...?

Keanu Reeves and Lawrence Fishbourne.


With Carrottop as Dr. Behe

http://www.carrottop.com/merchandise_pix/c_top_8x10_red.gif
I'm tellin' ya, it's science"

Incidentially, when the Michael Jackson trial was going on, E Network (I think) did a dramatized reading of the transcripts nightly with actors playing all of he roles in a "courtroom".

[Ed]

James van Praagh disagrees.

So does Schwartzie. What did he call it "a non-corporal co-investigator" or some such crap?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ah yes, the "departed hypothesized co-investigator." One of the greatest terms in all of pseudoscience.

~~ Paul

[CFLarsen]

Ah yes, the "departed hypothesized co-investigator." One of the greatest terms in all of pseudoscience.

~~ Paul



That has to be the best candidate for the Pigasus Awards....

[Darat]

Perhaps the defence should have got an expert witness statement from Darwin via Schwartz confirming his death-bed conversion?

[CFLarsen]

Perhaps the defence should have got an expert witness statement from Darwin via Schwartz confirming his death-bed conversion?

Why don't they simply put God on the stand? Get the whole thing settled, once and for all?

Or find someone who speaks in tongues....handling snakes, too.

[Darat]

I'm surprised when Buckingham (?) took the stand and he started to swear "by Almighty God", there wasn't a rumble of thunder and a voice from above saying "You can leave me out of this!"

[Mojo]

Not only is this case going on: next Tuesday we have also the vote by the Kansas Board of Education, and 8 of the 9 members of the Dover School Board are up for re-election: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/01/AR2005110100875.html

Around town, one billboard erected by the current school board exhorts voters to "support academic freedom." Huh? "Academic freedom?" Aren't they the ones who want teachers to read out a statement about ID against the objections of the teachers?

[Upchurch]

Not only is this case going on: next Tuesday we have also the vote by the Kansas Board of Education,Ooooh, I thought it was this Tuesday (i.e. yesterday). I was going to ask if anyone had heard the results. I'll go back to being patient. :boxedin:

[delphi_ote]

With Carrottop as Dr. Behe

For bad science, dial down the center!

http://www.1000miles.com/tvcm/callatt.jpg

[BillHoyt]

Oh, it will definitely be interesting. One of the nice things about courts is that the rules are set up that a witness can't change the subject or wriggle out of a line of questioning that itsn't going his way, unlike a debate. Michael Behe is a brilliant debater, but I suspect he's going to get his ass handed to him, on a plate, with a side of chips.

If you read Behe's expert report, he is presenting the same-old, same-old examples of irreducible complexity, including the flagellum and the blood clotting cascade. If you check out Miller's testimony and expert report (same ACLU site), Miller has already presented a pretty damning analysis that those are not, in fact, irreducibly complex, complete with PowerPoint animations and a a few citations to Science, Nature, and Cell -- apparently (something I didn't know already) blood clotting has been known not to be irreducibly complex since 1969!

So I can see the question from the attorney during cross now. "You testified that with a single factor missing, blood clotting cannot occur. You have heard Dr. Miller's testimony that dolphins are missing such a factor, and that their blood still clots. Do you disagree with Dr. Miller? Do you agree that this fact was published over thirty years ago? Are you incompetent not to know this, or were you perjuring yourself?"

Cherry-picking "ancient" science is one of their favorite games. Unfortunately, I haven't the time to keep up with all of this, but I hope you are right. The courts do present a good forum for unmasking pap, but, alas, an exceptionally poor forum to decide anything scientific. And, as much as I'd love to hear that last line from counsel, that would only get an immediate, sustained objection from opposing counsel.

[BillHoyt]

Ooooh, I thought it was this Tuesday (i.e. yesterday). I was going to ask if anyone had heard the results. I'll go back to being patient. :boxedin:

Have you heard any of the back-story about the Dover board of ed? It is delightful, aggravating and very telling.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Hey Bill, good to see you posting again.

Is there a summary of the back story somewhere?

~~ Paul

[BillHoyt]

Hey Bill, good to see you posting again.

Is there a summary of the back story somewhere?

~~ Paul
Paul,

Chris Mooney covers it in his article in the premiere issue of Seed magazine. IIRC, he talks about the fundamentalist guy who launched the whole thing, then made such a mess that he had to high-tail it out of town. Considering he got the boot so badly, the court case is a sad joke.

For those who haven't yet seen it, Seed is newly re-launched. The premiere issue is graphically slick and well-written. I think it is a must-read for all skeptics. The magazine's credo tips you off: "Science is culture." This is what Discover (and others) might have been had it not been overrun by the irrational and the panderers.

[Mojo]

Chris Mooney covers it in his article in the premiere issue of Seed magazine. IIRC, he talks about the fundamentalist guy who launched the whole thing, then made such a mess that he had to high-tail it out of town. Considering he got the boot so badly, the court case is a sad joke. I assume the article isn't online. Do you have the fundamentalist guy's name so we can Google him?

[Moose]

I'm slowly getting caught up in the transcripts, and I caught this precious exchange early in the cross of Behe:


Q. I couldn't be a mind reader either, correct?

A. Yes, yes, but I'm sure it would be useful.

Q. It would make this exchange go much more quickly.

The Court: You'd have to include me, though.


Man, I had to do Jury Duty last summer. I would have loved to be on this jury rather than the case I had. Comedy gold.

[BillHoyt]

I assume the article isn't online. Do you have the fundamentalist guy's name so we can Google him?
I tried earlier. Seed is online (www.seedmagazine.com), but seems to be members-only. I don't have my copy with me right now. Mooney has done some interviews, some of which are on line; maybe Googling him with "ID" or "evolution" might be fruitful?

[Mojo]

I tried earlier. Seed is online (www.seedmagazine.com), but seems to be members-only. I don't have my copy with me right now. Mooney has done some interviews, some of which are on line; maybe Googling him with "ID" or "evolution" might be fruitful?Yeah, I've already tried all sorts of combinations. The nearest I've found is an article saying "the Dover school-board member who drove the policy in question made his conservative Christian motivations clear in widely reported public statements (which he now disputes having made)" which sounds an awful lot like Buckingham to me.

[BillHoyt]

Yeah, I've already tried all sorts of combinations. The nearest I've found is an article saying "the Dover school-board member who drove the policy in question made his conservative Christian motivations clear in widely reported public statements (which he now disputes having made)" which sounds an awful lot like Buckingham to me.
That sounds familiar. All to.

[petre]

I'm slowly getting caught up in the transcripts, and I caught this precious exchange early in the cross of Behe:



Man, I had to do Jury Duty last summer. I would have loved to be on this jury rather than the case I had. Comedy gold.

The trial is being (adjucated?) only by a judge, no jury. That's why ID has practically no chance :)

[Moose]

The trial is being (adjucated?) only by a judge, no jury. That's why ID has practically no chance :)

Ack! That would be a really good point. I guess juries are sort of hard to get on when there's no jury, huh.

Fly on the ceiling, then?

[petre]

Ack! That would be a really good point. I guess juries are sort of hard to get on when there's no jury, huh.

Fly on the ceiling, then?

I think we'll have to settle for transcripts for now :)

Which is why it's so irritating that some aren't fully readable. I tried using the exact software that generated it, I even downloaded a free trial of .pdf repair software. Nothing seemed up to the task of drawing out all the text.

So, what are the odds someone isn't properly setting the binary flag before using FTP? :)

[Matilda]

Is the trial meant to be finishing today? Is there a best guess of when there will be a verdict?

[petre]

Is the trial meant to be finishing today? Is there a best guess of when there will be a verdict?

Until someone more familiar with law gets here, you'll have to settle for me.

Juries are advised not to make any evaluation of evidence presented until the end of the trial and deliberations begin. I'm not so sure judges follow the same guideline. I would think the judge is very aware of exactly what aspects of the case need to be considered, and noted them as they came up.

It will take a little time for him to note the important pieces of evidence that he'll apply tests to and to write up his decision on each. I would say if the trial concludes today, the judge would have his notes together and be ready to rule next week, say Tuesday or Wednsday. A lesser case he might have ruled on late Monday, but given the likelyhood of appeal from both sides, I expect he'll try to be as complete as possible in his ruling.

Or maybe he'll be like Judge Judy, take a comercial break, then come right back with a verdict :P

[Betenoire]

I had noticed the attorney for the school board essentially saying "ID is a religion" in a Salon.com article a week or two ago and thought "Wow, wouldn't it be nice if Rothschild went all Darrow-Bryan on him?" (I actually e-mailed Rothschild with this idea, but I don't believe for an instant he read it, or that I gave him some great insight).
When he had Bonsell up there, though, he did say, "You know, in an interview with Salon, your attorney said..." That made me so happy.

I wonder if their closing arguments will be available online.

[Matilda]

Thanks Petre. :) I'm just not good with suspense. I start twitching after a while.

[BillHoyt]

It appears that Dover school board member Alan Bonsell got into a little trouble with the judge yesterday: http://ydr.com/story/doverbiology/92434/

And here's (http://ydr.com/story/doverbiology/92406/) Mike Argento's take on Bonsell's testimony.

Another transcript to look forward to.
Thank you so much for that, Mojo. I haven't had the time to keep tabs on this trial, and I truly appreciate your brightening my day with that link.

[Dr Adequate]

Scene: outside the gates of Troy.

Enter a bunch of Greeks making whinnying noises.

TROJANS: What do you want, you bunch of Greeks?
GREEKS: We're not Greeks.
TROJANS: But you look like Greeks.
GREEKS: We are, in fact, a horse.
TROJANS: A what?
GREEKS: A horse. A wooden horse. With wheels. Why don't you open the gates and drag us into the city?
TROJANS: You don't look like a wooden horse.
GREEKS: No? What do we look like?
TROJANS: You look like a bunch of Greeks who've crossed out the big letter G on their shields and painted in an H.
GREEKS: Oh... right...
TROJANS: I see that some of you are carrying a banner saying "We Are A Large Wooden Horse".
GREEKS: Yes. It didn't convince you?
TROJANS: It lacked authenticity, put it that way.
GREEKS: We worked on it all night.
TROJANS: I'm sure you did. Nonetheless... the end of the Illiad's going to be a big let-down, isn't it?
GREEKS: We're sorry.

[delphi_ote]

Scene: outside the gates of Troy.

Enter a bunch of Greeks making whinnying noises.

TROJANS: What do you want, you bunch of Greeks?
GREEKS: We're not Greeks.
TROJANS: But you look like Greeks.
GREEKS: We are, in fact, a horse.
TROJANS: A what?
GREEKS: A horse. A wooden horse. With wheels. Why don't you open the gates and drag us into the city?
TROJANS: You don't look like a wooden horse.
GREEKS: No? What do we look like?
TROJANS: You look like a bunch of Greeks who've crossed out the big letter G on their shields and painted in an H.
GREEKS: Oh... right...
TROJANS: I see that some of you are carrying a banner saying "We Are A Large Wooden Horse".
GREEKS: Yes. It didn't convince you?
TROJANS: It lacked authenticity, put it that way.
GREEKS: We worked on it all night.
TROJANS: I'm sure you did. Nonetheless... the end of the Illiad's going to be a big let-down, isn't it?
GREEKS: We're sorry.

Brilliant!

You just need to add the occational Greek in the background yelling "We're Greeks! We're Greeks!" while the lead Greek tries to keep them quiet.

[Spidey13]

I don't know if this has been linked here yet. Fairly funny.

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/41260

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

"Monkey called as witness fails to identify anyone in courtroom as his descendant."

I hope they brought in a talking monkey, otherwise, well, no wonder.

~~ Paul

[thatguywhojuggles]

From here:
http://www.mcall.com/news/local/all-a1_5evolutionnov05,0,6531970.story


Following closing arguments, Jones thanked both sides, telling the lawyers, ''Every single one of you made me aware of why I became a lawyer and why I became a judge. … Your advocacy was so impressive to me.''

He urged the lawyers to submit final documents within the next 21 days, saying he'd like to reach a verdict by year's end.

Gillen noted that Friday marked the 40th day since the trial began and asked Jones whether 40 days and 40 nights was his intent.

''That was an interesting coincidence,'' Jones retorted, then paused. ''But it was not by design.

The courtroom erupted into laughter and applause and Jones stood up and left.

I wonder how many IDiots started clapping and cheering just from hearing the word "Design" only to, half-way through the clapping and cheering, finally understand the meaning behind that comment.

[rjh01]

What! No decision until the end of the year! What happened to the decision after the commercial break? At least he will give a decision within a month and a half. I assume 'before the end of the year' means 'before Christmas?'

[Mercutio]

Does anyone know if Vegas has official odds on the outcome?

[Pidge]

Halon's Razor (reference wikipedia (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Robert_J._Hanlon))
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity

and Vernon Schryver's play on Clarke's Third Law and Hanlon's Razor (reference wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke's_three_laws))
Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice

I can see these applying to a number of defence witnesses...

[Diamond]

Not having discovered Mike Argento until recently, it's been a hilarious pleasure reading his commentaries on the trial.

Barring a miracle, the greatest result would be a finding of fact that "Intelligent Design" is a religious belief and not a scientific theory. It would be incredible, given the lamentable testimony given by the defendants, that the judge would find against the plaintiffs. If Michael Behe is the best the defendants could come up with, then the FSM help them.

[Mojo]

Here's another (http://ydr.com/story/mike/93047/) Argento column. It seems from this one that the defense lawyers were getting on the judge's nerves somewhat: Steve Harvey, one of the lawyers for the plaintiffs, objected on the grounds of hearsay.

Muise began to respond, mentioning the "public record," and the judge cut him off, asking, "Do you mean newspaper articles?" Muise and his cohorts have a standing objection to the admission of newspaper articles into the record, a dispute that will be settled today, and the judge said if Muise was going to rely on newspaper articles, it seemed to be a change in strategy, to say the least.

Muise started to say something and the judge cut him off, delivering a verbal slap upside the head: "Don't insult my intelligence."

There's also another transcript on the ACLUPA (http://www.aclupa.org/legal/legaldocket/intelligentdesigncase/dovertrialtranscripts.htm) site which I hadn't noticed before (Day 18 AM: William Buckingham) and Talk Origins (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover.html) now has the day 18 PM session, with Alan Bonsell's cross-examination and the judge quizzing him about his possible perjury.

[Ed]

While I would like a finding today at the latest, I appreciate what the judge is doing. He knows that his finding is going to be cited and re-cited and he wants to get his ducks in a row bigtime.

Remember that interchange (from memory) about yet another phrase for ID/creationism and a lawyer saying "are we going to be having the same case except about xxx?" and the judge said "not in my courtroom".

He knows the finding right this second, his words will be far more important than the judgement itself.

[Mojo]

Nice to see the creationists fighting among themselves (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3003&program=News&callingPage=discoMainPage): The lead attorney defending the Dover district, Richard Thompson of the Thomas More Law Center, has made several statements inaccurately characterizing both the position and the actions of Discovery Institute regarding the Dover case. We are issuing the following statement in order to correct the record...

[Betenoire]

While I would like a finding today at the latest, I appreciate what the judge is doing. He knows that his finding is going to be cited and re-cited and he wants to get his ducks in a row bigtime.

Remember that interchange (from memory) about yet another phrase for ID/creationism and a lawyer saying "are we going to be having the same case except about xxx?" and the judge said "not in my courtroom".

He knows the finding right this second, his words will be far more important than the judgement itself.

Best that he take his time and close every possible loophole that could be exploited for an appeal. His ruling need not be wrong to get overturned, just legally slightly erroneous. Hope his ruling is iron-clad.

[petre]

What! No decision until the end of the year! What happened to the decision after the commercial break? At least he will give a decision within a month and a half. I assume 'before the end of the year' means 'before Christmas?'

How could I have underestimated the US Court system's ability to add paperwork to every step? :) I forgot that the lawyers for the ID side still have to file their brief to have all scientific knowledge stricken from the record, since it is not yet a complete model of the universe :)

[Diamond]

While I would like a finding today at the latest, I appreciate what the judge is doing. He knows that his finding is going to be cited and re-cited and he wants to get his ducks in a row bigtime.

Remember that interchange (from memory) about yet another phrase for ID/creationism and a lawyer saying "are we going to be having the same case except about xxx?" and the judge said "not in my courtroom".

He knows the finding right this second, his words will be far more important than the judgement itself.

That's from the forthcoming third edition of "Of Pandas and Men". The first said:

"Creation means that various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent creator, with their distinctive features already intact — fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc."

The second, published after the 1987 Supreme Court decision that creationism was religion and not science said:

"Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact — fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings, etc."

The next version 3.0 will have the sentence:

"Sudden appearance means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact — fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, and mammals with fur and mammary glands, etc."

Hence, the query by the plaintiff's lawyer:

As Eric Rothschild, one of the lawyers for the plaintiffs in the Panda Trial, asked in court, "Will we be back in a couple of years for the 'sudden appearance' trial?"
Judge John E. Jones III retorted, "Not on my docket."




All of the above quotes from Argento's column "Of Behe and Mammary Glands" (http://ydr.com/story/mike/90504/)

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

How are we going to get our Argento fix now that the trial is over?

~~ Paul

[CFLarsen]

How are we going to get our Argento fix now that the trial is over?

Why don't you mail him, tell him about this thread and how much we've enjoyed his articles?

[Spidey13]

Does anyone know if any of the slides/exhibits that were used during the trial are available online. I'm about halfway through the transcripts and I would really like to see some of these if it's possible.

[Ed]

Why don't you mail him, tell him about this thread and how much we've enjoyed his articles?

Good idea. I just did.

[BillHoyt]

Good idea. I just did.
I hope you signed it "God." He'd be very happy to know he has a fan upstairs. Might even send you some article reprints via John Edward.

[Upchurch]

Dover school board elections are today. Never, in my life, have I been remotely interested, let alone excited, about the outcome of a school board election.

Today, we should get some insight into what the voting people of Dover think about the whole situation.

[drkitten]

Dover school board elections are today. Never, in my life, have I been remotely interested, let alone excited, about the outcome of a school board election.

Today, we should get some insight into what the voting people of Dover think about the whole situation.

I'm willing to bet a trivial and non-monetary sum that the fundicrats win. Can I get some action down on this?

[Upchurch]

I'm willing to bet a trivial and non-monetary sum that the fundicrats win. Can I get some action down on this?
I was actually hoping they would pull a Kansas and vote these folks out at the first opportunity (only to re-elect them back in a later date). Here's to hoping.

[drkitten]

I was actually hoping they would pull a Kansas and vote these folks out at the first opportunity (only to re-elect them back in a later date). Here's to hoping.

You're on. Winner gets bragging rights, five million gallons of Niagra Falls, the Rock of Gibraltar, and the Internet.

Loser gets the state of New Jersey.

[Moose]

Loser gets the state of New Jersey.
Don't they always? :D

Looking forward with great interest to the results of both the verdict (in December, hopefully) and the school board elections.

Dr. Kitten, Upchurch, could I get in on the action with the "alternative" Planet X bet? I'll throw Toronto, Ont and Surrey, BC into the pot. The other loser can get Don Cherry.

[BillHoyt]

Today, we should get some insight into what the voting people of Dover think about the whole situation.
Contains a hidden assumption, does it not, about the prior voting people? Frankly, several somebodies weren't thinking at all the last time around. But, since the central tenet of the fundie campaign is ad populum, it would be an ironic turn of events for the populum to say they've ad it.

[tsg]

Contains a hidden assumption, does it not, about the prior voting people? Frankly, several somebodies weren't thinking at all the last time around. But, since the central tenet of the fundie campaign is ad populum, it would be an ironic turn of events for the populum to say they've ad it.
Testimony from the trial indicates that many of the current fundies were elected on a "fiscal responsibility" campaign. They were evidently undertaking a major construction project during the last election that got bungled somehow (as many public construction projects are wont to do). I highly doubt any of them ran on a "get religion back in school" platform. But now that their true colors are apparent, it will be interesting to see how it turns out. Personally, I don't expect much.

[Upchurch]

You're on. Winner gets bragging rights, five million gallons of Niagra Falls, the Rock of Gibraltar, and the Internet.Sweet. I could finally upgrade my Arpanet!
Loser gets the state of New Jersey.A tad extreme, but as long as I have Funkytown, I'm happy.

[Upchurch]

Contains a hidden assumption, does it not, about the prior voting people?Well, to tsg's point, this whole mess wasn't around during their last vote. Maybe they knew about their school board's religious tendencies, maybe they didn't. Point is, we'll know how they feel about the whole thing now.

[Upchurch]

Oh, and just to sweeten the pot, if I lose, free title changes are on me!

[delphi_ote]

Oh, and just to sweeten the pot, if I lose, free title changes are on me!

But if you win, you can change the loser's title to whatever you want...

[headscratcher4]

I've a stupid question about all of this...did anyone ever ask Behe (sp?) or his supporters if something/one less than God could be responsible for the design he finds?

I mean, why does it have to be the "ultimate" god on high designer?

Maybe the "design" he sees was sort of the GM of the 1980's Intelligent Design shop...it would explain a lot.

[Melendwyr]

Yes, Behe has said that the Intelligent Designer doesn't need to have been any particular kind of god.

[headscratcher4]

Yes, Behe has said that the Intelligent Designer doesn't need to have been any particular kind of god.

Thank you...but I think (I may be wrong) that my question is different. Could the "designer" be something less than the creator/god?

Wasn't it clark who once said something along the lines that any sufficiently advanced technology would appear like magic to the uninitiated?

My point is, it is religion, not science, imo, to advocate as behe does that it is a "creator" or even "god" in the picture...why not the 2001 flying Obelisk?

[Darat]

Thank you...but I think (I may be wrong) that my question is different. Could the "designer" be something less than the creator/god?

Wasn't it clark who once said something along the lines that any sufficiently advanced technology would appear like magic to the uninitiated?

My point is, it is religion, not science, imo, to advocate as behe does that it is a "creator" or even "god" in the picture...why not the 2001 flying Obelisk?

I'm sure you know the answer but...

Because he already believes in God and is only interested if his "question" can be answered with "God".

[Melendwyr]

Yes, but as he's trying to convince people who won't permit the hypothesis to be taught if it requires the Christian God or any other god, he's stated that the IDer can have other-than-divine origins. Aliens, for example.

I believe that was asked during the trial itself. I could be mistaken.

[ranson]

I, myself, signed up for the ACLUPA's one-time email alert for the Dover ruling.

An I hope Mike Argento shows up and takes a look here. I've rarely laughed harder at a humor columnist (possibly Lewis Grizzard, but that's been a long time).

[tsg]

Yes, but as he's trying to convince people who won't permit the hypothesis to be taught if it requires the Christian God or any other god, he's stated that the IDer can have other-than-divine origins. Aliens, for example.

I believe that was asked during the trial itself. I could be mistaken.
Behe states that the designer could be aliens or time travelers, but no one in the ID movement doesn't believe it's not God. As Rothschild said in his closing argument, "Intelligent Design could not come closer to naming the designer if it was spotted the letters 'G' and 'O'."

What makes it a religious view is that it relies on a supernatural creator, which is the same reason creationism was shot down in Edwards.

[Melendwyr]

Behe states that the designer could be aliens or time travelers, but no one in the ID movement doesn't believe it's not God. I think you have an extra negative in that statement... or do all IDers believe it wasn't God?

[CFLarsen]

I think you have an extra negative in that statement... or do all IDers believe it wasn't God?

Can you find me one who doesn't believe it?

The White Crow argument.

[drkitten]

Yes, Behe has said that the Intelligent Designer doesn't need to have been any particular kind of god.

Yes. Like much of the rest of the defense testimony, this is a deliberate attempt to deceive.

[tsg]

I think you have an extra negative in that statement... or do all IDers believe it wasn't God?
Or not enough. No ID'ers don't believe it isn't not God.

[hammegk]

Can you find me one who doesn't believe it?

The White Crow argument.
Here's one, although I'm sure we could argue about what defines 'god'.



... it relies on a supernatural creator ...
For objective idealists like myself, if it effects or affects what we perceive as the universe, it cannot be supernatural.

[BillHoyt]

[QUOTE=CFLarsen;1264778]Can you find me one who doesn't believe it?
QUOTE]
They'll rarely, if ever, admit it. But the choices are clear: God or not-god. If it is not-god, then it must be subject to their original contentions about complexity requiring an intelligent designer. The not-god answer is just begging the question.

[chipmunk stew]

Here's one, although I'm sure we could argue about what defines 'god'.

For objective idealists like myself, if it effects or affects what we perceive as the universe, it cannot be supernatural.This is as close as I've ever heard you state your beliefs. Just for clarification (and this is not a set-up, just an honest request for clarification) are you stating that you entertain the possibility of ID, at least in principal, and that the designer in question, while perhaps operating under laws we have not identified, is not necessarily the supernatural God of a particular religion, but is rather of nature, "meta-natural", perhaps?

[tsg]

Unoffical election results as far as I can tell from here (http://ydr.com/page/politics/dover/).

From what I can find out, the Dover Board of Ed had 4 four-year-term seats open, 3 two-year-term seats and one unexpired two-year-term seat to fill.

Alan Bonsell came in dead last for a four-year seat. All the four-year seats went to Democrats, Bryan Rehm being one of them. Sheila Harkins also came in dead last for a two-year seat. Democrats also won all of those. Only two people ran for the unexpired seats. The Democrat won it.

In fact, all the Democrats won, and all the Republicans lost. Take that for what you will.

These results are unofficial and I might be dead wrong about the number of seats.

ETA: Apparently Bill Buckingham wasn't up for re-election.

[CFLarsen]

Here's one, although I'm sure we could argue about what defines 'god'.

Rrrrright. Not without a condition. :rolleyes:

[Mojo]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/09/AR2005110900114.html :D :D :D

[Dragon]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/09/AR2005110900114.html :D :D :D and Wikinews (http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Teaching_Intelligen_Design:_Dover_PA_school_board_ election_results)
All eight open school board seats were won by Dover CARES coalition candidates. Two candidates who had previously voted as school board members to include intelligent design in the public school science curriculum received the fewest votes in Tuesday's election. One of the newly elected board members is Bryan Rehm, a parent of a Dover school student. Rehm, along with ten other parents, initiated a law suit against the school board for its decision to insert Intelligent Design into the science curriculum.

[Upchurch]

I win! Internet, come to Papa!

But I'll be a good winner, so free title changes are still on me.

[Ducky]

As I posted here, (http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=47265) my favorite statement about this election was from one of the losers not reelected:

School board member David Napierskie, who lost Tuesday, said the vote wasn’t just about ideology.

“Some people felt intelligent design shouldn’t be taught and others were concerned about having tax money spent on the lawsuit,” he said.



You mean the lawsuit started over your ideology?

[BillHoyt]

As I posted here, (http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=47265) my favorite statement about this election was from one of the losers not reelected:




You mean the lawsuit started over your ideology?
Wow! He MUST be joking. No, never mind, I said that about the original school board decision. I hope I don't have to say that about the judge's finding.

Meanwhile, of course, Kansas, taking full advantage of the spotlight being off them, reverses course again, heading straight for the Laughingstock Lounge. I feel for the good, rational people of Kansas, and hope the last one out turns the lights off. The rest don't need the lights on. They can't read anyway.

[chipmunk stew]

This is as close as I've ever heard you state your beliefs. Just for clarification (and this is not a set-up, just an honest request for clarification) are you stating that you entertain the possibility of ID, at least in principal, and that the designer in question, while perhaps operating under laws we have not identified, is not necessarily the supernatural God of a particular religion, but is rather of nature, "meta-natural", perhaps?Well? Am I close?

[hammegk]

"Meta-natural"; don't believe I've heard that one before. Could be; I am a bit partial to a somewhat extended version of Bergsonian elan-vital (although Huxley has suggested what some accept as a stinging rejoinder to Bergson's idea ;)). :)

[Mojo]

Where does the effective removal of the old school leave the case? If the plaintiffs win, the new board will presumably not want to appeal the decision. Where does this leave the case as a precedent? What other courts is Judge Jones's decision binding on?

Ideally this would have gone all the way up to the SC and set a proper precedent, binding on all courts in the US.

[sphenisc]

This is as close as I've ever heard you state your beliefs. Just for clarification (and this is not a set-up, just an honest request for clarification) are you stating that you entertain the possibility of ID, at least in principal, and that the designer in question, while perhaps operating under laws we have not identified, is not necessarily the supernatural God of a particular religion, but is rather of nature, "meta-natural", perhaps?

I can sign up for that as well.

[vbloke]

there's an interesting article linking ID and eonomics in todays Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/lastword/story/0,13228,1564377,00.html

[Ed]

Where does the effective removal of the old school leave the case? If the plaintiffs win, the new board will presumably not want to appeal the decision. Where does this leave the case as a precedent? What other courts is Judge Jones's decision binding on?

Ideally this would have gone all the way up to the SC and set a proper precedent, binding on all courts in the US.

The Board is being sued, not individuals on the board so the case goes on. The difference is, (as cited in the paper yesterday for which I have no reference) that the new board will 1) rescind the stupid ruling that got them in trouble in the first place and 2) not appeal a loss.

[Dragon]

there's an interesting article linking ID and eonomics in todays Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/lastword/story/0,13228,1564377,00.html
Delicious, especially the last two paragraphs - :D

[Mojo]

The Board is being sued, not individuals on the board so the case goes on. The difference is, (as cited in the paper yesterday for which I have no reference) that the new board will 1) rescind the stupid ruling that got them in trouble in the first place and 2) not appeal a loss.That's the problem. It won't go up to a higher court. Will a verdict at this level be useable as a precedent in, say, Kansas?

[Ed]

That's the problem. It won't go up to a higher court. Will a verdict at this level be useable as a precedent in, say, Kansas?

I guess that it can be cited as case law but there is nothing binding, I think. It depends on how well the judge supports his decision. If he can flay the Board with a detailed analysis of their arguments it will have some influence I am sure. After all, if he can see thru their arguments and make his reasoning clear, then it would be up to another judge to go him one better if they disagree on the outcome.

[Upchurch]

The Board is being sued, not individuals on the board so the case goes on.Could the plaintiffs conceivably still drop the suit, even though the final arguments have already been made?

I'm guessing they don't want to drop it given that (I think) they are likely to win. That would mean a win in both the courts and the polls and strengthen the social and legal arguments* against ID in the science classroom.



* as opposed to merely the scientific argument

[Spidey13]

http://www.toothpastefordinner.com/111005/homework-is-just-a-theory.gif

[KingMerv00]

That's the problem. It won't go up to a higher court. Will a verdict at this level be useable as a precedent in, say, Kansas?

It is in federal court so it would be considered a persuasive authority rather than a mandatory authority. Still, better than nothin I say.

If it DID go to trial in Kansas and they contradicted the Dover ruling, perhaps the Supreme Court would hear a new case directly to put the issue to rest once and for all.

[Upchurch]

to put the issue to rest once and for all.
That's optimistic.

[KingMerv00]

That's optimistic.

You're wrong. That's insane.

Edit: What the hell was I thinking?

[Upchurch]

Behe made it look easy. Says so himself. (http://www.idthefuture.com/2005/11/testifying_in_dover_trial_was.html)
As far as the "ordeal" goes, despite what the LA Times article makes it seem, it was actually all rather exhilirating. I rather enjoyed myself on the witness stand, because I got to explain in very great detail the argument for intelligent design, and the other side had to sit there and listen.

The cross examination was fun too, and showed that the other side really does have only rhetoric and bluster. At one point the lawyer for the other side who was cross examining me ostentatiously piled a bunch of papers on the witness stand that putatively had to do with the evolution of the immune system. But it was obvious from a cursory examination that they were more examples of hand waving speculations, which I had earlier discussed in my direct testimony. So I was able to smile and say that they had nothing more to say than the other papers. I then thought to myself, that here the NCSE, ACLU, and everyone in the world who is against ID had their shot to show where we were wrong, and just trotted out more speculation. It actually made me feel real good about things.

[KingMerv00]

Could the plaintiffs conceivably still drop the suit, even though the final arguments have already been made?

I'm guessing they don't want to drop it given that (I think) they are likely to win. That would mean a win in both the courts and the polls and strengthen the social and legal arguments* against ID in the science classroom.



* as opposed to merely the scientific argument

I believe you could drop the case, but only in theory. It would be at the discretion of the court and they would be very unlikely to grant a withdrawl at this stage since it wouldn't serve the public interest.

Did I say "very unlikely"? I meant "basically impossible".

[Bronze Dog]

Behe made it look easy. Says so himself. (http://www.idthefuture.com/2005/11/testifying_in_dover_trial_was.html)
Funny, considering that the very possibility of speculation into mechanisms destroys his argument.

[Mojo]

Behe made it look easy. Says so himself. (http://www.idthefuture.com/2005/11/testifying_in_dover_trial_was.html)As far as the "ordeal" goes, despite what the LA Times article makes it seem, it was actually all rather exhilirating. I rather enjoyed myself on the witness stand, because I got to explain in very great detail the argument for intelligent design, and the other side had to sit there and listen.

The cross examination was fun too, and showed that the other side really does have only rhetoric and bluster. At one point the lawyer for the other side who was cross examining me ostentatiously piled a bunch of papers on the witness stand that putatively had to do with the evolution of the immune system. But it was obvious from a cursory examination that they were more examples of hand waving speculations, which I had earlier discussed in my direct testimony. So I was able to smile and say that they had nothing more to say than the other papers. I then thought to myself, that here the NCSE, ACLU, and everyone in the world who is against ID had their shot to show where we were wrong, and just trotted out more speculation. It actually made me feel real good about things. :dl:

[DavidJames]

Behe made it look easy. Says so himself. (http://www.idthefuture.com/2005/11/testifying_in_dover_trial_was.html)His comments are unbelievable. Perhaps Behe should read the transcripts. Quite frankly, he came off as an idiot.

[KingMerv00]

Behe made it look easy. Says so himself. (http://www.idthefuture.com/2005/11/testifying_in_dover_trial_was.html)

%&#@!

You know, of all of the IDers I think Behe bothers me the most. Unlike alot of them *cough* HOVIND *cough* the man has a real scientific education yet the scientific method is lost on him.

[Upchurch]

His comments are unbelievable. Perhaps Behe should read the transcripts. Quite frankly, he came off as an idiot.
What? You expect him to stop cherry-picking now? It'd ruin his career. ...sorta.

[Melendwyr]

As someone on this forum is fond of saying, the problem with intellectual KO's is that the recipient usually doesn't notice them.

In Behe's mind, all of the stupid things he believes make perfect sense. From that perspective, it's clear he performed brilliantly on the stand. To be able to recognize he was made a fool of, he'd have to be able to recognize that he's spewing nonsense.

This inability to view one's own beliefs objectively is why a lot of scientific progress involves waiting for the oldguard to die off.

[delphi_ote]

It'd ruin his career. ...sorta.

Actually, he'd just be doing his job. He's a professional moron.

[drkitten]

Actually, he'd just be doing his job. He's a professional moron.

You know, I think that's deeply unfair.

The guy's a biology professor at a Research I university. If you're saying that he's a professional moron, what are you saying about his colleagues?

[Melendwyr]

The guy's a biology professor at a Research I university. If you're saying that he's a professional moron, what are you saying about his colleagues? That they're employed at the same department as a professional moron?

[delphi_ote]

Yes, but he's not exactly doing his job as a researcher anymore, is he? His profession changed when he abandoned science and reason. The man who made those statements on a witness stand is a clown, not a scientist.

[Melendwyr]

Yes, but he's not exactly doing his job as a researcher anymore, is he? His profession changed when he abandoned science and reason. The man who made those statements on a witness stand is a clown, not a scientist. Ah, the joy of tenure!

Behe is a perfect example of why tenure should be removed. University faculty are still vulnerable to retaliation from the administration in a thousand other ways, so tenure doesn't make academics immune to persecution, and it makes it virtually impossible to get rid of utter fools.

[Mercutio]

In related news. NPR just ran a story on "Intelligent Design and Academic Freedom". Mostly centered around Sternberg publication of an intelligent design article...http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5007508
Sternberg was the editor of an obscure scientific journal loosely affiliated with the Smithsonian Institution, where he is also a research associate. Last year, he published in the journal a peer-reviewed article by Stephen Meyer, a proponent of intelligent design, an idea which Sternberg himself believes is fatally flawed.

"Why publish it?" Sternberg says. "Because evolutionary biologists are thinking about this. So I thought that by putting this on the table, there could be some reasoned discourse. That's what I thought, and I was dead wrong."

At first he heard rumblings of discontent but thought it would blow over. Sternberg says his colleagues and supervisors at the Smithsonian were furious. He says -- and an independent report backs him up -- that colleagues accused him of fraud, saying they did not believe the Meyer article was really peer reviewed. It was.

[delphi_ote]

Because evolutionary biologists are thinking about this.

No, they aren't.

[catbasket]

In related news <snip> "Why publish it?" Sternberg says. "Because evolutionary biologists are thinking about this. So I thought that by putting this on the table, there could be some reasoned discourse. That's what I thought, and I was dead wrong."
Are evolutionary biologists really thinking about ID? In any other way than "it's religion, not science"? "Reasoned discourse" with ID supporters??

Eugenie Scott, the executive director of the National Center for Science Education, says her group did consult with Smithsonian officials and the museum's concerns were valid.

"Clearly people were annoyed, they were frustrated, they were blowing off steam," Scott says. "Some probably did speak intemperately. Their concern was that somehow the Smithsonian would be associated with supporting the creationist cause by being associated with this journal that published a creationist paper."

Anyway, she says -- echoing the comments of a Smithsonian official -- Sternberg did not really suffer.

"He didn't lose his job, he didn't get his pay cut, he still has his research privileges, he still has his office," Scott says. "You know, what's his complaint? People weren't nice to him. Well, life is not fair."
Is that a reasonable summation, or has he really got a legitimate complaint?

[Ducky]

Are evolutionary biologists really thinking about ID? In any other way than "it's religion, not science"? "Reasoned discourse" with ID supporters??


Is that a reasonable summation, or has he really got a legitimate complaint?


He should have known better than to publish that crap if he has two PhD's in biology.

[thatguywhojuggles]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Conservative Christian televangelist Pat Robertson told citizens of a Pennsylvania town that they had rejected God by voting their school board out of office for supporting "intelligent design" and warned them on Thursday not to be surprised if disaster struck.
...
"I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: if there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God, you just rejected Him from your city,"
...
"And don't wonder why He hasn't helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I'm not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that's the case, don't ask for His help because he might not be there,"
...
Source: http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1300761


This man should be put away in a room with white walls where he can just sit a spew all this hateful garbage to himself. Give him a nice straight jacket too.

Edit to add: I thought the whole thing in Dover was about science, not religion. Is Robertson suggesting that there was a religious motivation behind the 8 people voted out?

[Ducky]

This man should be put away in a room with white walls where he can just sit a spew all this hateful garbage to himself. Give him a nice straight jacket too.

Edit to add: I thought the whole thing in Dover was about science, not religion. Is Robertson suggesting that there was a religious motivation behind the 8 people voted out?


I seriously hope he gets cancer.

That's hateful and I yelled at other people for saying that, but that jackass really has it coming.

[Bronze Dog]

I'd prefer Robertson be struck by lightning on a clear day. I think I'll see if I can recruit a mad scientist to make it happen, since there doesn't seem to be an omnibenevolent being intent on electroshocking that nutbar into sanity. Or ashes.

[BillHoyt]

No, they aren't.
Exactly. I think that comment is quite interesting and very suggestive of a creationist agenda. At the very least, it is suggestive of a clueless journal editor.

[catbasket]

... don't ask for His help because he might not be there.
Could I have another portion of irony, please? That was delicious.

[Melendwyr]

That's hateful and I yelled at other people for saying that, but that jackass really has it coming. I think it's well past time to acknowledge that this anti-hate movement that's become so popular in the last few decades is dead wrong. Hate has a purpose and a function, and to claim that any and all manifestations of hatred are evil is just plain silly.

Hate is not the problem. Unreasonably determining what to hate is.

[Ducky]

I think it's well past time to acknowledge that this anti-hate movement that's become so popular in the last few decades is dead wrong. Hate has a purpose and a function, and to claim that any and all manifestations of hatred are evil is just plain silly.

Hate is not the problem. Unreasonably determining what to hate is.


In that case, I reasonably hate the following:

Fred Phelps
Pat Robertson
Kevin Trudeau
Psychics/Mediums/frauds
Cancer

And I unreasonably hate the following:

Kevin Federline, who can't spell his name properly.
Jell-o
Dr. Suess
mushrooms
wombat shaving
penis envy
Ford Taurus' made in the 1990's
reality TV
spandex
infomercials
ebonics


Looks like I have some work to do on rectifying my unreasonable hate.

[delphi_ote]

In that case, I reasonably hate the following:

Fred Phelps
Pat Robertson
Kevin Trudeau
Psychics/Mediums/frauds
Cancer

And just where am I on that list?! When a guy works this hard, he expects a little credit!

I now unreasonably hate the following:
fowlsound

:D

[Ducky]

And just where am I on that list?! When a guy works this hard, he expects a little credit!

I now unreasonably hate the following:
fowlsound

:D


You were included with "mushrooms." ;)

[KingMerv00]

Where does the effective removal of the old school leave the case? If the plaintiffs win, the new board will presumably not want to appeal the decision.

The new school board is supposedly on record saying they will not appeal a ruling against the old school board. The old board members have no power.

Even if the plaintiffs lose, the newly elected board members will most likely reverse Pandas vote.

Where does this leave the case as a precedent? What other courts is Judge Jones's decision binding on?

It would be persuasive only. Other district courts wouldn't be bound but would be encouraged to follow precedent.

Ideally this would have gone all the way up to the SC and set a proper precedent, binding on all courts in the US.

Normally you can't go directly to the SCOTUS. It is especially weird if you just won your case.

[tsg]

Edit to add: I thought the whole thing in Dover was about science, not religion. Is Robertson suggesting that there was a religious motivation behind the 8 people voted out?

It was about teaching religion in a public school. There's nothing in the Constitution preventing a Board of Education from teaching bad science. There is against teaching religion.

[delphi_ote]

Exactly. I think that comment is quite interesting and very suggestive of a creationist agenda. At the very least, it is suggestive of a clueless journal editor.

Not clueless, no. He has a creationist agenda, plain as day. You'll find his name (along with several other familiar names) on this list:

http://www.iscid.org/fellows.php

He most certainly appears to have abused his position:

http://evolutionblog.blogspot.com/2004/09/sternberg-replies.html

His duplicity and persecution routine make me ill.

[MRWiffen]

I found this article this morning bushwatch.net/uhler.htm (still to new to post proper links.

Who politicized the Kansas Board of Education and the recently ousted board members at Dover Area High School in Pennsylvania? Conservative zealots; some of whom have even admitted to not understanding intelligent design—and who certainly do not understand what constitutes genuine science.

The site is very left wing, I would change conservative to religious, with that change it does still make it's point.

[CFLarsen]

bushwatch.net?

That sounds positively like a porn site.

........

Yep. Political porn. ;)