Wed Dec 20 09:35:40 PST 2006
There are 4700 lines in ppfof_full.txt
There are 702 lines in decfull.txt
There are 36359 words in ppfof_full.txt
There are 34107 words in decfull.txt
34107 < 34108

Match 1 (1): Reference (000344 .. 000359, of 36359):	Subject (024572 .. 024586, of 34107):
June 2004 Board Meetings Buckingham and Other Board Members Spoke Out in Favor of Teaching Creationism	June 2004 Board Meetings Buckingham and Other Board Members Spoke in Favor of Teaching Creationism
Match 2 (1): Reference (000389 .. 000400, of 36359):	Subject (026374 .. 026382, of 34107):
July 2004 Buckingham Contacted Rchard Thompson of the Thomas More Law Center	July 2004 Buckingham contacted the Thomas More Law Center
Match 3 (1): Reference (000439 .. 000452, of 36359):	Subject (026554 .. 026568, of 34107):
August 2004 Buckingham and Others Tried to Prevent Purchase of the Standard Biology Textbook	August 2004 Buckingham and Other Board Members Tried to Prevent Purchase of Standard Biology Textbook
Match 4 (1): Reference (000477 .. 000493, of 36359):	Subject (027200 .. 027214, of 34107):
August 30 2004 The Board Curriculum Committee Forced Pandas on the Teachers as a Reference Text O	August 30 2004 Board Curriculum Committee Forced Pandas on the Teachers as Reference Text On
Match 5 (1): Reference (000511 .. 000522, of 36359):	Subject (028075 .. 028085, of 34107):
P October 7 2004 The Board Curriculum Committee Drafted the Curriculum Change	Policy m October 7 2004 Board Curriculum Committee Drafted Curriculum Change
Match 6 (1): Reference (001044 .. 001054, of 36359):	Subject (005058 .. 005068, of 34107):
who has written extensively on the subject of evolution and religion	who has written extensively on the subject of evolution and religion
Match 7 (1): Reference (001104 .. 001165, of 36359):	Subject (005079 .. 005144, of 34107):
is not a new scientific argument but rather an old religious argument for the existence of God This argument traces back at least to Thomas Aquinas in the 13 th century who framed the argument as a syllogism Wherever complex design exists there must have been a designer nature is complex therefore nature must have had an intelligent designer 9 1 Haught	is not a new scientific argument but is rather an old religious argument for the existence of God He traced this argument back to at least Thomas Aquinas in the 13 th century who framed the argument as a syllogism Wherever complex design exists there must have been a designer nature is complex therefore nature must have had an intelligent designer Trial Tr vol 9 Haught
Match 8 (1): Reference (001166 .. 001181, of 36359):	Subject (005151 .. 005166, of 34107):
Dr Haught testified that Aquinas was explicit that this intelligent designer everyone understands to be God	Dr Haught testified that Aquinas was explicit that this intelligent designer everyone understands to be God
Match 9 (1): Reference (001185 .. 001196, of 36359):	Subject (005168 .. 005179, of 34107):
The syllogism described by Dr Haught is essentially the same argument for	The syllogism described by Dr Haught is essentially the same argument for
Match 10 (1): Reference (001199 .. 001235, of 36359):	Subject (005182 .. 005220, of 34107):
presented by Professors Behe and Minnich employing the phrase purposeful arrangement of parts o 3 Dr Haught testified that this argument for the existence of God was advanced early in the 19 th Century by Reverend Paley	presented by defense expert witnesses Professors Behe and Minnich who employ the phrase purposeful arrangement of parts Dr Haught testified that this argument for the existence of God was advanced early in the 19 th century by Reverend Paley
Match 11 (1): Reference (001251 .. 001265, of 36359):	Subject (005234 .. 005249, of 34107):
based on purposeful arrangement of parts is the same one that Paley made for design	based on the purposeful arrangement of parts is the same one that Paley made for design
Match 12 (1): Reference (001305 .. 001320, of 36359):	Subject (005272 .. 005288, of 34107):
o 4 The only apparent difference between the argument made by Paley and the argument for	Nov 4 2005 The only apparent difference between the argument made by Paley and the argument for
Match 13 (1): Reference (001318 .. 001328, of 36359):	Subject (018907 .. 018924, of 34107):
the argument for intelligent design as expressed by Behe and Minnich	the purportedly positive argument for design encompassed in the phrase used numerous times by Professors Behe and Minnich
Match 14 (1): Reference (001333 .. 001344, of 36359):	Subject (005302 .. 005313, of 34107):
s official position does not acknowledge that the designer is God However	s official position does not acknowledge that the designer is God However
Match 15 (1): Reference (001354 .. 001373, of 36359):	Subject (005315 .. 005335, of 34107):
Dr Haught testified anyone familiar with western religious thought would immediately make the association that the unnamed designer is God	Dr Haught testified anyone familiar with Western religious thought would immediately make the association that the tactically unnamed designer is God
Match 16 (1): Reference (001377 .. 001386, of 36359):	Subject (005338 .. 005352, of 34107):
description of the designer in Pandas as a master intellect	description of the designer in Of Pandas and People hereinafter Pandas is a master intellect
Match 17 (1): Reference (001395 .. 001405, of 36359):	Subject (005361 .. 005371, of 34107):
any intelligent actor known to exist in the natural world Professors	any intelligent actor known to exist in the natural world P
Match 18 (1): Reference (001413 .. 001431, of 36359):	Subject (005386 .. 005405, of 34107):
their personal view that the designer is God and Professor Minnich testified that he understands many leading advocates of	their personal view is that the designer is God and Professor Minnich testified that he understands many leading advocates of
Match 19 (1): Reference (001466 .. 001482, of 36359):	Subject (005422 .. 005441, of 34107):
proponents occasionally suggest that the designer could be a space alien or a time traveling cell biologist	proponents of the IDM occasionally suggest that the designer could be a space alien or a time traveling cell biologist
Match 20 (1): Reference (001506 .. 001550, of 36359):	Subject (005489 .. 005527, of 34107):
is made explicit in Pandas when it asks rhetorically what kind of intelligent agent was it the designer and answers On its own science cannot answer this question It must leave it to religion and philosophy P11 at 7 emphasis added 9 13 14 Haught	is Pandas rhetorical statement what kind of intelligent agent was it the designer and answer On its own science cannot answer this question It must leave it to religion and philosophy P 11 at 7 9 13 14 Haught
Match 21 (1): Reference (001600 .. 001614, of 36359):	Subject (005557 .. 005570, of 34107):
proponents similarly reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity	proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity
Match 22 (1): Reference (001653 .. 001666, of 36359):	Subject (005585 .. 005610, of 34107):
Creationism s Trojan Horse and other writings and for her testimony in this case	Creationism s Trojan Horse She has thoroughly and exhaustively chronicled the history of ID in her book and other writings for her testimony in this case
Match 23 (1): Reference (001694 .. 001704, of 36359):	Subject (005632 .. 005646, of 34107):
s religious philosophical and cultural content The following are representative a	s religious philosophical and cultural content The following is a representative grouping of such statements
Match 24 (1): Reference (001706 .. 001716, of 36359):	Subject (005682 .. 005696, of 34107):
Johnson has written that theistic realism or mere creation are the	on Trial has written that theistic realism or mere creation are defining concepts of the
Match 25 (1): Reference (001706 .. 001720, of 36359):	Subject (005682 .. 005696, of 34107):
Johnson has written that theistic realism or mere creation are the defining concepts of the	on Trial has written that theistic realism or mere creation are defining concepts of the
Match 26 (1): Reference (001724 .. 001741, of 36359):	Subject (005698 .. 005720, of 34107):
This means that God is objectively real as Creator and recorded in the biological evidence 10 80 81	This means that God is objectively real as Creator and recorded in the biological evidence Trial Tr vol 10 Forrest Test 80 81
Match 27 (1): Reference (001724 .. 001742, of 36359):	Subject (005698 .. 005717, of 34107):
This means that God is objectively real as Creator and recorded in the biological evidence 10 80 81 Forrest	This means that God is objectively real as Creator and recorded in the biological evidence Trial Tr vol 10 Forrest
Match 28 (1): Reference (001745 .. 001793, of 36359):	Subject (005728 .. 005776, of 34107):
Phillip Johnson states that the Darwinian theory of evolution contradicts not just the Book of Genesis but every word in the Bible from beginning to end It contradicts the idea that we are here because a creator brought about our existence for a purpose 11 16 17 Forrest P524	Phillip Johnson states that the Darwinian theory of evolution contradicts not just the Book of Genesis but every word in the Bible from beginning to end It contradicts the idea that we are here because a creator brought about our existence for a purpose 11 16 17 Forrest P
Match 29 (1): Reference (001797 .. 001846, of 36359):	Subject (005781 .. 005831, of 34107):
proponents Johnson William Dembski and Charles Thaxton one of the editors of Pandas situate intelligent design in the Book of John in the New Testament of the Bible which begins In the Beginning was the Word and the Word was God 11 18 20 54 55 Forrest P524 P355 P357	proponents Johnson William Dembski and Charles Thaxton one of the editors of Pandas situate ID in the Book of John in the New Testament of the Bible which begins In the Beginning was the Word and the Word was God 11 18 20 54 55 Forrest P 524 P 355 P
Match 30 (1): Reference (001813 .. 001851, of 36359):	Subject (005796 .. 005836, of 34107):
in the Book of John in the New Testament of the Bible which begins In the Beginning was the Word and the Word was God 11 18 20 54 55 Forrest P524 P355 P357 Professor Dembski has written that	in the Book of John in the New Testament of the Bible which begins In the Beginning was the Word and the Word was God 11 18 20 54 55 Forrest P 524 P 355 P 357 Dembski has written that
Match 31 (1): Reference (001876 .. 001913, of 36359):	Subject (005833 .. 005872, of 34107):
Dembski has written that ID is a ground clearing operation to allow Christianity to receive serious consideration and Christ is never an addendum to a scientific theory but always a completion 11 50 53 Forrest P386 P390 o	Dembski has written that ID is a ground clearing operation to allow Christianity to receive serious consideration and Christ is never an addendum to a scientific theory but always a completion 11 50 53 Forrest P 386 P 390 Moreover
Match 32 (1): Reference (001980 .. 001989, of 36359):	Subject (005913 .. 005925, of 34107):
Professor Behe claims that the plausibility of the argument for	Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for
Match 33 (1): Reference (001992 .. 002007, of 36359):	Subject (005927 .. 005943, of 34107):
depends on the extent to which one believes in the existence of God P718 at 705	depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God P 718 at 705
Match 34 (1): Reference (001992 .. 002026, of 36359):	Subject (005927 .. 005964, of 34107):
depends on the extent to which one believes in the existence of God P718 at 705 There is no evidence in the record that any other scientific proposition s validity rests on belief in God	depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God P 718 at 705 emphasis added As no evidence in the record indicates that any other scientific proposition s validity rests on belief in God
Match 35 (1): Reference (002075 .. 002093, of 36359):	Subject (006021 .. 006041, of 34107):
the Wedge Document which was developed by the Discovery Institute s Center for Renewal of Science and Culture CRSC	the Wedge Document The Wedge Document developed by the Discovery Institute s Center for Renewal of Science and Culture hereinafter CRSC
Match 36 (1): Reference (002099 .. 002108, of 36359):	Subject (006041 .. 006052, of 34107):
CRSC represents from an institutional standpoint the goals and objectives	CRSC represents from an institutional standpoint the IDM s goals and objectives
Match 37 (1): Reference (002114 .. 002128, of 36359):	Subject (006053 .. 006072, of 34107):
much as the Institute for Creation Research did for the earlier creationists discussed in McLean	much as writings from the Institute for Creation Research did for the earlier creation science movement as discussed in McLean
Match 38 (1): Reference (002171 .. 002183, of 36359):	Subject (006083 .. 006095, of 34107):
The Wedge Document states in its Five Year Strategic Plan Summary that the	The Wedge Document states in its Five Year Strategic Plan Summary that the
Match 39 (1): Reference (002187 .. 002203, of 36359):	Subject (006097 .. 006114, of 34107):
s goal is to replace science as currently practiced with theistic and Christian science P140 at 6	s goal is to replace science as currently practiced with theistic and Christian science P 140 at 6
Match 40 (1): Reference (002253 .. 002284, of 36359):	Subject (006126 .. 006159, of 34107):
are to defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral cultural and political legacies and to replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God P140	are to defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral cultural and political legacies and to replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God Id at 4
Match 41 (1): Reference (002290 .. 002304, of 36359):	Subject (006183 .. 006189, of 34107):
scientific goals but rather cultural and religious goals Similar language is found throughout the document	s goals and language throughout the document
Match 42 (1): Reference (002338 .. 002374, of 36359):	Subject (006242 .. 006280, of 34107):
is religious because it involves a supernatural designer The Edwards and McLean courts expressly found that this characteristic removed creationism from the realm of science and made it a religious proposition Edwards v Aguillard 482 U S	s religious nature is evident because it involves a supernatural designer The courts in Edwards and McLean expressly found that this characteristic removed creationism from the realm of science and made it a religious proposition Edwards 482 U S
Match 43 (1): Reference (002412 .. 002436, of 36359):	Subject (006434 .. 006458, of 34107):
concluded that science must be redefined to include the supernatural if religious challenges to evolution are to get a hearing 11 8 15 Forrest P429	concluded that science must be redefined to include the supernatural if religious challenges to evolution are to get a hearing 11 8 15 Forrest P
Match 44 (1): Reference (002488 .. 002504, of 36359):	Subject (006462 .. 006478, of 34107):
agrees that science is ruled by methodological naturalism and argues that this rule must be overturned if	agrees that science is ruled by methodological naturalism and argues that this rule must be overturned if
Match 45 (1): Reference (002534 .. 002557, of 36359):	Subject (016372 .. 016396, of 34107):
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 46 (1): Reference (002575 .. 002607, of 36359):	Subject (006329 .. 006364, of 34107):
he means not designed by the laws of nature and that it is implausible that the designer is a natural entity P647 at 193 P718 at 696 700 Professor Minnich testified that for	he means not designed by the laws of nature and that it is implausible that the designer is a natural entity P 647 at 193 P 718 at 696 700 Second Professor Minnich testified that for
Match 47 (1): Reference (002610 .. 002625, of 36359):	Subject (006366 .. 006381, of 34107):
to be considered science the ground rules of science have to be broadened so that supernatural	to be considered science the ground rules of science have to be broadened so that supernatural
Match 48 (1): Reference (002641 .. 002656, of 36359):	Subject (006399 .. 006419, of 34107):
s project to change the ground rules of science to include the supernatural 28 20 24	s project to change the ground rules of science to include the supernatural Trial Tr vol 28 Fuller Test 20 24
Match 49 (1): Reference (002666 .. 002675, of 36359):	Subject (006524 .. 006533, of 34107):
that there are two kinds of causes natural and intelligent	that there are two kinds of causes natural and intelligent
Match 50 (1): Reference (002678 .. 002688, of 36359):	Subject (006536 .. 006547, of 34107):
that intelligent causes are beyond nature P11 at 6 Professor Haught	that intelligent causes are beyond nature P 11 at 6 Professor Haught
Match 51 (1): Reference (002689 .. 002720, of 36359):	Subject (006552 .. 006589, of 34107):
the only theologian to testify in this case explained that in Western intellectual tradition non natural causes occupy a space reserved for ultimate religious explanations 9 13 14 Robert Pennock the scientific	the only theologian to testify in this case explained that in Western intellectual tradition non natural causes occupy a space reserved for ultimate religious explanations 9 13 14 Haught Robert Pennock Plaintiffs expert in the philosophy of science
Match 52 (1): Reference (002727 .. 002748, of 36359):	Subject (006596 .. 006617, of 34107):
that because its basic proposition is that the features of the natural world are produced by a transcendent immaterial non natural being	that because its basic proposition is that the features of the natural world are produced by a transcendent immaterial non natural being
Match 53 (1): Reference (002751 .. 002770, of 36359):	Subject (006619 .. 006638, of 34107):
is a religious proposition regardless of whether that religious proposition is given a recognized religious label 5 55 56 Pennock	is a religious proposition regardless of whether that religious proposition is given a recognized religious label 5 55 56 Pennock
Match 54 (1): Reference (002882 .. 002902, of 36359):	Subject (006796 .. 006819, of 34107):
FTE s Articles of Incorporation and filings with the Internal Revenue Service describe it as a religious Christian organization P461 P28	FTE as noted whose articles of incorporation and filings with the Internal Revenue Service describe it as a religious Christian organization P 461 P
Match 55 (1): Reference (003061 .. 003072, of 36359):	Subject (006832 .. 006843, of 34107):
Pandas was written by Dean Kenyon and Percival Davis both acknowledged creationists	Pandas was written by Dean Kenyon and Percival Davis both acknowledged creationists
Match 56 (1): Reference (003226 .. 003253, of 36359):	Subject (007036 .. 007063, of 34107):
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	various forms of life that began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive features intact fish with fins and scales birds with feathers beaks and wings etc
Match 57 (1): Reference (003254 .. 003264, of 36359):	Subject (007103 .. 007117, of 34107):
P11 at 99 100 This was described by many witnesses for	11 at 99 100 P 856 2 This definition was described by many witnesses for
Match 58 (1): Reference (003270 .. 003294, of 36359):	Subject (007124 .. 007147, of 34107):
Minnich and Steven Fuller as special creation of kinds of animals an inherently religious and creationist concept 28 85 86 Fuller Minnich Dep at 34	Minnich and Fuller as special creation of kinds of animals an inherently religious and creationist concept 28 85 86 Fuller Minnich Dep at 34
Match 59 (1): Reference (003314 .. 003331, of 36359):	Subject (007176 .. 007193, of 34107):
Professor Behe s assertion that this passage was merely a description of appearances in the fossil record is	Professor Behe s assertion that this passage was merely a description of appearances in the fossil record is
Match 60 (1): Reference (003358 .. 003383, of 36359):	Subject (007203 .. 007229, of 34107):
rather a conclusion about how life began based on an interpretation of the fossil record This is reinforced by the content of the drafts of Pandas	the passage is a conclusion about how life began based upon an interpretation of the fossil record which is reinforced by the content of drafts of Pandas
Match 61 (1): Reference (003418 .. 003437, of 36359):	Subject (006912 .. 006928, of 34107):
points emerge from this comparison 1 the definition for creation science in early drafts is identical to the definition of	points emerge 1 the definition for creation science in early drafts is identical to the definition of
Match 62 (1): Reference (003440 .. 003449, of 36359):	Subject (006930 .. 006940, of 34107):
2 cognates of the word creation creationism and creationist are	2 cognates of the word creation creationism and creationist which appeared
Match 63 (1): Reference (003455 .. 003482, of 36359):	Subject (006953 .. 006981, of 34107):
and 3 the changes occurred shortly after the Supreme Court held in Edwards that creation science is religious and cannot be taught in public school science classes o	and 3 the changes occurred shortly after the Supreme Court held that creation science is religious and cannot be taught in public school science classes in Edwards This word
Match 64 (1): Reference (003531 .. 003567, of 36359):	Subject (007034 .. 007068, of 34107):
defined in these drafts as various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive features already intact fish with fins and scales birds with feathers beaks and wings etc the same way intelligent	defined as various forms of life that began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive features intact fish with fins and scales birds with feathers beaks and wings etc the very same way in
Match 65 (1): Reference (003569 .. 003588, of 36359):	Subject (007071 .. 007099, of 34107):
is defined in the published versions P560 at 210 P1 at 2 13 P562 at 2 14 2015 P652 at	is defined in the subsequent published versions P 560 at 210 P 1 at 2 13 P 562 at 2 14 P 652 at 2 15 P 6 at
Match 66 (1): Reference (003663 .. 003684, of 36359):	Subject (007230 .. 007259, of 34107):
The evidence demonstrates that the change from creation to intelligent design occurred sometime in 1987 after the Supreme Court s Edwards decision	The weight of the evidence clearly demonstrates as noted that the systemic change from creation to intelligent design occurred sometime in 1987 after the Supreme Court s important Edwards decision
Match 67 (1): Reference (003934 .. 003951, of 36359):	Subject (007379 .. 007399, of 34107):
Dr Forrest testified and sponsored exhibits showing six arguments common to creationists 10 140 48 Forrest P856 1	Dr Forrest testified and sponsored exhibits showing six arguments common to creationists 10 140 48 Forrest P 856 5 856 10
Match 68 (1): Reference (003955 .. 003976, of 36359):	Subject (007495 .. 007516, of 34107):
creationists made the same argument that the complexity of the bacterial flagellum supported creationism as Professors Behe and Minnich now make for	creationists made the same argument that the complexity of the bacterial flagellum supported creationism as Professors Behe and Minnich now make for
Match 69 (1): Reference (003989 .. 004014, of 36359):	Subject (007528 .. 007553, of 34107):
openly welcomes adherents to creationism into its Big Tent urging them to postpone biblical disputes like the age of the earth 11 3 15 Forrest P429	openly welcomes adherents to creationism into its Big Tent urging them to postpone biblical disputes like the age of the earth 11 3 15 Forrest P
Match 70 (1): Reference (004073 .. 004087, of 36359):	Subject (007616 .. 007627, of 34107):
is not creationism but their testimony on this subject was primarily by way of assertion	is not creationism their testimony was primarily by way of bare assertion
Match 71 (1): Reference (004092 .. 004110, of 36359):	Subject (007632 .. 007650, of 34107):
directly rebut the creationist history of Pandas or other evidence presented by plaintiffs showing the commonality between creationism and	directly rebut the creationist history of Pandas or other evidence presented by Plaintiffs showing the commonality between creationism and
Match 72 (1): Reference (004125 .. 004149, of 36359):	Subject (007662 .. 007686, of 34107):
was the assertion that the term creationism applies only to arguments based on the Book of Genesis a young earth and a catastrophic Noaich flood	was their assertion that the term creationism applies only to arguments based on the Book of Genesis a young earth and a catastrophic Noaich flood
Match 73 (1): Reference (004156 .. 004174, of 36359):	Subject (007691 .. 007709, of 34107):
that this is only one form of creationism including the chart that was distributed to the Board Curriculum Committee	that this is only one form of creationism including the chart that was distributed to the Board Curriculum Committee
Match 74 (1): Reference (004175 .. 004187, of 36359):	Subject (007716 .. 007727, of 34107):
P149 at 2 See also 10 129 32 Forrest P555 at 22 24	149 at 2 10 129 32 Forrest P 555 at 22 24
Match 75 (1): Reference (004533 .. 004552, of 36359):	Subject (015399 .. 015422, of 34107):
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 76 (1): Reference (004553 .. 004567, of 36359):	Subject (015417 .. 015436, of 34107):
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 77 (1): Reference (004571 .. 004591, of 36359):	Subject (015453 .. 015478, of 34107):
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 78 (1): Reference (004658 .. 004719, of 36359):	Subject (015483 .. 015549, of 34107):
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 79 (1): Reference (004745 .. 004781, of 36359):	Subject (015542 .. 015581, of 34107):
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 80 (1): Reference (004788 .. 004800, of 36359):	Subject (015582 .. 015594, of 34107):
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 81 (1): Reference (004788 .. 004820, of 36359):	Subject (015582 .. 015616, of 34107):
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 82 (1): Reference (004822 .. 004844, of 36359):	Subject (015615 .. 015638, of 34107):
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 83 (1): Reference (004822 .. 004870, of 36359):	Subject (015615 .. 015660, of 34107):
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 84 (1): Reference (004897 .. 004917, of 36359):	Subject (015669 .. 015695, of 34107):
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 85 (1): Reference (004919 .. 004936, of 36359):	Subject (015697 .. 015715, of 34107):
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 86 (1): Reference (004954 .. 004964, of 36359):	Subject (015718 .. 015729, of 34107):
National Academy of Sciences NAS was recognized by experts for both	National Academy of Sciences hereinafter NAS was recognized by experts for both
Match 87 (1): Reference (004966 .. 004975, of 36359):	Subject (015731 .. 015739, of 34107):
as being the most prestigious scientific association in this country	as the most prestigious scientific association in this country
Match 88 (1): Reference (004987 .. 004996, of 36359):	Subject (015751 .. 015762, of 34107):
160 61 Miller 14 72 Alters 37 31 Minnich Accordingly	160 61 Miller 14 72 Alters 37 31 Minnich NAS is in
Match 89 (1): Reference (005008 .. 005088, of 36359):	Subject (015760 .. 015842, of 34107):
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 90 (1): Reference (005122 .. 005131, of 36359):	Subject (015843 .. 015852, of 34107):
This rigorous attachment to natural explanations is an essential attribute	This rigorous attachment to natural explanations is an essential attribute
Match 91 (1): Reference (005158 .. 005168, of 36359):	Subject (015500 .. 015513, of 34107):
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 92 (1): Reference (005276 .. 005302, of 36359):	Subject (015878 .. 015904, of 34107):
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 93 (1): Reference (005276 .. 005333, of 36359):	Subject (015878 .. 015943, of 34107):
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 94 (1): Reference (005354 .. 005376, of 36359):	Subject (015967 .. 015990, of 34107):
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 95 (1): Reference (005407 .. 005473, of 36359):	Subject (016024 .. 016091, of 34107):
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 96 (1): Reference (005477 .. 005497, of 36359):	Subject (016098 .. 016118, of 34107):
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 97 (1): Reference (005477 .. 005510, of 36359):	Subject (016098 .. 016127, of 34107):
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 98 (1): Reference (005519 .. 005558, of 36359):	Subject (016130 .. 016172, of 34107):
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 99 (1): Reference (005565 .. 005579, of 36359):	Subject (010216 .. 010231, of 34107):
that of the intelligent design movement is to change the ground rules of science to	presentation of the disclaimer including school administrators making a special appearance in the science classrooms to
Match 100 (1): Reference (005571 .. 005586, of 36359):	Subject (016185 .. 016200, of 34107):
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 101 (1): Reference (005606 .. 005616, of 36359):	Subject (016252 .. 016262, of 34107):
Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science which encompasses	Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science which encompasses
Match 102 (1): Reference (005619 .. 005631, of 36359):	Subject (016264 .. 016282, of 34107):
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 103 (1): Reference (005634 .. 005646, of 36359):	Subject (006366 .. 006378, of 34107):
to be considered science the ground rules of science have to be broadened	to be considered science the ground rules of science have to be broadened
Match 104 (1): Reference (005634 .. 005651, of 36359):	Subject (016284 .. 016301, of 34107):
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 105 (1): Reference (005663 .. 005680, of 36359):	Subject (016342 .. 016359, of 34107):
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 106 (1): Reference (005710 .. 005733, of 36359):	Subject (016372 .. 016396, of 34107):
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 107 (1): Reference (005772 .. 005793, of 36359):	Subject (006139 .. 006160, of 34107):
and to replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God P140 at 6 The	and to replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God Id at 4 The
Match 108 (1): Reference (005801 .. 005810, of 36359):	Subject (016505 .. 016514, of 34107):
Every major scientific association that has taken a position on	every major scientific association that has taken a position on
Match 109 (1): Reference (005825 .. 005836, of 36359):	Subject (016534 .. 016547, of 34107):
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 110 (1): Reference (005844 .. 005955, of 36359):	Subject (016560 .. 016672, of 34107):
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 111 (1): Reference (005999 .. 006035, of 36359):	Subject (016698 .. 016734, of 34107):
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 112 (1): Reference (006054 .. 006064, of 36359):	Subject (016749 .. 016758, of 34107):
identified a single major scientific association society or organization that endorsed	identified one major scientific association society or organization that endorsed
Match 113 (1): Reference (006078 .. 006089, of 36359):	Subject (016770 .. 016781, of 34107):
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 114 (1): Reference (006176 .. 006217, of 36359):	Subject (016834 .. 016873, of 34107):
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 115 (1): Reference (006218 .. 006232, of 36359):	Subject (016879 .. 016893, of 34107):
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 116 (1): Reference (006235 .. 006244, of 36359):	Subject (016896 .. 016906, of 34107):
s failure to meet the ground rules of science is	s fa ilure to meet the ground rules of science is
Match 117 (1): Reference (006277 .. 006291, of 36359):	Subject (016944 .. 016960, of 34107):
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 118 (1): Reference (006312 .. 006323, of 36359):	Subject (016987 .. 016998, of 34107):
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 119 (1): Reference (006334 .. 006345, of 36359):	Subject (017071 .. 017083, of 34107):
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 120 (1): Reference (006349 .. 006358, of 36359):	Subject (017083 .. 017092, of 34107):
proponents primarily argue for design through negative argument against evolution	proponents primarily argue for design through negative arguments against evolution
Match 121 (1): Reference (006360 .. 006394, of 36359):	Subject (017096 .. 017130, of 34107):
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 122 (1): Reference (006662 .. 006689, of 36359):	Subject (017150 .. 017178, of 34107):
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 123 (1): Reference (006695 .. 006704, of 36359):	Subject (017184 .. 017193, of 34107):
absence of evidence is not evidence of absence 17 45	absence of evidence is not evidence of absence 17 45
Match 124 (1): Reference (006714 .. 006743, of 36359):	Subject (017207 .. 017238, of 34107):
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 125 (1): Reference (006773 .. 006789, of 36359):	Subject (017244 .. 017260, of 34107):
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 126 (1): Reference (006919 .. 006932, of 36359):	Subject (018148 .. 018156, of 34107):
fact Professor Fuller testified that even if the negative argument of irreducible complexity disproved	fact that the negative argument of irreducible complexity is
Match 127 (1): Reference (006975 .. 007015, of 36359):	Subject (017281 .. 017325, of 34107):
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 128 (1): Reference (007043 .. 007181, of 36359):	Subject (017349 .. 017492, of 34107):
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 129 (1): Reference (007193 .. 007242, of 36359):	Subject (017497 .. 017550, of 34107):
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 130 (1): Reference (007242 .. 007296, of 36359):	Subject (017545 .. 017600, of 34107):
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 131 (1): Reference (007300 .. 007315, of 36359):	Subject (017602 .. 017617, of 34107):
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 132 (1): Reference (007326 .. 007344, of 36359):	Subject (017642 .. 017660, of 34107):
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 133 (1): Reference (007361 .. 007380, of 36359):	Subject (017666 .. 017687, of 34107):
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 134 (1): Reference (007382 .. 007407, of 36359):	Subject (017689 .. 017714, of 34107):
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 135 (1): Reference (007409 .. 007422, of 36359):	Subject (017716 .. 017730, of 34107):
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 136 (1): Reference (007424 .. 007433, of 36359):	Subject (017732 .. 017743, of 34107):
example in the case of the bacterial flagellum as a	example in the case of the bacterial flagellum removal of a part
Match 137 (1): Reference (007453 .. 007462, of 36359):	Subject (017732 .. 017743, of 34107):
example in the case of the bacterial flagellum as a	example in the case of the bacterial flagellum removal of a part
Match 138 (1): Reference (007471 .. 007489, of 36359):	Subject (017794 .. 017812, of 34107):
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 139 (1): Reference (007605 .. 007692, of 36359):	Subject (017813 .. 017900, of 34107):
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 140 (1): Reference (007785 .. 007805, of 36359):	Subject (017902 .. 017923, of 34107):
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 141 (1): Reference (007831 .. 007840, of 36359):	Subject (017938 .. 017948, of 34107):
has rejected Professor Behe s claim for irreducible complexity using	has rejected Professor Behe s claim for irreducible complexity by using
Match 142 (1): Reference (007843 .. 007915, of 36359):	Subject (017952 .. 018024, of 34107):
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 143 (1): Reference (007935 .. 008012, of 36359):	Subject (018025 .. 018105, of 34107):
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 144 (1): Reference (008014 .. 008036, of 36359):	Subject (018172 .. 018200, of 34107):
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 145 (1): Reference (008040 .. 008049, of 36359):	Subject (020808 .. 020817, of 34107):
Professor Behe has admitted there are no peer reviewed articles	Professor Behe admitted that There are no peer reviewed articles
Match 146 (1): Reference (008056 .. 008067, of 36359):	Subject (018188 .. 018203, of 34107):
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 147 (1): Reference (008090 .. 008115, of 36359):	Subject (018114 .. 018144, of 34107):
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 148 (1): Reference (008120 .. 008129, of 36359):	Subject (018151 .. 018164, of 34107):
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 149 (1): Reference (008142 .. 008152, of 36359):	Subject (018221 .. 018231, of 34107):
Dr Miller presented evidence based on peer reviewed studies that the	Dr Miller presented evidence based upon peer reviewed studies that they
Match 150 (1): Reference (008173 .. 008208, of 36359):	Subject (018245 .. 018281, of 34107):
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 151 (1): Reference (008212 .. 008252, of 36359):	Subject (018285 .. 018326, of 34107):
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 152 (1): Reference (008268 .. 008300, of 36359):	Subject (018347 .. 018381, of 34107):
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 153 (1): Reference (008374 .. 008393, of 36359):	Subject (018391 .. 018410, of 34107):
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 154 (1): Reference (008395 .. 008454, of 36359):	Subject (018412 .. 018475, of 34107):
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 155 (1): Reference (008457 .. 008476, of 36359):	Subject (018478 .. 018498, of 34107):
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 156 (1): Reference (008505 .. 008520, of 36359):	Subject (018515 .. 018533, of 34107):
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 157 (1): Reference (008527 .. 008546, of 36359):	Subject (018601 .. 018622, of 34107):
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 158 (1): Reference (008569 .. 008579, of 36359):	Subject (018580 .. 018588, of 34107):
at the time but that in fact natural explanations were impossible	at the time but that natural explanations were impossible
Match 159 (1): Reference (008641 .. 008672, of 36359):	Subject (018619 .. 018650, of 34107):
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 160 (1): Reference (008674 .. 008690, of 36359):	Subject (018652 .. 018668, of 34107):
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 161 (1): Reference (008692 .. 008713, of 36359):	Subject (018670 .. 018689, of 34107):
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 162 (1): Reference (008724 .. 008741, of 36359):	Subject (018691 .. 018711, of 34107):
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 163 (1): Reference (008751 .. 008764, of 36359):	Subject (018722 .. 018739, of 34107):
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 164 (1): Reference (008779 .. 008794, of 36359):	Subject (018746 .. 018761, of 34107):
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 165 (1): Reference (008823 .. 008832, of 36359):	Subject (018793 .. 018802, of 34107):
that the proposed test could not approximate real world conditions	that the proposed test could not approximate real world conditions
Match 166 (1): Reference (008848 .. 008867, of 36359):	Subject (017292 .. 017317, of 34107):
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 167 (1): Reference (008879 .. 008908, of 36359):	Subject (018836 .. 018867, of 34107):
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 168 (1): Reference (008910 .. 008922, of 36359):	Subject (018869 .. 018881, of 34107):
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 169 (1): Reference (008941 .. 008952, of 36359):	Subject (018884 .. 018898, of 34107):
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 170 (1): Reference (009009 .. 009022, of 36359):	Subject (005183 .. 005198, of 34107):
by Professors Behe and Minnich is encompassed in the phrase purposeful arrangement of parts	by defense expert witnesses Professors Behe and Minnich who employ the phrase purposeful arrangement of parts
Match 171 (1): Reference (009113 .. 009122, of 36359):	Subject (019649 .. 019661, of 34107):
that the positive inductive argument for design is in the	at 705 Accordingly the purported positive argument for ID does not satisfy the
Match 172 (1): Reference (009120 .. 009228, of 36359):	Subject (018930 .. 019037, of 34107):
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 173 (1): Reference (009249 .. 009262, of 36359):	Subject (019048 .. 019061, of 34107):
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 174 (1): Reference (009270 .. 009312, of 36359):	Subject (019062 .. 019103, of 34107):
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 175 (1): Reference (009326 .. 009336, of 36359):	Subject (019126 .. 019137, of 34107):
Professor Behe admitted it can never be ruled out 22 101	Professor Behe can never be ruled out 2 40 Miller 22 101
Match 176 (1): Reference (009345 .. 009367, of 36359):	Subject (019144 .. 019166, of 34107):
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 177 (1): Reference (009372 .. 009382, of 36359):	Subject (019167 .. 019177, of 34107):
because we are able to recognize design of artifacts and objects	Because we are able to recognize design of artifacts and objects
Match 178 (1): Reference (009383 .. 009419, of 36359):	Subject (019182 .. 019217, of 34107):
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 179 (1): Reference (009429 .. 009471, of 36359):	Subject (019225 .. 019264, of 34107):
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 180 (1): Reference (009529 .. 009542, of 36359):	Subject (019265 .. 019279, of 34107):
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 181 (1): Reference (009544 .. 009556, of 36359):	Subject (019281 .. 019293, of 34107):
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 182 (1): Reference (009571 .. 009582, of 36359):	Subject (019312 .. 019323, of 34107):
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 183 (1): Reference (009587 .. 009612, of 36359):	Subject (019327 .. 019353, of 34107):
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 184 (1): Reference (009613 .. 009628, of 36359):	Subject (019359 .. 019373, of 34107):
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 185 (1): Reference (009621 .. 009633, of 36359):	Subject (019266 .. 019276, of 34107):
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 186 (1): Reference (009638 .. 009662, of 36359):	Subject (019381 .. 019410, of 34107):
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 187 (1): Reference (009680 .. 009697, of 36359):	Subject (019419 .. 019436, of 34107):
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 188 (1): Reference (009699 .. 009722, of 36359):	Subject (019438 .. 019463, of 34107):
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 189 (1): Reference (009726 .. 009755, of 36359):	Subject (019473 .. 019506, of 34107):
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 190 (1): Reference (009833 .. 009861, of 36359):	Subject (019507 .. 019533, of 34107):
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 191 (1): Reference (009859 .. 009906, of 36359):	Subject (019544 .. 019593, of 34107):
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 192 (1): Reference (009910 .. 009928, of 36359):	Subject (019602 .. 019617, of 34107):
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 193 (1): Reference (009931 .. 009958, of 36359):	Subject (019619 .. 019646, of 34107):
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 194 (1): Reference (009985 .. 010004, of 36359):	Subject (019658 .. 019677, of 34107):
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 195 (1): Reference (010008 .. 010034, of 36359):	Subject (019681 .. 019705, of 34107):
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 196 (1): Reference (010058 .. 010084, of 36359):	Subject (019715 .. 019741, of 34107):
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 197 (1): Reference (010105 .. 010162, of 36359):	Subject (019760 .. 019814, of 34107):
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 198 (1): Reference (010171 .. 010183, of 36359):	Subject (019818 .. 019830, of 34107):
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 199 (1): Reference (010331 .. 010348, of 36359):	Subject (019843 .. 019856, of 34107):
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 200 (1): Reference (010703 .. 010718, of 36359):	Subject (019884 .. 019899, of 34107):
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 201 (1): Reference (010800 .. 010810, of 36359):	Subject (019947 .. 019957, of 34107):
Despite the scientific community s overwhelming support for evolution defendants and	Despite the scientific community s overwhelming support for evolution Defendants and
Match 202 (1): Reference (010813 .. 010830, of 36359):	Subject (019959 .. 019977, of 34107):
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 203 (1): Reference (010833 .. 010848, of 36359):	Subject (019979 .. 019994, of 34107):
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 204 (1): Reference (010882 .. 010903, of 36359):	Subject (000225 .. 000246, of 34107):
Of Pandas and People is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves	Of Pandas and People is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves
Match 205 (1): Reference (010926 .. 010949, of 36359):	Subject (020040 .. 020060, of 34107):
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 206 (1): Reference (010958 .. 010969, of 36359):	Subject (020065 .. 020076, of 34107):
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 207 (1): Reference (011058 .. 011067, of 36359):	Subject (021918 .. 021927, of 34107):
no evidence that either defendants testifying experts or any other	no evidence that either Defendants testifying experts or any other
Match 208 (1): Reference (011078 .. 011099, of 36359):	Subject (021946 .. 021968, of 34107):
they have not published peer reviewed literature or presented at scientific conferences on paleontology or the fossil record 17 15 16 Padian	they have published peer reviewed literature or presented such information at scientific conferences on paleontology or the fossil record 17 15 16 Padian
Match 209 (1): Reference (011147 .. 011160, of 36359):	Subject (020099 .. 020108, of 34107):
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 210 (1): Reference (011163 .. 011189, of 36359):	Subject (020119 .. 020145, of 34107):
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 211 (1): Reference (011191 .. 011205, of 36359):	Subject (020148 .. 020162, of 34107):
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 212 (1): Reference (011211 .. 011221, of 36359):	Subject (020163 .. 020173, of 34107):
allowed scientists to compare comparable parts among organisms for classification purposes	allowed scientists to evaluate comparable parts among organisms for classification purposes
Match 213 (1): Reference (011230 .. 011248, of 36359):	Subject (020188 .. 020204, of 34107):
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 214 (1): Reference (011250 .. 011263, of 36359):	Subject (020207 .. 020220, of 34107):
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 215 (1): Reference (011298 .. 011316, of 36359):	Subject (020233 .. 020251, of 34107):
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 216 (1): Reference (011319 .. 011340, of 36359):	Subject (020253 .. 020273, of 34107):
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 217 (1): Reference (011392 .. 011401, of 36359):	Subject (020295 .. 020307, of 34107):
and the evolution of whales from land animals 17 17	and the evolution of whales from land animals 16 107 17 16 117
Match 218 (1): Reference (011544 .. 011559, of 36359):	Subject (020358 .. 020373, of 34107):
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 219 (1): Reference (011576 .. 011585, of 36359):	Subject (020376 .. 020386, of 34107):
how Pandas misrepresents basic molecular biology concepts to advance the	how Pandas misrepresents basic molecular biology concepts to advance design theory
Match 220 (1): Reference (011589 .. 011605, of 36359):	Subject (020398 .. 020417, of 34107):
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 221 (1): Reference (011621 .. 011634, of 36359):	Subject (020452 .. 020464, of 34107):
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 222 (1): Reference (011637 .. 011673, of 36359):	Subject (020466 .. 020504, of 34107):
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 223 (1): Reference (011675 .. 011701, of 36359):	Subject (020508 .. 020534, of 34107):
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 224 (1): Reference (011774 .. 011790, of 36359):	Subject (020537 .. 020554, of 34107):
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 225 (1): Reference (011818 .. 011833, of 36359):	Subject (020571 .. 020586, of 34107):
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 226 (1): Reference (011833 .. 011843, of 36359):	Subject (020592 .. 020602, of 34107):
the concept Peer review is exquisitely important in the scientific process	the peer review process is exquisitely important in the scientific process
Match 227 (1): Reference (011849 .. 011883, of 36359):	Subject (020604 .. 020638, of 34107):
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 228 (1): Reference (011884 .. 011917, of 36359):	Subject (020666 .. 020697, of 34107):
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 229 (1): Reference (011919 .. 011935, of 36359):	Subject (020698 .. 020713, of 34107):
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 230 (1): Reference (011919 .. 011945, of 36359):	Subject (020698 .. 020722, of 34107):
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 231 (1): Reference (011948 .. 011966, of 36359):	Subject (020724 .. 020742, of 34107):
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 232 (1): Reference (011973 .. 011982, of 36359):	Subject (020743 .. 020752, of 34107):
and generally whether the researcher has employed sound science The	and generally whether the researcher has employed sound science The
Match 233 (1): Reference (012075 .. 012087, of 36359):	Subject (020642 .. 020652, of 34107):
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 234 (1): Reference (012091 .. 012100, of 36359):	Subject (020654 .. 020663, of 34107):
has written that science must publish or perish 22 19	has written that science must publish or perish 22 19
Match 235 (1): Reference (012304 .. 012315, of 36359):	Subject (020761 .. 020772, of 34107):
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 236 (1): Reference (012304 .. 012338, of 36359):	Subject (020761 .. 020795, of 34107):
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 237 (1): Reference (012351 .. 012393, of 36359):	Subject (020808 .. 020847, of 34107):
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 238 (1): Reference (012397 .. 012443, of 36359):	Subject (020852 .. 020898, of 34107):
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 239 (1): Reference (012447 .. 012470, of 36359):	Subject (020903 .. 020927, of 34107):
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 240 (1): Reference (012471 .. 012481, of 36359):	Subject (022026 .. 022037, of 34107):
The one article referenced by Professors Behe and Minnich as supporting	17The one article referenced by both Professors Behe and Minnich as supporting
Match 241 (1): Reference (012484 .. 012501, of 36359):	Subject (022044 .. 022062, of 34107):
Behe and Snoke Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues Protein	Behe and Snoke entitled Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues P
Match 242 (1): Reference (012520 .. 012546, of 36359):	Subject (022095 .. 022121, of 34107):
did not rule out many known evolutionary mechanisms and that the research actually might support evolutionary pathways if a biologically realistic population size were used 22 41	did not rule out many known evolutionary mechanisms and that the research actually might support evolutionary pathways if a biologically realistic population size were used 22 41
Match 243 (1): Reference (012562 .. 012578, of 36359):	Subject (020941 .. 020957, of 34107):
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 244 (1): Reference (012602 .. 012621, of 36359):	Subject (021005 .. 021024, of 34107):
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 245 (1): Reference (012645 .. 012657, of 36359):	Subject (015339 .. 015351, of 34107):
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 246 (1): Reference (012752 .. 012762, of 36359):	Subject (001129 .. 001139, of 34107):
is comprised of Dover Township Washington Township and Dover Borough all	is comprised of Dover Township Washington Township and Dover Borough all
Match 247 (1): Reference (012763 .. 012774, of 36359):	Subject (001144 .. 001155, of 34107):
in York County Pennsylvania There are approximately 3 700 students in the	in York County Pennsylvania There are approximately 3 700 students in the
Match 248 (1): Reference (012777 .. 012790, of 36359):	Subject (001157 .. 001172, of 34107):
with approximately 1 000 attending Dover High School Joint Stipulations of Fact 3 o	with approximately 1 000 attending Dover High School Joint Stip of Fact 3 The trial commenced
Match 249 (1): Reference (012794 .. 012826, of 36359):	Subject (022816 .. 022845, of 34107):
nine seats on the Board The nine members of the Board in 2004 were Alan Bonsell William Buckingham Sheila Harkins Jane Cleaver Heather Geesey Angie Yingling Noel Wenrich Jeff Brown and Casey Brown	nine seats The nine members of the Board in 2004 were Alan Bonsell William Buckingham Sheila Harkins Jane Cleaver Heather Geesey Angie Yingling Noel Wenrich Jeff Brown and Casey Brown
Match 250 (1): Reference (012827 .. 012837, of 36359):	Subject (022854 .. 022863, of 34107):
Casey and Jeff Brown resigned on October 18 2004 Wenrich and	Casey and Jeff Brown resigned on October 18 2004 and
Match 251 (1): Reference (012839 .. 012858, of 36359):	Subject (022858 .. 022881, of 34107):
resigned on October 4 2004 and Yingling resigned verbally in November 2004 and in writing in February 2004 34 113	resigned on October 18 2004 and Yingling resigned verbally in November 2004 and in writing February 2005 Trial Tr vol 34 Harkins Test 113
Match 252 (1): Reference (012850 .. 012859, of 36359):	Subject (022862 .. 022879, of 34107):
2004 and in writing in February 2004 34 113 Harkins	2004 and Yingling resigned verbally in November 2004 and in writing February 2005 Trial Tr vol 34 Harkins
Match 253 (1): Reference (012879 .. 012893, of 36359):	Subject (022902 .. 022917, of 34107):
President he appointed William Buckingham Chair of the Board s Curriculum Committee 32 86 87	President he appointed Buckingham to be Chair of the Board s Curriculum Committee 32 86 87
Match 254 (1): Reference (012909 .. 012918, of 36359):	Subject (022915 .. 022924, of 34107):
32 86 87 Bonsell 34 39 Harkins As Board President	32 86 87 Bonsell 34 39 Harkins As Board President
Match 255 (1): Reference (012920 .. 012933, of 36359):	Subject (022926 .. 022939, of 34107):
also served as an ex officio member of the Curriculum Committee 32 116 Bonsell	also served as an ex officio member of the Curriculum Committee 32 116 Bonsell
Match 256 (1): Reference (012976 .. 012987, of 36359):	Subject (000590 .. 000601, of 34107):
first learned of the biology curriculum controversy from reading the local newspapers	first learned of the biology curriculum controversy from reading the local newspapers
Match 257 (1): Reference (013031 .. 013043, of 36359):	Subject (000629 .. 000641, of 34107):
in the Dover Area School District and a child of pre school age	in the Dover Area School District and a child of pre school age
Match 258 (1): Reference (013054 .. 013089, of 36359):	Subject (000652 .. 000684, of 34107):
Bryan Rehm learned of the biology curriculum controversy by virtue of being a member of the science faculty at Dover Area High School 4 39 41 Before and after his resignation he regularly attended Board meetings	Bryan Rehm learned of the biology curriculum controversy by virtue of being a member of the science faculty at Dover Area High School Before and after his resignation he regularly attended Board meetings
Match 259 (1): Reference (013095 .. 013111, of 36359):	Subject (000689 .. 000705, of 34107):
Christy Rehm learned of the biology curriculum controversy by virtue of discussions she had with her husband	Christy Rehm learned of the biology curriculum controversy by virtue of discussions she had with her husband
Match 260 (1): Reference (013138 .. 013159, of 36359):	Subject (000712 .. 000732, of 34107):
Plaintiffs Deborah F Fenimore and Joel A Leib are residents of Dover Pennsylvania They are the parents of a child in the	in 2004 Deborah F Fenimore and Joel A Leib residents of Dover Pennsylvania are the parents of a child in the
Match 261 (1): Reference (013154 .. 013178, of 36359):	Subject (000786 .. 000809, of 34107):
parents of a child in the eighth grade in the Dover Area School District and intend to send their child to Dover Area High School	parent of a child in the eighth grade in the Dover Area School District and intends for his child to attend Dover High School
Match 262 (1): Reference (013184 .. 013196, of 36359):	Subject (000590 .. 000601, of 34107):
first learned of a change in the biology curriculum from reading local newspapers	first learned of the biology curriculum controversy from reading the local newspapers
Match 263 (1): Reference (013214 .. 013225, of 36359):	Subject (000619 .. 000634, of 34107):
a child in the ninth grade in the Dover Area School District	a child in the second grade a child in kindergarden in the Dover Area School District
Match 264 (1): Reference (013229 .. 013254, of 36359):	Subject (000810 .. 000836, of 34107):
Stough did not attend any board meetings until December 2004 Prior to that he had learned of the biology curriculum change by reading the local newspapers	Stough did not attend any Board meetings until December 2004 and prior to that he had learned of the biology curriculum change by reading the local newspapers
Match 265 (1): Reference (013261 .. 013278, of 36359):	Subject (000837 .. 000851, of 34107):
Beth A Eveland is a resident of York Pennsylvania She is the parent of a child in the	Beth A Eveland resident of York Pennsylvania is a parent of a child in the
Match 266 (1): Reference (013275 .. 013293, of 36359):	Subject (000619 .. 000641, of 34107):
a child in the second grade in the Dover Area School District and a child of pre school age	a child in the second grade a child in kindergarden in the Dover Area School District and a child of pre school age
Match 267 (1): Reference (013295 .. 013341, of 36359):	Subject (000868 .. 000909, of 34107):
intends to send her children to Dover Area High School 6 92 93 Eveland Eveland attended her first board meeting on June 14 2004 Prior to that she had learned of the issues relating to the purchase of the biology books from reading the York Daily Record	intends for her children to attend Dover High School Eveland attended her first Board meeting on June 14 2004 Prior to that she had learned of the issues relating to the purchase of the biology books from reading the York Daily Record
Match 268 (1): Reference (013347 .. 013363, of 36359):	Subject (000911 .. 000924, of 34107):
Cynthia Sneath is a resident of Dover Pennsylvania She is a parent of a child in the	Cynthia Sneath resident of Dover Pennsylvania is a parent of a child in the
Match 269 (1): Reference (013360 .. 013378, of 36359):	Subject (000619 .. 000641, of 34107):
a child in the second grade in the Dover Area School District and a child of pre school age	a child in the second grade a child in kindergarden in the Dover Area School District and a child of pre school age
Match 270 (1): Reference (013380 .. 013419, of 36359):	Subject (000941 .. 000976, of 34107):
intends to send her children to Dover Area High School 15 75 76 Sneath Sneath attended her first board meeting on October 18 2004 Prior to that she had learned of the biology curriculum controversy from reading the local newspapers	intends for her children to attend Dover High School Sneath attended her first Board meeting on October 18 2004 and prior to that she had learned of the biology curriculum controversy from reading the local newspapers
Match 271 (1): Reference (013429 .. 013442, of 36359):	Subject (000839 .. 000851, of 34107):
a resident of York Pennsylvania She is a parent of a child in the	Eveland resident of York Pennsylvania is a parent of a child in the
Match 272 (1): Reference (013439 .. 013449, of 36359):	Subject (000568 .. 000577, of 34107):
a child in the eleventh grade at Dover Area High School	a child in the eleventh grade at Dover High School
Match 273 (1): Reference (013467 .. 013477, of 36359):	Subject (000654 .. 000667, of 34107):
learned of and followed the biology curriculum controversy by reading the	learned of the biology curriculum controversy by virtue of being a member of the
Match 274 (1): Reference (013467 .. 013479, of 36359):	Subject (001007 .. 001019, of 34107):
learned of and followed the biology curriculum controversy by reading the local newspapers	learned of and followed the biology curriculum controversy by reading the local newspapers
Match 275 (1): Reference (013489 .. 013512, of 36359):	Subject (001024 .. 001044, of 34107):
and Frederick B Callahan are residents of Dover Pennsylvania They are parents of a child in the eleventh grade at Dover Area High School	and Frederick B Callahan residents of Dover Pennsylvania are parents of a child in the tenth grade at Dover High School
Match 276 (1): Reference (013489 .. 013517, of 36359):	Subject (001024 .. 001046, of 34107):
and Frederick B Callahan are residents of Dover Pennsylvania They are parents of a child in the eleventh grade at Dover Area High School 3 123 124 B Callahan	and Frederick B Callahan residents of Dover Pennsylvania are parents of a child in the tenth grade at Dover High School Barrie Callahan
Match 277 (1): Reference (013521 .. 013544, of 36359):	Subject (001046 .. 001067, of 34107):
Callahan Aralene Callahan learned of the biology curriculum controversy by virtue of her status as a former board member and from attending board meetings	Callahan learned of the biology curriculum controversy by virtue of her status of a former Board member and from attending Board meetings
Match 278 (1): Reference (013550 .. 013559, of 36359):	Subject (001046 .. 001055, of 34107):
Callahan learned of the biology curriculum controversy by virtue of	Callahan learned of the biology curriculum controversy by virtue of
Match 279 (1): Reference (013551 .. 013563, of 36359):	Subject (000691 .. 000703, of 34107):
learned of the biology curriculum controversy by virtue of discussions he had with	learned of the biology curriculum controversy by virtue of discussions she had with
Match 280 (1): Reference (013819 .. 013845, of 36359):	Subject (022950 .. 022973, of 34107):
Interest in Injecting Religion Into the Dover Schools o 135 The Board held a retreat on January 9 2002 just several weeks after Bonsell joined the Board	Interest to Inject Religion into the Dover Schools The Board held a retreat on January 9 2002 several weeks after Bonsell joined the Board
Match 281 (1): Reference (013871 .. 013883, of 36359):	Subject (022974 .. 022988, of 34107):
Superintendent Nilsen s contemporaneous notes Bonsell identified creationism as his number one issue	Superintendent Nilsen s contemporaneous notes reveal that Bonsell identified creationism as his number one issue
Match 282 (1): Reference (013915 .. 013959, of 36359):	Subject (033925 .. 033974, of 34107):
Casey Brown testified that she recalled that Bonsell expressed a desire to look into bringing prayer and faith back into the schools that Bonsell mentioned the Bible and creationism and felt there should be a fair and balanced presentation within the curriculum 7 17 18	Casey Brown testified she recalled that Bonsell expressed a desire to look into bringing prayer and faith back into the schools that Bonsell mentioned the Bible and creationism and felt there should be a fair and balanced presentation within the curriculum Trial Tr vol 7 C Brown Test 17 18
Match 283 (1): Reference (013989 .. 014004, of 36359):	Subject (023063 .. 023077, of 34107):
issues of interest as reflected in P25 Dr Nilsen s contemporaneous notes 35 50 53 Baksa	issue of interest as reflected in Dr Nilsen s contemporaneous notes 35 50 53 Baksa
Match 284 (1): Reference (014037 .. 014055, of 36359):	Subject (023135 .. 023153, of 34107):
recalled Bonsell saying at the March 26 2003 retreat that he felt creationism belong in biology class alongside evolution	Recalled Bonsell say at the March 26 2003 retreat that he felt creationism belonged in biology class alongside evolution
Match 285 (1): Reference (014072 .. 014082, of 36359):	Subject (023138 .. 023145, of 34107):
at the March 26 2003 board retreat Bonsell said that he	at the March 26 2003 retreat that he
Match 286 (1): Reference (014081 .. 014092, of 36359):	Subject (023171 .. 023184, of 34107):
that he wanted creationism taught 50 50 with evolution in biology class	that Bonsell said he wanted creationism taught 50 50 with evolution in biology class
Match 287 (1): Reference (014164 .. 014174, of 36359):	Subject (023302 .. 023312, of 34107):
Nilsen s contemporaneous note that Bonsell raised the issue of creationism	Nilsen s contemporaneous note that Bonsell raised the issue of creationism
Match 288 (1): Reference (014182 .. 014205, of 36359):	Subject (023187 .. 023212, of 34107):
Trudy Peterman then the principal of Dover High School sent to Assistant Superintendent Baksa and Science Department Chair Bertha Spahr with a copy to	Trudy Peterman then principal of Dover High School sent a memo to Assistant Superintendent Baksa and Science Department Chair Bertha Spahr with a copy sent to
Match 289 (1): Reference (014213 .. 014248, of 36359):	Subject (023220 .. 023255, of 34107):
memo reports that Peterman learned from Spahr that Baksa had said on March 31 2003 that an unidentified board member wanted fifty percent 50 of the topic of evolution to involve the teaching of Creationism o	memo reports that Peterman learned from Spahr that Baksa said on March 31 2003 that an unidentified Board member wanted fifty percent of the topic of evolution to involve the teaching of Creationism P 26 Although
Match 290 (1): Reference (014250 .. 014289, of 36359):	Subject (023321 .. 023360, of 34107):
Spahr confirmed that she had a conversation with Baksa as reported in the Peterman memo P26 and that Baksa told her that Bonsell wanted to have creationism share equal time with evolution in the curriculum 13 72 73 Spahr o	Spahr confirmed that she had a conversation with Baksa as reported in the Peterman memo and that Baksa told her Bonsell wanted to have creationism share equal time with evolution in the curriculum 13 72 73 Spahr Third Baksa confirmed
Match 291 (1): Reference (014291 .. 014330, of 36359):	Subject (023359 .. 023396, of 34107):
Baksa also confirmed that he had a conversation with Spahr as reported in the Peterman memo P26 in which he told her that Bonsell was looking for a 50 50 split with Darwin and some alternative 35 53 56 Baksa	Baksa confirmed that he had a conversation with Spahr as reported in the Peterman memo in which he told her that Bonsell was looking for a 50 50 split with Darwin and some alternative 35 53 56 Baksa
Match 292 (1): Reference (014351 .. 014369, of 36359):	Subject (023398 .. 023419, of 34107):
Baksa does not recall is Bonsell identifying creationism as the subject he wanted to share equal time with evolution	Baksa claims he does not recall Bonsell identifying creationism as the subject with which he wanted to share equal time with evolution
Match 293 (1): Reference (014377 .. 014391, of 36359):	Subject (023421 .. 023432, of 34107):
that he cannot recall Bonsell mentioning creationism at any time up until April 1 2003	that Bonsell mentioned creationism at any time up until April 1 2003
Match 294 (1): Reference (014572 .. 014582, of 36359):	Subject (023337 .. 023353, of 34107):
that he wanted evolution to share equal time in the curriculum	that Baksa told her Bonsell wanted to have creationism share equal time with evolution in the curriculum
Match 295 (1): Reference (014572 .. 014584, of 36359):	Subject (023337 .. 023350, of 34107):
that he wanted evolution to share equal time in the curriculum with evolution	that Baksa told her Bonsell wanted to have creationism share equal time with evolution
Match 296 (1): Reference (014573 .. 014585, of 36359):	Subject (023412 .. 023422, of 34107):
he wanted evolution to share equal time in the curriculum with evolution Bonsell	he wanted to share equal time with evolution nor that Bonsell
Match 297 (1): Reference (014589 .. 014613, of 36359):	Subject (023487 .. 023512, of 34107):
of creationism on numerous other occasions a When he ran for the Board in 2001 Bonsell told Jeff Brown he did not believe in evolution	of creationism on numerous other occasions as well When he ran for the Board in 2001 Bonsell told Jeff Brown he did not believe in evolution
Match 298 (1): Reference (014615 .. 014626, of 36359):	Subject (023514 .. 023525, of 34107):
he wanted creationism taught side by side with evolution in biology classes	he wanted creationism taught side by side with evolution in biology class
Match 299 (1): Reference (014632 .. 014642, of 36359):	Subject (023528 .. 023538, of 34107):
taking prayer and Bible reading out of school was a mistake	taking prayer and Bible reading out of school was a mistake
Match 300 (1): Reference (014632 .. 014678, of 36359):	Subject (023528 .. 023575, of 34107):
taking prayer and Bible reading out of school was a mistake and he wanted it reinstated in the Dover public schools 8 48 49 J Brown b Later Bonsell told Jeff Brown he wanted to be on the Board Curriculum Committee because he had concerns about the	taking prayer and Bible reading out of school was a mistake which he wanted reinstated in the Dover public schools 8 48 49 J Brown Subsequently Bonsell told Jeff Brown he wanted to be on the Board Curriculum Committee because he had concerns about teaching evoluti