Tue Dec 19 10:10:49 PST 2006
There are 1032 lines in pf-science.txt
There are 629 lines in jones-science.txt
There are 8208 words in pf-science.txt
There are 5908 words in jones-science.txt
5908 < 5909

Match 1 (1): Reference (000051 .. 000070, of 8208):	Subject (000080 .. 000103, of 5908):
argument irreducible complexity employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980 s and	argument of irreducible complexity central to ID employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980 s and
Match 2 (1): Reference (000071 .. 000085, of 8208):	Subject (000098 .. 000117, of 5908):
c intelligent design s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community	science in the 1980 s and 3 ID s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community
Match 3 (1): Reference (000089 .. 000109, of 8208):	Subject (000134 .. 000159, of 5908):
has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community generate peer reviewed publications or been the subject of testing and research	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
Match 4 (1): Reference (000176 .. 000237, of 8208):	Subject (000164 .. 000230, of 5908):
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 That s probably	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 that time period science has been a
Match 5 (1): Reference (000263 .. 000299, of 8208):	Subject (000223 .. 000262, of 5908):
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 o	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 In deliberately omitting
Match 6 (1): Reference (000306 .. 000318, of 8208):	Subject (000263 .. 000275, of 5908):
theological or ultimate explanations for the existence or characteristics of the natural world	theological or ultimate explanations for the existence or characteristics of the natural world
Match 7 (1): Reference (000306 .. 000338, of 8208):	Subject (000263 .. 000297, of 5908):
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 o	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 While supernatural explanations
Match 8 (1): Reference (000340 .. 000362, of 8208):	Subject (000296 .. 000319, of 5908):
Supernatural explanations are important and may have merit but they are not part of science 3 103 Miller 9 19 20 Haught o	supernatural explanations may be important and have merit they are not part of science 3 103 Miller 9 19 20 Haught This self imposed
Match 9 (1): Reference (000340 .. 000388, of 8208):	Subject (000296 .. 000341, of 5908):
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	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
Match 10 (1): Reference (000415 .. 000435, of 8208):	Subject (000350 .. 000376, of 5908):
5 8 23 Pennock This ground rule of science requires scientists to seek explanations in the world around us based upon	5 23 29 30 Pennock Methodological naturalism is a ground rule of science today which requires scientists to seek explanations in the world around us based upon
Match 11 (1): Reference (000437 .. 000454, of 8208):	Subject (000378 .. 000396, of 5908):
we can observe test replicate and verify 1 59 64 2 41 43 Miller 5 23 30 Pennock	we can observe test replicate and verify 1 59 64 2 41 43 Miller 5 8 23 30 Pennock
Match 12 (1): Reference (000472 .. 000482, of 8208):	Subject (000399 .. 000410, of 5908):
National Academy of Sciences NAS was recognized by experts for both	National Academy of Sciences hereinafter NAS was recognized by experts for both
Match 13 (1): Reference (000484 .. 000493, of 8208):	Subject (000412 .. 000420, of 5908):
as being the most prestigious scientific association in this country	as the most prestigious scientific association in this country
Match 14 (1): Reference (000505 .. 000514, of 8208):	Subject (000432 .. 000443, of 5908):
160 61 Miller 14 72 Alters 37 31 Minnich Accordingly	160 61 Miller 14 72 Alters 37 31 Minnich NAS is in
Match 15 (1): Reference (000526 .. 000606, of 8208):	Subject (000441 .. 000523, of 5908):
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	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
Match 16 (1): Reference (000640 .. 000649, of 8208):	Subject (000524 .. 000533, of 5908):
This rigorous attachment to natural explanations is an essential attribute	This rigorous attachment to natural explanations is an essential attribute
Match 17 (1): Reference (000676 .. 000686, of 8208):	Subject (000181 .. 000194, of 5908):
the systematic search for natural explanations for natural phenomena 1 59	the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena 9 19 22 Haught 5
Match 18 (1): Reference (000794 .. 000820, of 8208):	Subject (000559 .. 000585, of 5908):
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 19 (1): Reference (000794 .. 000851, of 8208):	Subject (000559 .. 000624, of 5908):
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 o	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 ID is predicated on
Match 20 (1): Reference (000872 .. 000894, of 8208):	Subject (000648 .. 000671, of 5908):
takes a natural phenomenon and instead of accepting or seeking a natural explanation argues that the explanation is supernatural 5 107 Pennock o	takes a natural phenomenon and instead of accepting or seeking a natural explanation argues that the explanation is supernatural 5 107 Pennock Further support
Match 21 (1): Reference (000925 .. 000991, of 8208):	Subject (000705 .. 000772, of 5908):
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	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
Match 22 (1): Reference (000995 .. 001015, of 8208):	Subject (000779 .. 000799, of 5908):
animals did not evolve naturally through evolutionary means but rather were created abruptly by a non natural or supernatural designer o	animals did not evolve naturally through evolutionary means but were created abruptly by a non natural or supernatural designer Defendants own
Match 23 (1): Reference (000995 .. 001028, of 8208):	Subject (000779 .. 000808, of 5908):
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	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
Match 24 (1): Reference (001037 .. 001076, of 8208):	Subject (000811 .. 000853, of 5908):
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 o	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 It is notable
Match 25 (1): Reference (001089 .. 001104, of 8208):	Subject (000866 .. 000881, of 5908):
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 26 (1): Reference (001124 .. 001134, of 8208):	Subject (000933 .. 000943, of 5908):
Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science which encompasses	Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science which encompasses
Match 27 (1): Reference (001137 .. 001149, of 8208):	Subject (000945 .. 000963, of 5908):
would also embrace astrology 21 37 42 Behe Professor Minnich acknowledged that for	would also embrace astrology 28 26 Fuller 21 37 42 Behe Moreover defense expert Professor Minnich acknowledged that for
Match 28 (1): Reference (001152 .. 001169, of 8208):	Subject (000965 .. 000982, of 5908):
to be considered science the ground rules of science have to be broadened to allow consideration of supernatural	to be considered science the ground rules of science have to be broadened to allow consideration of supernatural
Match 29 (1): Reference (001181 .. 001198, of 8208):	Subject (001023 .. 001040, of 5908):
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 30 (1): Reference (001228 .. 001251, of 8208):	Subject (001053 .. 001077, of 5908):
Indeed entire fields of inquiry including especially the human sciences will need to be rethought from the ground up in terms of intelligent design	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
Match 31 (1): Reference (001290 .. 001309, of 8208):	Subject (001108 .. 001127, of 5908):
and to replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God P140 at	and replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God P 140 at
Match 32 (1): Reference (001319 .. 001328, of 8208):	Subject (001186 .. 001195, of 5908):
Every major scientific association that has taken a position on	every major scientific association that has taken a position on
Match 33 (1): Reference (001343 .. 001354, of 8208):	Subject (001215 .. 001228, of 5908):
1 98 99 Miller 14 75 78 Alters 37 25 Minnich o	1 98 99 Miller 14 75 78 Alters 37 25 Minnich Initially we note
Match 34 (1): Reference (001362 .. 001473, of 8208):	Subject (001241 .. 001353, of 5908):
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	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
Match 35 (1): Reference (001517 .. 001553, of 8208):	Subject (001379 .. 001415, of 5908):
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	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
Match 36 (1): Reference (001572 .. 001582, of 8208):	Subject (001430 .. 001439, of 5908):
identified a single major scientific association society or organization that endorsed	identified one major scientific association society or organization that endorsed
Match 37 (1): Reference (001596 .. 001607, of 8208):	Subject (001451 .. 001462, of 5908):
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 38 (1): Reference (001694 .. 001735, of 8208):	Subject (001515 .. 001554, of 5908):
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	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
Match 39 (1): Reference (001736 .. 001750, of 8208):	Subject (001560 .. 001574, of 5908):
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 40 (1): Reference (001753 .. 001762, of 8208):	Subject (001577 .. 001587, of 5908):
s failure to meet the ground rules of science is	s fa ilure to meet the ground rules of science is
Match 41 (1): Reference (001795 .. 001809, of 8208):	Subject (001625 .. 001641, of 5908):
is premised on a false dichotomy namely that to the extent evolutionary theory is discredited	is at bottom premised upon a false dichotomy namely that to the extent evolutionary theory is discredited
Match 42 (1): Reference (001830 .. 001841, of 8208):	Subject (001668 .. 001679, of 5908):
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 43 (1): Reference (001852 .. 001863, of 8208):	Subject (001752 .. 001764, of 5908):
today than it was to justify creation science two decades ago o	today than it was to justify creation science two decades ago ID proponents
Match 44 (1): Reference (001867 .. 001876, of 8208):	Subject (001764 .. 001773, of 5908):
proponents primarily argue for design through negative argument against evolution	proponents primarily argue for design through negative arguments against evolution
Match 45 (1): Reference (001878 .. 001912, of 8208):	Subject (001777 .. 001811, of 5908):
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 46 (1): Reference (002180 .. 002207, of 8208):	Subject (001831 .. 001859, of 5908):
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	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
Match 47 (1): Reference (002213 .. 002222, of 8208):	Subject (001865 .. 001874, of 5908):
absence of evidence is not evidence of absence 17 45	absence of evidence is not evidence of absence 17 45
Match 48 (1): Reference (002232 .. 002261, of 8208):	Subject (001888 .. 001919, of 5908):
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 e g	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 It also bears mentioning
Match 49 (1): Reference (002291 .. 002307, of 8208):	Subject (001925 .. 001941, of 5908):
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 50 (1): Reference (002437 .. 002450, of 8208):	Subject (002829 .. 002837, of 5908):
fact Professor Fuller testified that even if the negative argument of irreducible complexity disproved	fact that the negative argument of irreducible complexity is
Match 51 (1): Reference (002493 .. 002533, of 8208):	Subject (001962 .. 002006, of 5908):
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 irreducible complexity is not a test of intelligent design it s a test of evolution	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 15 Miller 38 82 Minnich irreducible complexity is not a test of intelligent design it s a test of evoluti
Match 52 (1): Reference (002561 .. 002699, of 8208):	Subject (002030 .. 002173, of 5908):
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	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
Match 53 (1): Reference (002711 .. 002760, of 8208):	Subject (002178 .. 002231, of 5908):
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	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
Match 54 (1): Reference (002760 .. 002814, of 8208):	Subject (002226 .. 002281, of 5908):
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	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
Match 55 (1): Reference (002818 .. 002833, of 8208):	Subject (002283 .. 002298, of 5908):
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 56 (1): Reference (002844 .. 002862, of 8208):	Subject (002323 .. 002341, of 5908):
This admitted failure to properly address the very phenomenon that irreducible complexity purports to place at issue natural selection	s admitted failure to properly address the very phenomenon that irreducible complexity purports to place at issue natural selection
Match 57 (1): Reference (002879 .. 002898, of 8208):	Subject (002347 .. 002368, of 5908):
that Professor Behe s concept of irreducible complexity depends on ignoring ways in which evolution is known to occur Behe	that Professor Behe s concept of irreducible complexity depends on ignoring ways in which evolution is known to occur Although Professor Behe
Match 58 (1): Reference (002900 .. 002925, of 8208):	Subject (002370 .. 002395, of 5908):
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	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
Match 59 (1): Reference (002927 .. 002940, of 8208):	Subject (002397 .. 002411, of 5908):
t function in the way the system functions when all the parts are present	not function in the same way the system functions when all the parts are present
Match 60 (1): Reference (002942 .. 002951, of 8208):	Subject (002413 .. 002424, of 5908):
example in the case of the bacterial flagellum as a	example in the case of the bacterial flagellum removal of a part
Match 61 (1): Reference (002971 .. 002980, of 8208):	Subject (002413 .. 002424, of 5908):
example in the case of the bacterial flagellum as a	example in the case of the bacterial flagellum removal of a part
Match 62 (1): Reference (002989 .. 003007, of 8208):	Subject (002475 .. 002493, of 5908):
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 63 (1): Reference (003123 .. 003210, of 8208):	Subject (002494 .. 002581, of 5908):
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	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
Match 64 (1): Reference (003303 .. 003323, of 8208):	Subject (002583 .. 002604, of 5908):
By defining irreducible complexity in the way he has Professor Behe attempts to exclude the phenomenon of exaptation by definitional fiat	By defining irreducible complexity in the way that he has Professor Behe attempts to exclude the phenomenon of exaptation by definitional fiat
Match 65 (1): Reference (003349 .. 003358, of 8208):	Subject (002619 .. 002629, of 5908):
has rejected Professor Behe s claim for irreducible complexity using	has rejected Professor Behe s claim for irreducible complexity by using
Match 66 (1): Reference (003361 .. 003433, of 8208):	Subject (002633 .. 002705, of 5908):
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 67 (1): Reference (003453 .. 003530, of 8208):	Subject (002706 .. 002786, of 5908):
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 o	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 As irreducible complexity
Match 68 (1): Reference (003532 .. 003554, of 8208):	Subject (002853 .. 002881, of 5908):
Professor Behe has applied irreducible complexity only to a few select systems the bacterial flagellum the blood clotting cascade and the immune system	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
Match 69 (1): Reference (003558 .. 003567, of 8208):	Subject (005489 .. 005498, of 5908):
Professor Behe has admitted there are no peer reviewed articles	Professor Behe admitted that There are no peer reviewed articles
Match 70 (1): Reference (003574 .. 003585, of 8208):	Subject (002869 .. 002884, of 5908):
the bacterial flagellum the blood clotting cascade and the immune system or	the bacterial flagellum 2 the blood clotting cascade and 3 the immune system Contrary to Professor
Match 71 (1): Reference (003608 .. 003633, of 8208):	Subject (002795 .. 002825, of 5908):
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	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
Match 72 (1): Reference (003638 .. 003647, of 8208):	Subject (002832 .. 002845, of 5908):
negative argument is testable does not make the argument for	negative argument of irreducible complexity is testable does not make testable the argument for
Match 73 (1): Reference (003660 .. 003670, of 8208):	Subject (002902 .. 002912, of 5908):
Dr Miller presented evidence based on peer reviewed studies that the	Dr Miller presented evidence based upon peer reviewed studies that they
Match 74 (1): Reference (003691 .. 003726, of 8208):	Subject (002926 .. 002962, of 5908):
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 P854 23 854 32	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 Miller P 854 23 854 32
Match 75 (1): Reference (003730 .. 003770, of 8208):	Subject (002966 .. 003007, of 5908):
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	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
Match 76 (1): Reference (003786 .. 003818, of 8208):	Subject (003028 .. 003062, of 5908):
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	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
Match 77 (1): Reference (003892 .. 003911, of 8208):	Subject (003072 .. 003091, of 5908):
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 78 (1): Reference (003913 .. 003972, of 8208):	Subject (003093 .. 003156, of 5908):
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	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
Match 79 (1): Reference (003975 .. 003994, of 8208):	Subject (003159 .. 003179, of 5908):
scientists in peer reviewed publications have refuted Behe s prediction about the alleged irreducible complexity of the blood clotting cascade	scientists in peer reviewed publications have refuted Professor Behe s predication about the alleged irreducible complexity of the blood clotting cascade
Match 80 (1): Reference (004023 .. 004038, of 8208):	Subject (003196 .. 003214, of 5908):
designed to avoid peer reviewed scientific evidence that falsifies his argument not a scientifically warranted redefinition	designed to avoid peer reviewed scientific evidence that falsifies his argument as it was not a scientifically warranted redefinition
Match 81 (1): Reference (004045 .. 004064, of 8208):	Subject (003282 .. 003303, of 5908):
Dr Miller also presented peer reviewed studies refuting Professor Behe s claim that the immune system was irreducibly complex 2	Dr Miller presented peer reviewed studies refuting Professor Behe s claim that the immune system was irreducibly complex Between 1996 and 2002
Match 82 (1): Reference (004087 .. 004097, of 8208):	Subject (003261 .. 003269, of 5908):
at the time but that in fact natural explanations were impossible	at the time but that natural explanations were impossible
Match 83 (1): Reference (004159 .. 004190, of 8208):	Subject (003300 .. 003331, of 5908):
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	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
Match 84 (1): Reference (004192 .. 004208, of 8208):	Subject (003333 .. 003349, of 5908):
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 85 (1): Reference (004210 .. 004231, of 8208):	Subject (003351 .. 003370, of 5908):
with the fifty eight peer reviewed publications nine books and several immunology text book chapters about the evolution of the immune system	with fifty eight peer reviewed publications nine books and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system
Match 86 (1): Reference (004242 .. 004259, of 8208):	Subject (003372 .. 003392, of 5908):
he insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution it was not good enough 23 19	he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution and that it was not good enough 23 19
Match 87 (1): Reference (004269 .. 004282, of 8208):	Subject (003403 .. 003420, of 5908):
argument depends on setting a burden of proof for the theory of evolution that	argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution As a
Match 88 (1): Reference (004297 .. 004312, of 8208):	Subject (003427 .. 003442, of 5908):
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 89 (1): Reference (004341 .. 004350, of 8208):	Subject (003474 .. 003483, of 5908):
that the proposed test could not approximate real world conditions	that the proposed test could not approximate real world conditions
Match 90 (1): Reference (004366 .. 004385, of 8208):	Subject (001973 .. 001998, of 5908):
evolution not design 2 15 Miller a point conceded by Professor Minnich 38 82 it s not a test of	evolution not proof of design a point conceded by defense expert Professor Minnich 2 15 Miller 38 82 Minnich irreducible complexity is not a test of
Match 91 (1): Reference (004397 .. 004426, of 8208):	Subject (003517 .. 003548, of 5908):
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	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
Match 92 (1): Reference (004428 .. 004440, of 8208):	Subject (003550 .. 003562, of 5908):
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 93 (1): Reference (004459 .. 004470, of 8208):	Subject (003565 .. 003579, of 5908):
complexity is merely a test for evolution not design 2 15 Miller	it is merely a test for evolution not design 2 15 2 35 40 Miller
Match 94 (1): Reference (004631 .. 004640, of 8208):	Subject (004330 .. 004342, of 5908):
that the positive inductive argument for design is in the	at 705 Accordingly the purported positive argument for ID does not satisfy the
Match 95 (1): Reference (004638 .. 004746, of 8208):	Subject (003611 .. 003718, of 5908):
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	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
Match 96 (1): Reference (004767 .. 004780, of 8208):	Subject (003729 .. 003742, of 5908):
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 97 (1): Reference (004788 .. 004830, of 8208):	Subject (003743 .. 003784, of 5908):
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	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 98 (1): Reference (004844 .. 004854, of 8208):	Subject (003807 .. 003818, of 5908):
Professor Behe admitted it can never be ruled out 22 101	Professor Behe can never be ruled out 2 40 Miller 22 101
Match 99 (1): Reference (004863 .. 004885, of 8208):	Subject (003825 .. 003847, of 5908):
assertion that design of biological systems can be inferred from the purposeful arrangement of parts is based on an analogy to human design	assertion that design of biological systems can be inferred from the purposeful arrangement of parts is based upon an analogy to human design
Match 100 (1): Reference (004890 .. 004900, of 8208):	Subject (003848 .. 003858, of 5908):
because we are able to recognize design of artifacts and objects	Because we are able to recognize design of artifacts and objects
Match 101 (1): Reference (004901 .. 004937, of 8208):	Subject (003863 .. 003898, of 5908):
that same reasoning can be employed to determine biological design 18 116 17 23 50 o 87 Professor Behe testified that the strength of an analogy depends on the degree of similarity entailed in the two propositions	that same reasoning can be employed to determine biological design 18 116 17 23 50 Behe Professor Behe testified that the strength of the analogy depends upon the degree of similarity entailed in the two propositions
Match 102 (1): Reference (004947 .. 004989, of 8208):	Subject (003906 .. 003945, of 5908):
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	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
Match 103 (1): Reference (005047 .. 005060, of 8208):	Subject (003946 .. 003960, of 5908):
For human artifacts we know the designer s identity human the mechanism of design	For human artifacts we know the designer s identity human and the mechanism of design
Match 104 (1): Reference (005062 .. 005074, of 8208):	Subject (003962 .. 003974, of 5908):
we have experience based on empirical evidence that humans can make such things	we have experience based upon empirical evidence that humans can make such things
Match 105 (1): Reference (005089 .. 005100, of 8208):	Subject (003993 .. 004004, of 5908):
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 106 (1): Reference (005105 .. 005130, of 8208):	Subject (004008 .. 004034, of 5908):
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	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
Match 107 (1): Reference (005131 .. 005146, of 8208):	Subject (004040 .. 004054, of 5908):
Professor Minnich agreed that in the case of human artifacts and objects we know who the	Professor Minnich agreed that in the case of human artifacts and objects we know the
Match 108 (1): Reference (005139 .. 005151, of 8208):	Subject (003947 .. 003957, of 5908):
human artifacts and objects we know who the designer is and what the	human artifacts we know the designer s identity human and the
Match 109 (1): Reference (005156 .. 005180, of 8208):	Subject (004062 .. 004091, of 5908):
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	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
Match 110 (1): Reference (005198 .. 005215, of 8208):	Subject (004100 .. 004117, of 5908):
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 111 (1): Reference (005217 .. 005240, of 8208):	Subject (004119 .. 004144, of 5908):
73 Professor Behe s only response to these insurmountable points of disanalogy was that the inference still works in science fiction movies 23 73	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
Match 112 (1): Reference (005244 .. 005273, of 8208):	Subject (004154 .. 004187, of 5908):
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	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
Match 113 (1): Reference (005351 .. 005379, of 8208):	Subject (004188 .. 004214, of 5908):
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	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
Match 114 (1): Reference (005377 .. 005424, of 8208):	Subject (004225 .. 004274, of 5908):
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	both 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
Match 115 (1): Reference (005428 .. 005446, of 8208):	Subject (004283 .. 004298, of 5908):
the entire trial there was only one piece of evidence generated by defendants that addressed the strength of the	the entire trial only one piece of evidence generated by Defendants addressed the strength of the
Match 116 (1): Reference (005449 .. 005476, of 8208):	Subject (004300 .. 004327, of 5908):
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 117 (1): Reference (005503 .. 005522, of 8208):	Subject (004339 .. 004358, of 5908):
does not satisfy the ground rules of science which require testable hypotheses based on natural explanations 3 101 03 Miller	does not satisfy the ground rules of science which require testable hypotheses based upon natural explanations 3 101 03 Miller
Match 118 (1): Reference (005526 .. 005552, of 8208):	Subject (004362 .. 004386, of 5908):
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	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
Match 119 (1): Reference (005576 .. 005602, of 8208):	Subject (004396 .. 004422, of 5908):
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	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
Match 120 (1): Reference (005623 .. 005680, of 8208):	Subject (004441 .. 004495, of 5908):
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 in	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 we initially
Match 121 (1): Reference (005689 .. 005701, of 8208):	Subject (004499 .. 004511, of 5908):
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 122 (1): Reference (005849 .. 005866, of 8208):	Subject (004524 .. 004537, of 5908):
plaintiffs expert in biology explained evolutionary theory Dr Miller is a widely recognized biology professor at Brown University	Plaintiffs expert in biology Dr Miller a widely recognized biology professor at Brown University
Match 123 (1): Reference (006221 .. 006236, of 8208):	Subject (004565 .. 004580, of 5908):
overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community and that every major scientific association agrees 1 94 100	overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community and that every major scientific association agrees 1 94 100
Match 124 (1): Reference (006318 .. 006328, of 8208):	Subject (004628 .. 004638, of 5908):
Despite the scientific community s overwhelming support for evolution defendants and	Despite the scientific community s overwhelming support for evolution Defendants and
Match 125 (1): Reference (006331 .. 006348, of 8208):	Subject (004640 .. 004658, of 5908):
proponents insist that evolution is unsupported by empirical evidence Plaintiffs science experts Drs Miller and Padian explained how	proponents insist that evolution is unsupported by empirical evidence Plaintiffs science experts Drs Miller and Padian clearly explained how
Match 126 (1): Reference (006351 .. 006366, of 8208):	Subject (004660 .. 004675, of 5908):
proponents generally and Pandas specifically distort and misrepresent scientific knowledge in making the anti evolution argument	proponents generally and Pandas specifically distort and misrepresent scientific knowledge in making their anti evolution argument
Match 127 (1): Reference (006444 .. 006467, of 8208):	Subject (004721 .. 004741, of 5908):
of the arguments against evolutionary theory in Of Pandas and People involve paleontology which studies the life of the past and the fossil record	of arguments against evolutionary theory found in Pandas involve paleontology which studies the life of the past and the fossil record
Match 128 (1): Reference (006476 .. 006487, of 8208):	Subject (004746 .. 004757, of 5908):
Padian was the only testifying expert witness with any expertise in paleontology	an was the only testifying expert witness with any expertise in paleontology
Match 129 (1): Reference (006665 .. 006678, of 8208):	Subject (004780 .. 004789, of 5908):
how Of Pandas and People systematically distorts and misrepresents established and important evolutionary principles	how Pandas systematically distorts and misrepresents established important evolutionary principles
Match 130 (1): Reference (006681 .. 006707, of 8208):	Subject (004800 .. 004826, of 5908):
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 131 (1): Reference (006709 .. 006723, of 8208):	Subject (004829 .. 004843, of 5908):
P855 6 855 19 Pandas also misrepresents homology the central concept of comparative biology that	855 6 855 19 Second Pandas misrepresents homology the central concept of comparative biology that
Match 132 (1): Reference (006729 .. 006739, of 8208):	Subject (004844 .. 004854, of 5908):
allowed scientists to compare comparable parts among organisms for classification purposes	allowed scientists to evaluate comparable parts among organisms for classification purposes
Match 133 (1): Reference (006748 .. 006766, of 8208):	Subject (004869 .. 004885, of 5908):
Pandas fails to address at all the well established biological concept of exaptation which involves a structure changing function	Pandas fails to address the well established biological concept of exaptation which involves a structure changing function
Match 134 (1): Reference (006768 .. 006781, of 8208):	Subject (004888 .. 004901, of 5908):
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 135 (1): Reference (006816 .. 006834, of 8208):	Subject (004914 .. 004932, of 5908):
address exaptation because they deny that organisms change function a view necessary to support the abrupt appearance argument Id	address exaptation because they deny that organisms change function which is a view necessary to support abrupt appearance Id
Match 136 (1): Reference (006837 .. 006858, of 8208):	Subject (004934 .. 004954, of 5908):
Dr Padian s unrebutted testimony also demonstrates that Pandas distorts and misrepresents evidence in the fossil record about pre Cambrian era fossils	Dr Padian s unrebutted testimony demonstrates that Pandas distorts and misrepresents evidence in the fossil record about pre Cambrian era fossils
Match 137 (1): Reference (006910 .. 006919, of 8208):	Subject (004976 .. 004988, of 5908):
and the evolution of whales from land animals 17 17	and the evolution of whales from land animals 16 107 17 16 117
Match 138 (1): Reference (007062 .. 007077, of 8208):	Subject (005039 .. 005054, of 5908):
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 139 (1): Reference (007094 .. 007103, of 8208):	Subject (005057 .. 005067, of 5908):
how Pandas misrepresents basic molecular biology concepts to advance the	how Pandas misrepresents basic molecular biology concepts to advance design theory
Match 140 (1): Reference (007107 .. 007123, of 8208):	Subject (005079 .. 005098, of 5908):
example he testified how Pandas misinforms readers on the standard evolutionary relationships between different types of animals	example that he testified as to how Pandas misinforms readers on the standard evolutionary relationships between different types of animals
Match 141 (1): Reference (007139 .. 007152, of 8208):	Subject (005133 .. 005145, of 5908):
Dr Miller also refuted Pandas claim that evolution cannot account for new genetic information	Dr Miller refuted Pandas claim that evolution cannot account for new genetic information
Match 142 (1): Reference (007155 .. 007191, of 8208):	Subject (005147 .. 005185, of 5908):
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	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
Match 143 (1): Reference (007193 .. 007219, of 8208):	Subject (005189 .. 005215, of 5908):
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 144 (1): Reference (007292 .. 007308, of 8208):	Subject (005218 .. 005235, of 5908):
the one textbook to which the Dover policy directs students contains badly flawed and scientifically refuted science	the one textbook to which the Dover ID Policy directs students contains outdated concepts and badly flawed science
Match 145 (1): Reference (007336 .. 007351, of 8208):	Subject (005252 .. 005267, of 5908):
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 146 (1): Reference (007351 .. 007361, of 8208):	Subject (005273 .. 005283, of 5908):
the concept Peer review is exquisitely important in the scientific process	the peer review process is exquisitely important in the scientific process
Match 147 (1): Reference (007367 .. 007401, of 8208):	Subject (005285 .. 005319, of 5908):
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 148 (1): Reference (007402 .. 007435, of 8208):	Subject (005347 .. 005378, of 5908):
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	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
Match 149 (1): Reference (007437 .. 007453, of 8208):	Subject (005379 .. 005394, of 5908):
Peer review involves scientists submitting a manuscript to a scientific journal in the field The journal editors	peer review involves scientists submitting a manuscript to a scientific journal in the field journal editors
Match 150 (1): Reference (007437 .. 007463, of 8208):	Subject (005379 .. 005403, of 5908):
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	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
Match 151 (1): Reference (007466 .. 007484, of 8208):	Subject (005405 .. 005423, of 5908):
decide whether the scientist has followed proper research procedures employed up to date methods considered and cited relevant literature	deciding whether the scientist has followed proper research procedures employed up to date methods considered and cited relevant literature
Match 152 (1): Reference (007491 .. 007500, of 8208):	Subject (005424 .. 005433, of 5908):
and generally whether the researcher has employed sound science The	and generally whether the researcher has employed sound science The
Match 153 (1): Reference (007593 .. 007605, of 8208):	Subject (005323 .. 005333, of 5908):
expert Professor Behe recognizes the importance to science of the peer review process	expert Professor Behe recognizes the importance of the peer review process
Match 154 (1): Reference (007609 .. 007618, of 8208):	Subject (005335 .. 005344, of 5908):
has written that science must publish or perish 22 19	has written that science must publish or perish 22 19
Match 155 (1): Reference (007822 .. 007833, of 8208):	Subject (005442 .. 005453, of 5908):
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 156 (1): Reference (007822 .. 007856, of 8208):	Subject (005442 .. 005476, of 5908):
is not supported by any peer reviewed research data or publications Both Doctors Padian and Forrest testified that recent literature reviews of scientific and medical electronic databases disclosed no studies supporting a biological concept of	is not supported by any peer reviewed research data or publications Both Drs Padian and Forrest testified that recent literature reviews of scientific and medical electronic databases disclosed no studies supporting a biological concept of
Match 157 (1): Reference (007869 .. 007911, of 8208):	Subject (005489 .. 005528, of 5908):
Professor Behe under 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	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
Match 158 (1): Reference (007915 .. 007961, of 8208):	Subject (005533 .. 005579, of 5908):
that there were 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	that there are 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 159 (1): Reference (007965 .. 007988, of 8208):	Subject (005584 .. 005608, of 5908):
there are no peer reviewed articles supporting Professor Behe s argument that certain complex molecular structures are irreducibly complex 21 62 22 124 25	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
Match 160 (1): Reference (008080 .. 008096, of 8208):	Subject (005622 .. 005638, of 5908):
also features no scientific research or testing 28 114 115 Fuller 18 22 23 105 106 Behe	also features no scientific research or testing 28 114 15 Fuller 18 22 23 105 06 Behe
Match 161 (1): Reference (008120 .. 008139, of 8208):	Subject (005686 .. 005705, of 5908):
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
Match 162 (1): Reference (008163 .. 008175, of 8208):	Subject (000020 .. 000032, of 5908):
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

Run Lengths: 
0001 : 10556
0010 : 18
0011 : 11
0012 : 9
0013 : 8
0014 : 8
0015 : 4
0016 : 9
0017 : 6
0018 : 7
0019 : 6
0020 : 9
0021 : 4
0022 : 2
0023 : 4
0024 : 4
0025 : 1
0026 : 3
0027 : 6
0028 : 2
0029 : 1
0030 : 3
0032 : 1
0033 : 2
0034 : 2
0035 : 3
0036 : 1
0037 : 4
0040 : 1
0041 : 2
0042 : 1
0043 : 3
0047 : 1
0048 : 1
0049 : 1
0050 : 1
0055 : 1
0058 : 2
0060 : 1
0062 : 1
0067 : 1
0073 : 1
0078 : 1
0081 : 1
0088 : 1
0109 : 1
0112 : 1
0139 : 1

Runmin=10, Wordskip=4, Anchormin=6, Smallword=4, Wordratio=0.7

About 3960 words out of 8209 words (48 %) in pf-science.txt are due to jones-science.txt
pf-science.txt,8209,jones-science.txt,5909,162,3960,48
Tue Dec 19 10:11:15 PST 2006
Processing time: 26 seconds.