| Match 1 (1):
Reference (000020 .. 000032, of 5908): |
Subject (008163 .. 008175, of 8208): |
|
arguments may be true a proposition on which the Court takes no position |
arguments may be true a proposition on which the Court takes no position |
| Match 2 (1):
Reference (000080 .. 000103, of 5908): |
Subject (000051 .. 000070, of 8208): |
|
argument of irreducible complexity central to ID employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980 s and |
argument irreducible complexity employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980 s and |
| Match 3 (1):
Reference (000106 .. 000117, of 5908): |
Subject (000074 .. 000085, of 8208): |
|
s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community |
s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community |
| Match 4 (1):
Reference (000134 .. 000159, of 5908): |
Subject (000089 .. 000109, of 8208): |
|
has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community it has not generated peer reviewed publications nor has it been the subject of testing and research |
has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community generate peer reviewed publications or been the subject of testing and research |
| Match 5 (1):
Reference (000164 .. 000222, of 5908): |
Subject (000176 .. 000234, of 8208): |
|
since the scientific revolution of the 16 th and 17 th centuries science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena 9 19 22 Haught 5 25 29 Pennock 1 62 Miller This revolution entailed the rejection of the appeal to authority and by extension revelation in favor of empirical evidence 5 28 Pennock |
Since the scientific revolution of the 16 th and 17 th centuries science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena 9 19 22 Haught 5 25 29 Pennock 1 62 Miller This revolution entailed the rejection of the appeal to authority and by extension revelation in favor of empirical evidence 5 28 Pennock |
| Match 6 (1):
Reference (000223 .. 000259, of 5908): |
Subject (000263 .. 000298, of 8208): |
|
Since that time period science has been a discipline in which testability rather than any ecclesiastical authority or philosophical coherence has been the measure of a scientific idea s worth 9 21 22 Haught 1 63 Miller |
since that time science has been a discipline in which testability rather than any ecclesiastical authority or philosophical coherence has been the measure of a scientific idea s worth 9 21 22 Haught 1 63 Miller |
| Match 7 (1):
Reference (000263 .. 000294, of 5908): |
Subject (000306 .. 000337, of 8208): |
|
theological or ultimate explanations for the existence or characteristics of the natural world science does not consider issues of meaning and purpose in the world 9 21 Haught 1 64 87 Miller |
theological or ultimate explanations for the existence or characteristics of the natural world 9 21 Haught Science does not consider issues of meaning and purpose in the world 1 64 87 Miller |
| Match 8 (1):
Reference (000296 .. 000341, of 5908): |
Subject (000340 .. 000388, of 8208): |
|
supernatural explanations may be important and have merit they are not part of science 3 103 Miller 9 19 20 Haught This self imposed convention of science which limits inquiry to testable natural explanations about the natural world is referred to by philosophers as methodological naturalism |
Supernatural explanations are important and may have merit but they are not part of science 3 103 Miller 9 19 20 Haught o 38 This self imposed convention of science which limits inquiry to testable natural explanations about the natural world is referred to by philosophers as methodological naturalism |
| Match 9 (1):
Reference (000346 .. 000356, of 5908): |
Subject (000386 .. 000397, of 8208): |
|
as the scientific method 5 23 29 30 Pennock Methodological naturalism |
as methodological naturalism 5 23 29 30 Pennock o 39 Methodological naturalism |
| Match 10 (1):
Reference (000359 .. 000376, of 5908): |
Subject (000420 .. 000435, of 8208): |
|
ground rule of science today which requires scientists to seek explanations in the world around us based upon |
ground rule of science requires scientists to seek explanations in the world around us based upon |
| Match 11 (1):
Reference (000378 .. 000396, of 5908): |
Subject (000437 .. 000454, of 8208): |
|
we can observe test replicate and verify 1 59 64 2 41 43 Miller 5 8 23 30 Pennock |
we can observe test replicate and verify 1 59 64 2 41 43 Miller 5 23 30 Pennock |
| Match 12 (1):
Reference (000399 .. 000410, of 5908): |
Subject (000472 .. 000482, of 8208): |
|
National Academy of Sciences hereinafter NAS was recognized by experts for both |
National Academy of Sciences NAS was recognized by experts for both |
| Match 13 (1):
Reference (000441 .. 000523, of 5908): |
Subject (000526 .. 000606, of 8208): |
|
NAS is in agreement that science is limited to empirical observable and ultimately testable data Science is a particular way of knowing about the world In science explanations are restricted to those that can be inferred from the confirmable data the results obtained through observations and experiments that can be substantiated by other scientists Anything that can be observed or measured is amenable to scientific investigation Explanations that cannot be based upon empirical evidence are not part of science P 649 at 27 |
NAS agrees that science is limited to empirical observable and ultimately testable data Science is a particular way of knowing about the world In science explanations are restricted to those that can be inferred from the confirmable data the results obtained through observations and experiments that can be substantiated by other scientists Anything that can be observed or measured is amenable to scientific investigation Explanations that cannot be based on empirical evidence are not a part of science P649 at 27 |
| Match 14 (1):
Reference (000524 .. 000533, of 5908): |
Subject (000640 .. 000649, of 8208): |
|
This rigorous attachment to natural explanations is an essential attribute |
This rigorous attachment to natural explanations is an essential attribute |
| Match 15 (1):
Reference (000559 .. 000585, of 5908): |
Subject (000794 .. 000820, of 8208): |
|
from a practical perspective attributing unsolved problems about nature to causes and forces that lie outside the natural world is a science stopper 3 14 15 Miller |
From a practical perspective attributing unsolved problems about nature to causes and forces that lie outside the natural world is a science stopper 3 14 15 Miller |
| Match 16 (1):
Reference (000559 .. 000620, of 5908): |
Subject (000794 .. 000850, of 8208): |
|
from a practical perspective attributing unsolved problems about nature to causes and forces that lie outside the natural world is a science stopper 3 14 15 Miller As Dr Miller explained once you attribute a cause to an untestable supernatural force a proposition that cannot be disproven there is no reason to continue seeking natural explanations as we have our answer Id |
From a practical perspective attributing unsolved problems about nature to causes and forces that lie outside the natural world is a science stopper 3 14 15 Miller Once you attribute a cause to an untestable supernatural force a proposition that cannot be disproven there is no reason to continue seeking natural explanations we have our answer Id |
| Match 17 (1):
Reference (000648 .. 000669, of 5908): |
Subject (000872 .. 000893, of 8208): |
|
takes a natural phenomenon and instead of accepting or seeking a natural explanation argues that the explanation is supernatural 5 107 Pennock |
takes a natural phenomenon and instead of accepting or seeking a natural explanation argues that the explanation is supernatural 5 107 Pennock |
| Match 18 (1):
Reference (000705 .. 000772, of 5908): |
Subject (000925 .. 000991, of 8208): |
|
Darwinists object to the view of intelligent design because it does not give a natural cause explanation of how the various forms of life started in the first place 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 P 11 at 99 100 emphasis added |
Darwinists object to the view of intelligent design because it does not give a natural cause explanation of how the various forms of life started in the first place Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive feature already intact fish with fins and scales birds with feathers beaks and wings etc P11 at 99 100 Emphasis added |
| Match 19 (1):
Reference (000779 .. 000809, of 5908): |
Subject (000995 .. 001031, of 8208): |
|
animals did not evolve naturally through evolutionary means but were created abruptly by a non natural or supernatural designer Defendants own expert witnesses acknowledged this point 21 96 100 Behe P |
animals did not evolve naturally through evolutionary means but rather were created abruptly by a non natural or supernatural designer o 45 Even defendants own expert witnesses acknowledged this point 21 96 100 Behe see also P718 |
| Match 20 (1):
Reference (000811 .. 000850, of 5908): |
Subject (001037 .. 001075, of 8208): |
|
at 696 700 implausible that the designer is a natural entity 28 21 22 Fuller ID s rejection of naturalism and commitment to supernaturalism 38 95 96 Minnich ID does not exclude the possibility of a supernatural designer including deities |
at 696 700 implausible that the designer is a natural entity 28 21 22 Fuller ID s rejection of naturalism and commitment to supernaturalism 24 38 95 96 Minnich ID does not exclude possibility of supernatural designer including deities |
| Match 21 (1):
Reference (000866 .. 000881, of 5908): |
Subject (001089 .. 001104, of 8208): |
|
is to change the ground rules of science to allow supernatural causation of the natural world |
is to change the ground rules of science to allow supernatural causation of the natural world |
| Match 22 (1):
Reference (000933 .. 000943, of 5908): |
Subject (001124 .. 001134, of 8208): |
|
Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science which encompasses |
Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science which encompasses |
| Match 23 (1):
Reference (000945 .. 000963, of 5908): |
Subject (001137 .. 001149, of 8208): |
|
would also embrace astrology 28 26 Fuller 21 37 42 Behe Moreover defense expert Professor Minnich acknowledged that for |
would also embrace astrology 21 37 42 Behe Professor Minnich acknowledged that for |
| Match 24 (1):
Reference (000965 .. 000983, of 5908): |
Subject (001152 .. 001173, of 8208): |
|
to be considered science the ground rules of science have to be broadened to allow consideration of supernatural forces |
to be considered science the ground rules of science have to be broadened to allow consideration of supernatural causes 38 97 o |
| Match 25 (1):
Reference (001023 .. 001040, of 5908): |
Subject (001181 .. 001198, of 8208): |
|
leader proclaims that science is ruled by methodological naturalism and argues that this rule must be overturned if |
leader proclaims that science is ruled by methodological naturalism and argues that this rule must be overturned if |
| Match 26 (1):
Reference (001053 .. 001077, of 5908): |
Subject (001228 .. 001251, of 8208): |
|
Indeed entire fields of inquiry including especially in the human sciences will need to be rethought from the ground up in terms of intelligent design |
Indeed entire fields of inquiry including especially the human sciences will need to be rethought from the ground up in terms of intelligent design |
| Match 27 (1):
Reference (001108 .. 001127, of 5908): |
Subject (001290 .. 001309, of 8208): |
|
and replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God P 140 at |
and to replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God P140 at |
| Match 28 (1):
Reference (001185 .. 001195, of 5908): |
Subject (001317 .. 001328, of 8208): |
|
Notably every major scientific association that has taken a position on |
o 49 Every major scientific association that has taken a position on |
| Match 29 (1):
Reference (001215 .. 001225, of 5908): |
Subject (001343 .. 001353, of 8208): |
|
1 98 99 Miller 14 75 78 Alters 37 25 Minnich |
1 98 99 Miller 14 75 78 Alters 37 25 Minnich |
| Match 30 (1):
Reference (001241 .. 001353, of 5908): |
Subject (001362 .. 001473, of 8208): |
|
as follows Creationism intelligent design and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science These claims subordinate observed data to statements based on authority revelation or religious belief Documentation offered in support of these claims is typically limited to the special publications of their advocates These publications do not offer hypotheses subject to change in light of new data new interpretations or demonstration of error This contrasts with science where any hypothesis or theory always remains subject to the possibility of rejection or modification in the light of new knowledge P 192 at 25 Additionally |
as follows Creationism intelligent design and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science These claims subordinate observed data to statements based on authority revelation or religious belief Documentation offered in support of these claims is typically limited to the special publications of their advocates These publications do not offer hypotheses subject to change in light of new data new interpretations or demonstration of error This contrasts with science where any hypothesis or theory always remains subject to the possibility of rejection or modification in the light of new knowledge P192 at 25 National |
| Match 31 (1):
Reference (001379 .. 001415, of 5908): |
Subject (001517 .. 001553, of 8208): |
|
namely that it has not proposed a scientific means of testing its claims and that the lack of scientific warrant for so called intelligent design theory makes it improper to include as part of science education P |
namely that it has not proposed a scientific means of testing its claims and that the lack of scientific warrant for so called intelligent design theory makes it improper to include as part of science education P198 |
| Match 32 (1):
Reference (001451 .. 001462, of 5908): |
Subject (001596 .. 001607, of 8208): |
|
is not a theory as that term is defined by the NAS |
is not a theory as that term is defined by the NAS |
| Match 33 (1):
Reference (001515 .. 001555, of 5908): |
Subject (001694 .. 001737, of 8208): |
|
meet the essential ground rules that limit science to testable natural explanations 3 101 03 Miller 14 62 Alters Science cannot be defined differently for Dover students than it is defined in the scientific community as an affirmative action program as |
meet the essential ground rules that limit science to testable natural explanations 3 101 03 Miller 14 62 Alters o 56 Science cannot be defined differently for Dover students than it is defined in the scientific community as an affirmative action program for a |
| Match 34 (1):
Reference (001560 .. 001574, of 5908): |
Subject (001736 .. 001750, of 8208): |
|
for a view that has been unable to gain a foothold within the scientific establishment |
for a view that has been unable to gain a foothold within the scientific establishment |
| Match 35 (1):
Reference (001577 .. 001587, of 5908): |
Subject (001753 .. 001762, of 8208): |
|
s fa ilure to meet the ground rules of science is |
s failure to meet the ground rules of science is |
| Match 36 (1):
Reference (001625 .. 001641, of 5908): |
Subject (001795 .. 001809, of 8208): |
|
is at bottom premised upon a false dichotomy namely that to the extent evolutionary theory is discredited |
is premised on a false dichotomy namely that to the extent evolutionary theory is discredited |
| Match 37 (1):
Reference (001668 .. 001679, of 5908): |
Subject (001830 .. 001841, of 8208): |
|
was employed by creationists in the 1980 s to support creation science |
was employed by creationists in the 1980 s to support creation science |
| Match 38 (1):
Reference (001752 .. 001762, of 5908): |
Subject (001852 .. 001862, of 8208): |
|
today than it was to justify creation science two decades ago |
today than it was to justify creation science two decades ago |
| Match 39 (1):
Reference (001764 .. 001775, of 5908): |
Subject (001867 .. 001882, of 8208): |
|
proponents primarily argue for design through negative arguments against evolution as illustrated |
proponents primarily argue for design through negative argument against evolution including Professor Behe s argument that |
| Match 40 (1):
Reference (001777 .. 001811, of 5908): |
Subject (001878 .. 001912, of 8208): |
|
Professor Behe s argument that irreducibly complex systems cannot be produced through Darwinian or any natural mechanisms 5 38 41 Pennock 1 39 2 15 2 35 37 3 96 Miller 16 72 73 Padian |
Professor Behe s argument that irreducibly complex systems cannot be produced through Darwinian or any natural mechanisms 5 38 41 Pennock 1 39 2 15 2 35 37 3 96 Miller 16 72 73 Padian |
| Match 41 (1):
Reference (001831 .. 001860, of 5908): |
Subject (002180 .. 002211, of 8208): |
|
just because scientists cannot explain today how biological systems evolved does not mean that they cannot and will not be able to explain them tomorrow 2 36 37 Miller As |
Just because scientists cannot explain today how biological systems evolved does not mean they cannot and will not be able to explain them tomorrow 2 36 37 Miller In Dr Padian s |
| Match 42 (1):
Reference (001865 .. 001874, of 5908): |
Subject (002213 .. 002222, of 8208): |
|
absence of evidence is not evidence of absence 17 45 |
absence of evidence is not evidence of absence 17 45 |
| Match 43 (1):
Reference (001888 .. 001915, of 5908): |
Subject (002232 .. 002259, of 8208): |
|
examples where Pandas asserted that no natural explanations exist and in some cases that none could exist and yet natural explanations have been identified in the intervening years |
examples where Pandas asserted that no natural explanations exist and in some cases that none could exist and yet natural explanations have been identified in the intervening years |
| Match 44 (1):
Reference (001925 .. 001941, of 5908): |
Subject (002291 .. 002307, of 8208): |
|
just because scientists cannot explain every evolutionary detail does not undermine its validity as a scientific theory |
Just because scientists cannot explain every evolutionary detail does not undermine its validity as a scientific theory |
| Match 45 (1):
Reference (001957 .. 001986, of 5908): |
Subject (002487 .. 002518, of 8208): |
|
of irreducible complexity is ID s alleged scientific centerpiece Irreducible complexity is a negative argument against evolution not proof of design a point conceded by defense expert Professor Minnich 2 |
o 64 Irreducible complexity intelligent design s alleged scientific centerpiece is simply a negative argument against evolution not proof of design 2 15 Miller a point conceded by Professor Minnich 38 82 |
| Match 46 (1):
Reference (001991 .. 002006, of 5908): |
Subject (002516 .. 002533, of 8208): |
|
Minnich irreducible complexity is not a test of intelligent design it s a test of evoluti |
Minnich 38 82 irreducible complexity is not a test of intelligent design it s a test of evolution |
| Match 47 (1):
Reference (002030 .. 002173, of 5908): |
Subject (002561 .. 002699, of 8208): |
|
irreducible complexity as defined by Professor Behe in his book Darwin s Black Box and subsequently modified in his 2001 article entitled Reply to My Critics appears as follows By irreducibly complex I mean a single system which is composed of several well matched interacting parts that contribute to the basic function wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly by slight successive modifications of a precursor system because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional Since natural selection can only choose systems that are already working then if a biological system cannot be produced gradually it would have to arise as an integrated unit in one fell swoop for natural selection to have anything to act on P |
Irreducible complexity was defined by Professor Behe in Darwin s Black Box and modified in his 2001 article Reply to My Critics as follows By irreducibly complex I mean a single system which is composed of several well matched interacting parts that contribute to the basic function wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly by slight successive modifications of a precursor system because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional Since natural selection can only choose systems that are already working then if a biological system cannot be produced gradually it would have to arise as an integrated unit in one fell swoop for natural selection to have anything to act on P647 |
| Match 48 (1):
Reference (002175 .. 002224, of 5908): |
Subject (002706 .. 002758, of 8208): |
|
at 39 P 718 at 694 Professor Behe admitted in Reply to My Critics that there was a defect in his view of irreducible complexity because while it purports to be a challenge to natural selection it does not actually address the task facing natural selection P 718 at 695 |
at 39 Free Press 1996 P718 at 694 o 66 Professor Behe admitted in Reply to My Critics that there was a defect in his view of irreducible complexity because while it purports to be a challenge to natural selection it does not actually address the task facing natural selection P718 at 695 |
| Match 49 (1):
Reference (002175 .. 002281, of 5908): |
Subject (002706 .. 002814, of 8208): |
|
at 39 P 718 at 694 Professor Behe admitted in Reply to My Critics that there was a defect in his view of irreducible complexity because while it purports to be a challenge to natural selection it does not actually address the task facing natural selection P 718 at 695 Professor Behe specifically explained that t he current definition puts the focus on removing a part from an already functioning system but t he difficult task facing Darwinian evolution however would not be to remove parts from sophisticated pre existing systems it would be to bring together components to make a new system in the first place |
at 39 Free Press 1996 P718 at 694 o 66 Professor Behe admitted in Reply to My Critics that there was a defect in his view of irreducible complexity because while it purports to be a challenge to natural selection it does not actually address the task facing natural selection P718 at 695 Specifically Behe explained that t he current definition puts the focus on removing a part from an already functioning system but t he difficult task facing Darwinian evolution however would not be to remove parts from sophisticated pre existing systems it would be to bring together components to make a new system in the first place |
| Match 50 (1):
Reference (002283 .. 002298, of 5908): |
Subject (002818 .. 002833, of 8208): |
|
In that article Professor Behe wrote that he hoped to repair this defect in future work |
In that article Professor Behe wrote that he hoped to repair this defect in future work |
| Match 51 (1):
Reference (002323 .. 002341, of 5908): |
Subject (002844 .. 002862, of 8208): |
|
s admitted failure to properly address the very phenomenon that irreducible complexity purports to place at issue natural selection |
This admitted failure to properly address the very phenomenon that irreducible complexity purports to place at issue natural selection |
| Match 52 (1):
Reference (002347 .. 002368, of 5908): |
Subject (002879 .. 002898, of 8208): |
|
that Professor Behe s concept of irreducible complexity depends on ignoring ways in which evolution is known to occur Although Professor Behe |
that Professor Behe s concept of irreducible complexity depends on ignoring ways in which evolution is known to occur Behe |
| Match 53 (1):
Reference (002370 .. 002395, of 5908): |
Subject (002900 .. 002925, of 8208): |
|
adamant in his definition of irreducible complexity when he says a precursor missing a part is by definition nonfunctional what he obviously means is that it |
adamant that in his definition of irreducible complexity when he says a precursor missing a part is by definition nonfunctional what he means is that it |
| Match 54 (1):
Reference (002397 .. 002411, of 5908): |
Subject (002927 .. 002940, of 8208): |
|
not function in the same way the system functions when all the parts are present |
t function in the way the system functions when all the parts are present |
| Match 55 (1):
Reference (002456 .. 002468, of 5908): |
Subject (002966 .. 002985, of 8208): |
|
in some other way for example as a secretory system 19 88 95 |
in some other way for example in the case of the bacterial flagellum as a secretory system 19 88 95 |
| Match 56 (1):
Reference (002475 .. 002493, of 5908): |
Subject (002989 .. 003007, of 8208): |
|
qualification on what is meant by irreducible complexity renders it meaningless as a criticism of evolution 3 40 Miller |
qualification on what is meant by irreducible complexity renders it meaningless as a criticism of evolution 3 40 Miller |
| Match 57 (1):
Reference (002494 .. 002581, of 5908): |
Subject (003123 .. 003210, of 8208): |
|
In fact the theory of evolution proffers exaptation as a well recognized well documented explanation for how systems with multiple parts could have evolved through natural means Exaptation means that some precursor of the subject system had a different selectable function before experiencing the change or addition that resulted in the subject system with its present function 16 146 48 Padian For instance Dr Padian identified the evolution of the mammalian middle ear bones from what had been jawbones as an example of this process 17 6 17 |
In fact the theory of evolution has a well recognized well documented explanation for how systems with multiple parts could have evolved through natural means namely exaptation Exaptation means that some precursor of the subject system had a different selectable function before experiencing the change or addition that resulted in the subject system with its present function 16 146 48 Padian For instance Dr Padian identified the evolution of the mammalian middle ear bones from what had been jawbones as an example of this process 17 6 17 |
| Match 58 (1):
Reference (002583 .. 002604, of 5908): |
Subject (003303 .. 003323, of 8208): |
|
By defining irreducible complexity in the way that he has Professor Behe attempts to exclude the phenomenon of exaptation by definitional fiat |
By defining irreducible complexity in the way he has Professor Behe attempts to exclude the phenomenon of exaptation by definitional fiat |
| Match 59 (1):
Reference (002619 .. 002629, of 5908): |
Subject (003349 .. 003358, of 8208): |
|
has rejected Professor Behe s claim for irreducible complexity by using |
has rejected Professor Behe s claim for irreducible complexity using |
| Match 60 (1):
Reference (002633 .. 002705, of 5908): |
Subject (003361 .. 003433, of 8208): |
|
reasoning S tructures and processes that are claimed to be irreducibly complex typically are not on closer inspection For example it is incorrect to assume that a complex structure or biochemical process can function only if all its components are present and functioning as we see them today Complex biochemical systems can be built up from simpler systems through natural selection Thus the history of a protein can be traced through simpler organisms |
reasoning S tructures and processes that are claimed to be irreducibly complex typically are not on closer inspection For example it is incorrect to assume that a complex structure or biochemical process can function only if all its components are present and functioning as we see them today Complex biochemical systems can be built up from simpler systems through natural selection Thus the history of a protein can be traced through simpler organisms |
| Match 61 (1):
Reference (002706 .. 002783, of 5908): |
Subject (003453 .. 003529, of 8208): |
|
The evolution of complex molecular systems can occur in several ways Natural selection can bring together parts of a system for one function at one time and then at a later time recombine those parts with other systems of components to produce a system that has a different function Genes can be duplicated altered and then amplified through natural selection The complex biochemical cascade resulting in blood clotting has been explained in this fashion P 192 at 22 |
The evolution of complex molecular systems can occur in several ways Natural selection can bring together parts of a system for one function at one time and then at a later time recombine those parts with other systems of components to produce a system that has a different function Genes can be duplicated altered and then amplified through natural selection The complex biochemical cascade resulting in blood clotting has been explained in this fashion P192 at 22 |
| Match 62 (1):
Reference (002786 .. 002825, of 5908): |
Subject (003595 .. 003633, of 8208): |
|
complexity is only a negative argument against evolution it is refutable and accordingly testable unlike ID by showing that there are intermediate structures with selectable functions that could have evolved into the allegedly irreducibly complex systems 2 15 16 Miller |
it is only a negative argument against evolution irreducible complexity unlike intelligent design is testable by showing that there are intermediate structures with selectable functions that could have evolved into the allegedly irreducibly complex systems 2 15 16 Miller |
| Match 63 (1):
Reference (002832 .. 002845, of 5908): |
Subject (003638 .. 003647, of 8208): |
|
negative argument of irreducible complexity is testable does not make testable the argument for |
negative argument is testable does not make the argument for |
| Match 64 (1):
Reference (002852 .. 002881, of 5908): |
Subject (003530 .. 003554, of 8208): |
|
Pennock Professor Behe has applied the concept of irreducible complexity to only a few select systems 1 the bacterial flagellum 2 the blood clotting cascade and 3 the immune system |
o 71 Professor Behe has applied irreducible complexity only to a few select systems the bacterial flagellum the blood clotting cascade and the immune system |
| Match 65 (1):
Reference (002901 .. 002912, of 5908): |
Subject (003658 .. 003670, of 8208): |
|
however Dr Miller presented evidence based upon peer reviewed studies that they |
o 73 Dr Miller presented evidence based on peer reviewed studies that the |
| Match 66 (1):
Reference (002926 .. 002956, of 5908): |
Subject (003691 .. 003722, of 8208): |
|
Dr Miller pointed to peer reviewed studies that identified a possible precursor to the bacterial flagellum a subsystem that was fully functional namely the Type III Secretory System 2 8 20 |
Dr Miller pointed to peer reviewed studies that identified a possible pre cursor to the bacterial flagellum a subsystem that was fully functional namely the Type III Secretory System 2 8 20 |
| Match 67 (1):
Reference (002966 .. 003007, of 5908): |
Subject (003730 .. 003770, of 8208): |
|
Professor Minnich admited that there is serious scientific research on the question of whether the bacterial flagellum evolved into the Type III Secretary System the Type III Secretory System into the bacterial flagellum or whether they both evolved from a common ancestor |
Professor Minnich admits that there is serious scientific research on the question of whether the bacterial flagellum evolved into the Type III Secretory System the Type III Secretory System into the bacterial flagellum or they both evolved from a common ancestor |
| Match 68 (1):
Reference (003028 .. 003062, of 5908): |
Subject (003786 .. 003818, of 8208): |
|
testified about his research as follows we re looking at the function of these systems and how they could have been derived one from the other And it s a legitimate scientific inquiry 38 16 |
testified about this research we re looking at the function of these systems and how they could have been derived one from the other And it s a legitimate scientific inquiry 38 16 |
| Match 69 (1):
Reference (003072 .. 003091, of 5908): |
Subject (003892 .. 003911, of 8208): |
|
Dr Miller demonstrated that the alleged irreducible complexity of the blood clotting cascade has been disproven by peer reviewed studies |
Dr Miller demonstrated that the alleged irreducible complexity of the blood clotting cascade has been disproven by peer reviewed studies |
| Match 70 (1):
Reference (003093 .. 003123, of 5908): |
Subject (003913 .. 003943, of 8208): |
|
back to 1969 which show that dolphins and whales blood clots despite missing a part of the cascade a study that was confirmed by molecular testing in 1998 1 122 29 |
back to 1969 which showed that dolphins and whales blood clots despite missing a part of the cascade a study that was confirmed by molecular testing in 1998 1 122 29 |
| Match 71 (1):
Reference (003093 .. 003156, of 5908): |
Subject (003913 .. 003972, of 8208): |
|
back to 1969 which show that dolphins and whales blood clots despite missing a part of the cascade a study that was confirmed by molecular testing in 1998 1 122 29 Miller P 854 17 854 22 Additionally and more recently scientists published studies showing that in puffer fish blood clots despite the cascade missing not only one but three parts 1 128 29 |
back to 1969 which showed that dolphins and whales blood clots despite missing a part of the cascade a study that was confirmed by molecular testing in 1998 1 122 29 P854 17 854 22 More recently scientists published studies showing that in puffer fish blood clots despite the cascade missing not only one but three parts 1 128 29 |
| Match 72 (1):
Reference (003159 .. 003179, of 5908): |
Subject (003975 .. 003994, of 8208): |
|
scientists in peer reviewed publications have refuted Professor Behe s predication about the alleged irreducible complexity of the blood clotting cascade |
scientists in peer reviewed publications have refuted Behe s prediction about the alleged irreducible complexity of the blood clotting cascade |
| Match 73 (1):
Reference (003196 .. 003208, of 5908): |
Subject (004023 .. 004038, of 8208): |
|
designed to avoid peer reviewed scientific evidence that falsifies his argument as it |
designed to avoid peer reviewed scientific evidence that falsifies his argument not a scientifically warranted redefinition |
| Match 74 (1):
Reference (003196 .. 003214, of 5908): |
Subject (004023 .. 004038, of 8208): |
|
designed to avoid peer reviewed scientific evidence that falsifies his argument as it was not a scientifically warranted redefinition |
designed to avoid peer reviewed scientific evidence that falsifies his argument not a scientifically warranted redefinition |
| Match 75 (1):
Reference (003281 .. 003299, of 5908): |
Subject (004043 .. 004063, of 8208): |
|
However Dr Miller presented peer reviewed studies refuting Professor Behe s claim that the immune system was irreducibly complex |
o 76 Dr Miller also presented peer reviewed studies refuting Professor Behe s claim that the immune system was irreducibly complex |
| Match 76 (1):
Reference (003300 .. 003322, of 5908): |
Subject (004159 .. 004181, of 8208): |
|
Between 1996 and 2002 various studies confirmed each element of the evolutionary hypothesis explaining the origin of the immune system 2 31 Miller |
between 1996 and 2005 various studies confirmed each element of the evolutionary hypothesis explaining the origin of the immune system 2 31 Miller |
| Match 77 (1):
Reference (003300 .. 003331, of 5908): |
Subject (004159 .. 004190, of 8208): |
|
Between 1996 and 2002 various studies confirmed each element of the evolutionary hypothesis explaining the origin of the immune system 2 31 Miller In fact on cross examination Professor Behe was questioned |
between 1996 and 2005 various studies confirmed each element of the evolutionary hypothesis explaining the origin of the immune system 2 31 Miller o 77 On cross examination Professor Behe was questioned |
| Match 78 (1):
Reference (003333 .. 003349, of 5908): |
Subject (004192 .. 004208, of 8208): |
|
his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system He was |
his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system He was |
| Match 79 (1):
Reference (003351 .. 003370, of 5908): |
Subject (004210 .. 004231, of 8208): |
|
with fifty eight peer reviewed publications nine books and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system |
with the fifty eight peer reviewed publications nine books and several immunology text book chapters about the evolution of the immune system |
| Match 80 (1):
Reference (003372 .. 003392, of 5908): |
Subject (004242 .. 004259, of 8208): |
|
he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution and that it was not good enough 23 19 |
he insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution it was not good enough 23 19 |
| Match 81 (1):
Reference (003403 .. 003418, of 5908): |
Subject (004269 .. 004281, of 8208): |
|
argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution |
argument depends on setting a burden of proof for the theory of evolution |
| Match 82 (1):
Reference (003427 .. 003442, of 5908): |
Subject (004297 .. 004312, of 8208): |
|
proposed by both Professors Behe and Minnich is to grow the bacterial flagellum in the laboratory |
proposed by both Professors Behe and Minnich is to grow the bacterial flagellum in the laboratory |
| Match 83 (1):
Reference (003474 .. 003483, of 5908): |
Subject (004341 .. 004350, of 8208): |
|
that the proposed test could not approximate real world conditions |
that the proposed test could not approximate real world conditions |
| Match 84 (1):
Reference (003493 .. 003503, of 5908): |
Subject (004359 .. 004369, of 8208): |
|
it would merely be a test of evolution not design 22 |
it would be merely a test of evolution not design 2 |
| Match 85 (1):
Reference (003517 .. 003548, of 5908): |
Subject (004397 .. 004426, of 8208): |
|
Professor Behe s claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large 17 45 46 Padian 3 99 Miller |
Professor Behe s claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community 17 45 46 Padian 3 99 Miller |
| Match 86 (1):
Reference (003550 .. 003562, of 5908): |
Subject (004428 .. 004440, of 8208): |
|
even if irreducible complexity had not been rejected it still does not support |
even if irreducible complexity had not been rejected it still does not support |
| Match 87 (1):
Reference (003565 .. 003579, of 5908): |
Subject (004459 .. 004470, of 8208): |
|
it is merely a test for evolution not design 2 15 2 35 40 Miller |
complexity is merely a test for evolution not design 2 15 Miller |
| Match 88 (1):
Reference (003611 .. 003719, of 5908): |
Subject (004638 .. 004749, of 8208): |
|
is the purposeful arrangement of parts Professor Behe summarized the argument as follows We infer design when we see parts that appear to be arranged for a purpose The strength of the inference is quantitative the more parts that are arranged the more intricately they interact the stronger is our confidence in design The appearance of design in aspects of biology is overwhelming Since nothing other than an intelligent cause has been demonstrated to be able to yield such a strong appearance of design Darwinian claims notwithstanding the conclusion that the design seen in life is real design is rationally justified 18 90 91 18 109 10 Behe 37 |
is in the purposeful arrangement of parts o 83 Professor Behe summarized the argument as follows We infer design when we see parts that appear to be arranged for a purpose The strength of the inference is quantitative the more parts that are arranged and the more intricately they interact the stronger is our confidence in design The appearance of design in aspects of biology is overwhelming Since nothing other than an intelligent cause has been demonstrated to be able to yield such a strong appearance of design Darwinian claims notwithstanding the conclusion that the design seen in life is real design is rationally justified 18 90 91 Behe slides at 7 |
| Match 89 (1):
Reference (003729 .. 003742, of 5908): |
Subject (004767 .. 004780, of 8208): |
|
a restatement of the Reverend William Paley s argument applied at the cell level |
a restatement of the Reverend William Paley s argument applied at the cell level |
| Match 90 (1):
Reference (003743 .. 003784, of 5908): |
Subject (004788 .. 004830, of 8208): |
|
Minnich Behe and Paley reach the same conclusion that complex organisms must have been designed using the same reasoning except that Professors Behe and Minnich refuse to identify the designer whereas Paley inferred from the presence of design that it was God |
Minnich Minnich Behe and Paley reach the same conclusion that complex organisms must have been designed using the same reasoning except that Professors Behe and Minnich refuse to identify the designer whereas Paley inferred from the presence of design that it was God |
| Match 91 (1):
Reference (003807 .. 003818, of 5908): |
Subject (004844 .. 004854, of 8208): |
|
Professor Behe can never be ruled out 2 40 Miller 22 101 |
Professor Behe admitted it can never be ruled out 22 101 |
| Match 92 (1):
Reference (003825 .. 003847, of 5908): |
Subject (004863 .. 004885, of 8208): |
|
assertion that design of biological systems can be inferred from the purposeful arrangement of parts is based upon an analogy to human design |
assertion that design of biological systems can be inferred from the purposeful arrangement of parts is based on an analogy to human design |
| Match 93 (1):
Reference (003848 .. 003858, of 5908): |
Subject (004890 .. 004900, of 8208): |
|
Because we are able to recognize design of artifacts and objects |
because we are able to recognize design of artifacts and objects |
| Match 94 (1):
Reference (003863 .. 003885, of 5908): |
Subject (004901 .. 004924, of 8208): |
|
that same reasoning can be employed to determine biological design 18 116 17 23 50 Behe Professor Behe testified that the strength of |
that same reasoning can be employed to determine biological design 18 116 17 23 50 o 87 Professor Behe testified that the strength of |
| Match 95 (1):
Reference (003885 .. 003898, of 5908): |
Subject (004918 .. 004937, of 8208): |
|
of the analogy depends upon the degree of similarity entailed in the two propositions |
Professor Behe testified that the strength of an analogy depends on the degree of similarity entailed in the two propositions |
| Match 96 (1):
Reference (003906 .. 003945, of 5908): |
Subject (004947 .. 004989, of 8208): |
|
completely fails Unlike biological systems human artifacts do not live and reproduce over time They are non replicable they do not undergo genetic recombination and they are not driven by natural selection 1 131 33 Miller 23 57 59 Behe |
completely fails o 88 Unlike biological systems human artifacts do not live and reproduce over deep time They are non replicable they don t undergo genetic recombination and they are not driven by natural selection 1 131 33 Miller 23 57 59 Behe |
| Match 97 (1):
Reference (003946 .. 003960, of 5908): |
Subject (005047 .. 005060, of 8208): |
|
For human artifacts we know the designer s identity human and the mechanism of design |
For human artifacts we know the designer s identity human the mechanism of design |
| Match 98 (1):
Reference (003962 .. 003974, of 5908): |
Subject (005062 .. 005074, of 8208): |
|
we have experience based upon empirical evidence that humans can make such things |
we have experience based on empirical evidence that humans can make such things |
| Match 99 (1):
Reference (003993 .. 004004, of 5908): |
Subject (005089 .. 005100, of 8208): |
|
1 131 33 Miller 23 63 Behe 5 55 58 Pennock With |
1 131 33 Miller 23 63 Behe 5 55 58 Pennock With |
| Match 100 (1):
Reference (004008 .. 004034, of 5908): |
Subject (005105 .. 005130, of 8208): |
|
that they refuse to propose hypotheses on the designer s identity do not propose a mechanism and the designer he she it they has never been seen |
that they refuse to propose hypotheses on the designer s identity do not propose a mechanism and he she it or they has never been seen |
| Match 101 (1):
Reference (004040 .. 004054, of 5908): |
Subject (005131 .. 005146, of 8208): |
|
Professor Minnich agreed that in the case of human artifacts and objects we know the |
Professor Minnich agreed that in the case of human artifacts and objects we know who the |
| Match 102 (1):
Reference (004062 .. 004091, of 5908): |
Subject (005156 .. 005180, of 8208): |
|
but we do not know any of those attributes for the designer of biological life 38 44 47 Minnich In addition Professor Behe agreed that for the design of human |
but that we don t know any of those attributes for the designer of biological life 38 44 47 Professor Behe agreed that for human |
| Match 103 (1):
Reference (004100 .. 004117, of 5908): |
Subject (005198 .. 005215, of 8208): |
|
and we have a baseline for human design that does not exist for design of biological systems 23 |
and we have a baseline for human design that does not exist for design of biological systems 23 |
| Match 104 (1):
Reference (004119 .. 004144, of 5908): |
Subject (005217 .. 005240, of 8208): |
|
73 Behe Professor Behe s only response to these seemingly insurmountable points of disanalogy was that the inference still works in science fiction movies 23 73 |
73 Professor Behe s only response to these insurmountable points of disanalogy was that the inference still works in science fiction movies 23 73 |
| Match 105 (1):
Reference (004154 .. 004173, of 5908): |
Subject (005244 .. 005263, of 8208): |
|
the only attribute of design that biological systems appear to share with human artifacts is their complex appearance i e |
the only attribute of design that biological systems share with human artifacts is their complex appearance if it looks complex |
| Match 106 (1):
Reference (004154 .. 004187, of 5908): |
Subject (005244 .. 005273, of 8208): |
|
the only attribute of design that biological systems appear to share with human artifacts is their complex appearance i e if it looks complex or designed it must have been designed 23 73 Behe |
the only attribute of design that biological systems share with human artifacts is their complex appearance if it looks complex or designed it must have been designed 23 73 Behe |
| Match 107 (1):
Reference (004188 .. 004214, of 5908): |
Subject (005351 .. 005379, of 8208): |
|
This inference to design based upon the appearance of a purposeful arrangement of parts is a completely subjective proposition determined in the eye of each beholder and |
This inference to design based on the appearance of a purposeful arrangement of parts is a completely subjective proposition determined in the eye of each beholder Both Behe and |
| Match 108 (1):
Reference (004226 .. 004274, of 5908): |
Subject (005374 .. 005424, of 8208): |
|
Professors Behe and Minnich assert that there is a quantitative aspect to the inference on cross examination they admitted that there is no quantitative criteria for determining the degree of complexity or number of parts that bespeak design rather than a natural process 23 50 Behe 38 59 Minnich |
of each beholder Both Behe and Minnich asserted that there is a quantitative aspect to the inference but on cross examination admitted there is no quantitative criteria for determining the degree of complexity or number of parts that bespeak design rather than a natural process 23 50 Behe 38 59 Minnich |
| Match 109 (1):
Reference (004283 .. 004298, of 5908): |
Subject (005428 .. 005446, of 8208): |
|
the entire trial only one piece of evidence generated by Defendants addressed the strength of the |
the entire trial there was only one piece of evidence generated by defendants that addressed the strength of the |
| Match 110 (1):
Reference (004300 .. 004327, of 5908): |
Subject (005449 .. 005476, of 8208): |
|
inference the argument is less plausible to those for whom God s existence is in question and is much less plausible for those who deny God s existence |
inference the argument is less plausible to those for whom God s existence is in question and is much less plausible for those who deny God s existence |
| Match 111 (1):
Reference (004339 .. 004358, of 5908): |
Subject (005503 .. 005522, of 8208): |
|
does not satisfy the ground rules of science which require testable hypotheses based upon natural explanations 3 101 03 Miller |
does not satisfy the ground rules of science which require testable hypotheses based on natural explanations 3 101 03 Miller |
| Match 112 (1):
Reference (004362 .. 004386, of 5908): |
Subject (005526 .. 005552, of 8208): |
|
upon forces acting outside of the natural world forces that we cannot see replicate control or test which have produced changes in this world While |
on forces acting outside the natural world forces that we cannot see replicate control or test which have produced changes in this world 3 101 Miller While |
| Match 113 (1):
Reference (004396 .. 004422, of 5908): |
Subject (005576 .. 005602, of 8208): |
|
they are simply not testable by scientific means and therefore cannot qualify as part of the scientific process or as a scientific theory 3 101 02 Miller |
they are not testable by science and therefore cannot qualify as part of the scientific process or as a scientific hypothesis or theory 3 101 02 Miller |
| Match 114 (1):
Reference (004441 .. 004493, of 5908): |
Subject (005623 .. 005679, of 8208): |
|
that evolutionary theory cannot account for life s complexity by pointing to real gaps in scientific knowledge which indisputably exist in all scientific theories but also by misrepresenting well established scientific propositions 1 112 1 122 1 136 37 Miller 16 74 79 17 45 46 Padian Before discussing Defendants claims about evolution |
that evolutionary theory cannot account for life s complexity by pointing not only to real gaps in scientific knowledge which indisputably exist in all scientific theories but also by misrepresenting well established scientific propositions 1 112 1 122 1 136 37 Miller 16 74 79 17 45 46 Padian o 94 Before discussing defendants claims about evolution |
| Match 115 (1):
Reference (004499 .. 004511, of 5908): |
Subject (005689 .. 005701, of 8208): |
|
overwhelming number of scientists as reflected by every scientific association that has spoken |
overwhelming number of scientists as reflected by every scientific association that has spoken |
| Match 116 (1):
Reference (004524 .. 004537, of 5908): |
Subject (005849 .. 005866, of 8208): |
|
Plaintiffs expert in biology Dr Miller a widely recognized biology professor at Brown University |
plaintiffs expert in biology explained evolutionary theory Dr Miller is a widely recognized biology professor at Brown University |
| Match 117 (1):
Reference (004565 .. 004581, of 5908): |
Subject (006221 .. 006238, of 8208): |
|
overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community and that every major scientific association agrees 1 94 100 Miller |
overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community and that every major scientific association agrees 1 94 100 See e |
| Match 118 (1):
Reference (004626 .. 004638, of 5908): |
Subject (006314 .. 006328, of 8208): |
|
in original Despite the scientific community s overwhelming support for evolution Defendants and |
living world o 101 Despite the scientific community s overwhelming support for evolution defendants and |
| Match 119 (1):
Reference (004640 .. 004658, of 5908): |
Subject (006331 .. 006348, of 8208): |
|
proponents insist that evolution is unsupported by empirical evidence Plaintiffs science experts Drs Miller and Padian clearly explained how |
proponents insist that evolution is unsupported by empirical evidence Plaintiffs science experts Drs Miller and Padian explained how |
| Match 120 (1):
Reference (004660 .. 004675, of 5908): |
Subject (006351 .. 006366, of 8208): |
|
proponents generally and Pandas specifically distort and misrepresent scientific knowledge in making their anti evolution argument |
proponents generally and Pandas specifically distort and misrepresent scientific knowledge in making the anti evolution argument |
| Match 121 (1):
Reference (004721 .. 004741, of 5908): |
Subject (006444 .. 006467, of 8208): |
|
of arguments against evolutionary theory found in Pandas involve paleontology which studies the life of the past and the fossil record |
of the arguments against evolutionary theory in Of Pandas and People involve paleontology which studies the life of the past and the fossil record |
| Match 122 (1):
Reference (004744 .. 004757, of 5908): |
Subject (006474 .. 006487, of 8208): |
|
Professor Padi an was the only testifying expert witness with any expertise in paleontology |
Professor Kevin Padian was the only testifying expert witness with any expertise in paleontology |
| Match 123 (1):
Reference (004765 .. 004778, of 5908): |
Subject (006650 .. 006661, of 8208): |
|
Padian s demonstrative slides pr epared on the basis of peer reviewing scientific literature |
a series of demonstrative slides prepared based on peer reviewed scientific literature |
| Match 124 (1):
Reference (004780 .. 004789, of 5908): |
Subject (006665 .. 006678, of 8208): |
|
how Pandas systematically distorts and misrepresents established important evolutionary principles |
how Of Pandas and People systematically distorts and misrepresents established and important evolutionary principles |
| Match 125 (1):
Reference (004800 .. 004826, of 5908): |
Subject (006681 .. 006707, of 8208): |
|
Pandas misrepresents the dominant form of understanding relationships between organisms namely the tree of life represented by classification determined via the method of cladistics 16 87 97 |
Pandas misrepresents the dominant form of understanding relationships between organisms namely the tree of life represented by classification determined via the method of cladistics 16 87 97 |
| Match 126 (1):
Reference (004829 .. 004843, of 5908): |
Subject (006709 .. 006723, of 8208): |
|
855 6 855 19 Second Pandas misrepresents homology the central concept of comparative biology that |
P855 6 855 19 Pandas also misrepresents homology the central concept of comparative biology that |
| Match 127 (1):
Reference (004869 .. 004885, of 5908): |
Subject (006748 .. 006766, of 8208): |
|
Pandas fails to address the well established biological concept of exaptation which involves a structure changing function |
Pandas fails to address at all the well established biological concept of exaptation which involves a structure changing function |
| Match 128 (1):
Reference (004888 .. 004901, of 5908): |
Subject (006768 .. 006781, of 8208): |
|
fish fins evolving fingers and bones to become legs for weight bearing land animals |
fish fins evolving fingers and bones to become legs for weight bearing land animals |
| Match 129 (1):
Reference (004914 .. 004932, of 5908): |
Subject (006816 .. 006834, of 8208): |
|
address exaptation because they deny that organisms change function which is a view necessary to support abrupt appearance Id |
address exaptation because they deny that organisms change function a view necessary to support the abrupt appearance argument Id |
| Match 130 (1):
Reference (004934 .. 004954, of 5908): |
Subject (006837 .. 006858, of 8208): |
|
Dr Padian s unrebutted testimony demonstrates that Pandas distorts and misrepresents evidence in the fossil record about pre Cambrian era fossils |
Dr Padian s unrebutted testimony also demonstrates that Pandas distorts and misrepresents evidence in the fossil record about pre Cambrian era fossils |
| Match 131 (1):
Reference (004976 .. 004986, of 5908): |
Subject (006910 .. 006918, of 8208): |
|
and the evolution of whales from land animals 16 107 17 |
and the evolution of whales from land animals 17 |
| Match 132 (1):
Reference (005039 .. 005054, of 5908): |
Subject (007062 .. 007077, of 8208): |
|
Dr Miller testified that Pandas treatment of biochemical similarities between organisms is inaccurate and downright false |
Dr Miller testified that Pandas treatment of biochemical similarities between organisms is inaccurate and downright false |
| Match 133 (1):
Reference (005057 .. 005067, of 5908): |
Subject (007094 .. 007105, of 8208): |
|
how Pandas misrepresents basic molecular biology concepts to advance design theory |
how Pandas misrepresents basic molecular biology concepts to advance the design theory |
| Match 134 (1):
Reference (005079 .. 005098, of 5908): |
Subject (007107 .. 007123, of 8208): |
|
example that he testified as to how Pandas misinforms readers on the standard evolutionary relationships between different types of animals |
example he testified how Pandas misinforms readers on the standard evolutionary relationships between different types of animals |
| Match 135 (1):
Reference (005133 .. 005145, of 5908): |
Subject (007139 .. 007152, of 8208): |
|
Dr Miller refuted Pandas claim that evolution cannot account for new genetic information |
Dr Miller also refuted Pandas claim that evolution cannot account for new genetic information |
| Match 136 (1):
Reference (005147 .. 005169, of 5908): |
Subject (007155 .. 007177, of 8208): |
|
pointed to more than three dozen peer reviewed scientific publications showing the origin of new genetic information by evolutionary processes 1 133 36 |
pointed to more than three dozen peer reviewed scientific publications showing the origin of new genetic information by evolutionary processes 1 133 36 |
| Match 137 (1):
Reference (005147 .. 005185, of 5908): |
Subject (007155 .. 007191, of 8208): |
|
pointed to more than three dozen peer reviewed scientific publications showing the origin of new genetic information by evolutionary processes 1 133 36 Miller P 245 In summary Dr Miller testified that Pandas misrepresents molecular biology and genetic principles |
pointed to more than three dozen peer reviewed scientific publications showing the origin of new genetic information by evolutionary processes 1 133 36 P245 In sum Dr Miller testified that Pandas misrepresents molecular biology and genetics principles |
| Match 138 (1):
Reference (005189 .. 005215, of 5908): |
Subject (007193 .. 007219, of 8208): |
|
the current state of scientific knowledge in those areas in order to teach readers that common descent and natural selection are not scientifically sound 1 139 42 |
the current state of scientific knowledge in those areas in order to teach readers that common descent and natural selection are not scientifically sound 1 139 42 |
| Match 139 (1):
Reference (005217 .. 005235, of 5908): |
Subject (007288 .. 007306, of 8208): |
|
Accordingly the one textbook to which the Dover ID Policy directs students contains outdated concepts and badly flawed science |
o 111 In sum the one textbook to which the Dover policy directs students contains badly flawed and scientifically |
| Match 140 (1):
Reference (005252 .. 005267, of 5908): |
Subject (007336 .. 007351, of 8208): |
|
has failed to demonstrate scientific warrant is the complete absence of peer reviewed publications supporting the |
has failed to demonstrate scientific warrant is the complete absence of peer reviewed publications supporting the |
| Match 141 (1):
Reference (005273 .. 005283, of 5908): |
Subject (007351 .. 007361, of 8208): |
|
the peer review process is exquisitely important in the scientific process |
the concept Peer review is exquisitely important in the scientific process |
| Match 142 (1):
Reference (005285 .. 005319, of 5908): |
Subject (007367 .. 007401, of 8208): |
|
is a way for scientists to write up their empirical research and to share the work with fellow experts in the field opening up the hypotheses to study testing and criticism 1 66 69 Miller |
is a way for scientists to write up their empirical research and to share the work with fellow experts in the field opening up the hypotheses to study testing and criticism 1 66 69 Miller |
| Match 143 (1):
Reference (005323 .. 005333, of 5908): |
Subject (007593 .. 007605, of 8208): |
|
expert Professor Behe recognizes the importance of the peer review process |
expert Professor Behe recognizes the importance to science of the peer review process |
| Match 144 (1):
Reference (005335 .. 005344, of 5908): |
Subject (007609 .. 007618, of 8208): |
|
has written that science must publish or perish 22 19 |
has written that science must publish or perish 22 19 |
| Match 145 (1):
Reference (005347 .. 005403, of 5908): |
Subject (007402 .. 007463, of 8208): |
|
Peer review helps to ensure that research papers are scientifically accurately meet the standards of the scientific method and are relevant to other scientists in the field 1 39 40 Miller Moreover peer review involves scientists submitting a manuscript to a scientific journal in the field journal editors soliciting critical reviews from other experts in the field |
Peer review helps to ensure that research papers are scientifically accurate meet the standards of the scientific method and are relevant and interesting to other scientists in the field 1 39 40 Miller o 113 Peer review involves scientists submitting a manuscript to a scientific journal in the field The journal editors will solicit critical reviews from other experts in the field |
| Match 146 (1):
Reference (005405 .. 005423, of 5908): |
Subject (007466 .. 007484, of 8208): |
|
deciding whether the scientist has followed proper research procedures employed up to date methods considered and cited relevant literature |
decide whether the scientist has followed proper research procedures employed up to date methods considered and cited relevant literature |
| Match 147 (1):
Reference (005424 .. 005433, of 5908): |
Subject (007491 .. 007500, of 8208): |
|
and generally whether the researcher has employed sound science The |
and generally whether the researcher has employed sound science The |
| Match 148 (1):
Reference (005442 .. 005453, of 5908): |
Subject (007822 .. 007833, of 8208): |
|
is not supported by any peer reviewed research data or publications Both |
is not supported by any peer reviewed research data or publications Both |
| Match 149 (1):
Reference (005455 .. 005476, of 5908): |
Subject (007835 .. 007856, of 8208): |
|
Padian and Forrest testified that recent literature reviews of scientific and medical electronic databases disclosed no studies supporting a biological concept of |
Padian and Forrest testified that recent literature reviews of scientific and medical electronic databases disclosed no studies supporting a biological concept of |
| Match 150 (1):
Reference (005487 .. 005528, of 5908): |
Subject (007872 .. 007911, of 8208): |
|
cross examination Professor Behe admitted that There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred 22 22 23 Behe |
cross examination admitted that There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred 22 22 23 Behe |
| Match 151 (1):
Reference (005536 .. 005579, of 5908): |
Subject (007918 .. 007961, of 8208): |
|
no peer reviewed papers supporting his claims that complex molecular systems like the bacterial flagellum the blood clotting cascade and the immune system were intelligently designed 21 61 62 complex molecular systems 23 4 5 immune system and 22 124 25 blood clotting cascade |
no peer reviewed papers supporting his claims that complex molecular systems like the bacterial flagellum the blood clotting cascade and the immune system were intelligently designed 21 61 62 complex molecular systems 23 4 5 immune system and 22 124 25 blood clotting cascade |
| Match 152 (1):
Reference (005584 .. 005608, of 5908): |
Subject (007965 .. 007988, of 8208): |
|
there are no peer reviewed articles supporting Professor Behe s argument that certain complex molecular structures are irreducibly complex 17 21 62 22 124 25 |
there are no peer reviewed articles supporting Professor Behe s argument that certain complex molecular structures are irreducibly complex 21 62 22 124 25 |
| Match 153 (1):
Reference (005622 .. 005638, of 5908): |
Subject (008080 .. 008096, of 8208): |
|
also features no scientific research or testing 28 114 15 Fuller 18 22 23 105 06 Behe |
also features no scientific research or testing 28 114 115 Fuller 18 22 23 105 106 Behe |
| Match 154 (1):
Reference (005686 .. 005705, of 5908): |
Subject (008120 .. 008139, of 8208): |
|
has failed to publish in peer reviewed journals engage in research and testing and gain acceptance in the scientific community |
has failed to publish in peer reviewed journals engage in research and testing and gain acceptance in the scientific community |