| Unmatched jones-science.txt | Matched jones-science.txt | Matched pf-science.txt | Unmatched pf-science.txt |
| 4 Whether ID is Science After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw we find that while ID | | |
adjudged a valid accepted scientific theory H Conclusion to Science Section o 121 The Court concludes that while intelligent design |
| 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 | |
| ID is not science We find that ID fails on three different levels any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science They are 1 ID violates the centuries old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation 2 the | | |
NOT SCIENCE o 33 Intelligent design is not science It fails on three distinct levels any one of which invalidates the proposition a by invoking and permitting supernatural causation intelligent design violates the centuries old ground rules of science b intelligent design including it s poster child |
| argument of irreducible complexity central to ID employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980 s and |
argument irreducible complexity employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980 s and | |
| science in the 1980 s and 3 ID s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community |
c intelligent design s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community | |
| As we will discuss in more detail below it is additionally important to note that ID | | |
design s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community Furthermore intelligent design |
| has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community it has not generated peer reviewed publications nor has it been the subject of testing and research |
has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community generate peer reviewed publications or been the subject of testing and research | |
| Expert testimony reveals that | | |
natural sciences o 35 |
| 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 |
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 | |
| the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena 9 19 22 Haught 5 |
the systematic search for natural explanations for natural phenomena 1 59 | |
| 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 what s most characteristic of the scientific revolution rejecting appeal to authority and saying we will appeal just to the evidence the empirical evidence Consequently |
| 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 |
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 | |
| 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 | |
| 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 |
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 | |
| supernatural explanations may be important and have merit they are not part of science 3 103 Miller 9 19 20 Haught This self imposed |
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 convention of science which limits inquiry to testable natural explanations about the natural world is referred to by philosophers as methodological naturalism |
Supernatural explanations are important and may have merit but they are not part of science 3 103 Miller 9 19 20 Haught o 38 This self imposed convention of science which limits inquiry to testable natural explanations about the natural world is referred to by philosophers as methodological naturalism | |
| and is sometimes known as the scientific method | | |
ground rule of science today 1 59 Miller |
| 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 |
5 8 23 Pennock This ground rule of science requires scientists to seek explanations in the world around us based upon | |
| what | | |
things |
| we can observe test replicate and verify 1 59 64 2 41 43 Miller 5 8 23 30 Pennock |
we can observe test replicate and verify 1 59 64 2 41 43 Miller 5 23 30 Pennock | |
| As the | | |
40 The |
| National Academy of Sciences hereinafter NAS was recognized by experts for both |
National Academy of Sciences NAS was recognized by experts for both | |
| parties | | |
sides |
| as the most prestigious scientific association in this country |
as being the most prestigious scientific association in this country | |
| we will accordingly cite to its opinion where appropriate 1 94 | | |
1 94 probably the most prestigious scientific association in the world |
| 160 61 Miller 14 72 Alters 37 31 Minnich NAS is in |
160 61 Miller 14 72 Alters 37 31 Minnich Accordingly | |
| NAS is in agreement that science is limited to empirical observable and ultimately testable data Science is a particular way of knowing about the world In science explanations are restricted to those that can be inferred from the confirmable data the results obtained through observations and experiments that can be substantiated by other scientists Anything that can be observed or measured is amenable to scientific investigation Explanations that cannot be based upon empirical evidence are not part of science P 649 at 27 |
NAS agrees that science is limited to empirical observable and ultimately testable data Science is a particular way of knowing about the world In science explanations are restricted to those that can be inferred from the confirmable data the results obtained through observations and experiments that can be substantiated by other scientists Anything that can be observed or measured is amenable to scientific investigation Explanations that cannot be based on empirical evidence are not a part of science P649 at 27 | |
| This rigorous attachment to natural explanations is an essential attribute |
This rigorous attachment to natural explanations is an essential attribute | |
| to science by definition and by convention 1 63 Miller 5 29 31 Pennock We are in agreement with Plaintiffs lead expert Dr Miller that | | |
assistance to some supernatural power It would certainly make science very easy but it would also fundamentally alter the practice of science 5 30 Pennock |
| 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 | |
| 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 |
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 | |
| supernatural causation as we previously explained and as various expert testimony revealed 17 96 Padian 2 35 36 Miller 14 62 Alters ID | | |
answer Id o 43 Intelligent design is predicated on supernatural causation 17 96 Padian 2 35 36 Miller 14 62 Alters Intelligent design |
| takes a natural phenomenon and instead of accepting or seeking a natural explanation argues that the explanation is supernatural 5 107 Pennock Further support |
takes a natural phenomenon and instead of accepting or seeking a natural explanation argues that the explanation is supernatural 5 107 Pennock o | |
| for the conclusion that ID is predicated on supernatural causation is found in the ID reference book to which ninth grade biology students are directed Pandas Pandas states in pertinent part as follows | | |
107 Pennock o 44 The intelligent design reference book cited in the Dover statement as describing what intelligent design actually involves Of Pandas and People is clear that the idea entails supernatural causation |
| Darwinists object to the view of intelligent design because it does not give a natural cause explanation of how the various forms of life started in the first place Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive features already intact fish with fins and scales birds with feathers beaks and wings etc P 11 at 99 100 emphasis added |
Darwinists object to the view of intelligent design because it does not give a natural cause explanation of how the various forms of life started in the first place Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive feature already intact fish with fins and scales birds with feathers beaks and wings etc P11 at 99 100 Emphasis added | |
| Stated another way ID posits that | | |
100 Emphasis added In other words |
| animals did not evolve naturally through evolutionary means but were created abruptly by a non natural or supernatural designer Defendants own |
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 expert witnesses acknowledged this point 21 96 100 Behe |
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 | |
| P 718 | | |
to Critics |
| 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 |
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 | |
| that defense experts own mission which mirrors that of the IDM itself | | |
46 Indeed defendants argument which mirrors that of the intelligent design movement |
| 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 | |
| which the Supreme Court in Edwards and the court in McLean correctly recognized as an inherently religious concept Edwards 482 U S at 591 92 McLean 529 F Supp at 1267 First defense expert Professor Fuller agreed that ID aspires to change the ground rules of science and lead defense expert | | |
designer including deities o 46 Indeed defendants argument which mirrors that of the intelligent design movement is to change the ground rules of science to allow supernatural causation of the natural world 5 32 Pennock Professor Fuller agreed that intelligent design aspires to change the ground rules of science 28 26 |
| Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science which encompasses |
Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science which encompasses | |
| ID | | |
design |
| would also embrace astrology 28 26 Fuller 21 37 42 Behe Moreover defense expert Professor Minnich acknowledged that for |
would also embrace astrology 21 37 42 Behe Professor Minnich acknowledged that for | |
| ID | | |
design |
| 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 | |
| forces 38 97 Minnich Prominent IDM leaders are in agreement with the opinions expressed by defense expert witnesses that the ground rules of science must be changed for ID to take hold and prosper William Dembski for instance an IDM | | |
21 37 42 Behe Professor Minnich acknowledged that for intelligent design to be considered science the ground rules of science have to be broadened to allow consideration of supernatural causes 38 97 o 47 William Dembski an intelligent design movement |
| 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 | |
| ID is to prosper 5 32 37 Pennock P 341 at 224 | | |
world championed since the Enlightenment is not just wrong but massively wrong |
| Indeed entire fields of inquiry including especially in the human sciences will need to be rethought from the ground up in terms of intelligent design |
Indeed entire fields of inquiry including especially the human sciences will need to be rethought from the ground up in terms of intelligent design | |
| The Discovery Institute the think tank promoting ID whose CRSC developed the Wedge Document acknowledges as Governing Goals to defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral cultural and political legacies | | |
A Bridge Between Science and Theology at 224 o 48 The Discovery Institute the think tank promoting intelligent design has also acknowledged that the goal is to defeat scientific materialism |
| and replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God P 140 at |
and to replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God P140 at | |
| 4 In addition and as previously noted the Wedge Document states in its Five Year Strategic Plan Summary that the IDM s goal is to replace science as currently practiced with theistic and Christian science Id at 6 The IDM accordingly seeks nothing less than a complete scientific revolution in which ID will supplant evolutionary theory 14 Notably | | |
Bridge Between Science and Theology at 224 o 48 The Discovery Institute the think tank promoting intelligent design has also acknowledged that the goal is to defeat scientific materialism and to replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God P140 at 6 The Wedge Document See supra 11 o 49 |
| every major scientific association that has taken a position on |
Every major scientific association that has taken a position on | |
| the issue of whether ID is science has concluded that ID is not and cannot be considered as such | | |
has taken a position on this issue has stated that intelligent design is not and cannot be considered science |
| 1 98 99 Miller 14 75 78 Alters 37 25 Minnich Initially we note |
1 98 99 Miller 14 75 78 Alters 37 25 Minnich o | |
| that NAS the most prestigious scientific association in this country views ID | | |
Alters 37 25 Minnich o 50 For example NAS views intelligent design |
| as follows Creationism intelligent design and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science These claims subordinate observed data to statements based on authority revelation or religious belief Documentation offered in support of these claims is typically limited to the special publications of their advocates These publications do not offer hypotheses subject to change in light of new data new interpretations or demonstration of error This contrasts with science where any hypothesis or theory always remains subject to the possibility of rejection or modification in the light of new knowledge P 192 at 25 Additionally |
as follows Creationism intelligent design and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science These claims subordinate observed data to statements based on authority revelation or religious belief Documentation offered in support of these claims is typically limited to the special publications of their advocates These publications do not offer hypotheses subject to change in light of new data new interpretations or demonstration of error This contrasts with science where any hypothesis or theory always remains subject to the possibility of rejection or modification in the light of new knowledge P192 at 25 National | |
| the American Association for the Advancement of Science hereinafter AAAS the largest organization of scientists in this country has taken a similar position on ID | | |
The largest organization of scientists in this country the American Association for the Advancement of Science AAAS has taken a similar position on intelligent design |
| namely that it has not proposed a scientific means of testing its claims and that the lack of scientific warrant for so called intelligent design theory makes it improper to include as part of science education P |
namely that it has not proposed a scientific means of testing its claims and that the lack of scientific warrant for so called intelligent design theory makes it improper to include as part of science education P198 | |
| 198 Not a single expert witness over the course of the six week trial | | |
Intelligent Design Theory Oct 18 2002 o 52 Neither plaintiffs nor defendants expert witnesses |
| identified one major scientific association society or organization that endorsed |
identified a single major scientific association society or organization that endorsed | |
| ID as science What is more defense experts concede that ID | | |
as science o 53 Defendant s experts admit that intelligent design |
| is not a theory as that term is defined by the NAS |
is not a theory as that term is defined by the NAS | |
| and admit that ID is at best fringe science which has achieved no acceptance in the scientific community 21 37 38 Behe Fuller Dep at 98 101 June 21 2005 28 47 Fuller Minnich Dep at 89 May 26 2005 It is therefore readily apparent to the Court that ID fails to | | |
Defendants expert Steve Fuller described intelligent design as fringe science which need affirmative action to become accepted 28 47 Defendants expert Scott Minnich admitted that intelligent design has achieved no acceptance in the scientific community it is science in its infancy Minnich Dep at 89 o 55 Intelligent design does not therefore |
| 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 |
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 | |
| as advocated by Professor Fuller | | |
as an affirmative action program |
| 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 | |
| Although ID | | |
Intelligent design |
| s fa ilure to meet the ground rules of science is |
s failure to meet the ground rules of science is | |
| sufficient for the Court to conclude that it is not science out of an abundance of caution and in the exercise of completeness we will analyze additional arguments advanced regarding the concepts of ID and science ID | | |
ground rules of science is alone enough for this Court to rule that it is not a scientific view B Intelligent Design Relies on the Same Logically Flawed Argument that Doomed Creation Science o 57 Intelligent design |
| is at bottom premised upon a false dichotomy namely that to the extent evolutionary theory is discredited |
is premised on a false dichotomy namely that to the extent evolutionary theory is discredited | |
| ID is confirmed 5 41 Pennock This argument is not brought to this Court anew and in fact the same argument termed contrived dualism in McLean | | |
the extent evolutionary theory is discredited intelligent design is confirmed 5 41 Pennock This same argument termed contrived dualism in McLean v Arkansas Board of Education |
| was employed by creationists in the 1980 s to support creation science |
was employed by creationists in the 1980 s to support creation science | |
| The court in McLean noted the fallacious pedagogy of the two model approach and that i n efforts to establish evidence in support of creation science the defendants relied upon the same false premise as the two model approach all evidence which criticized evolutionary theory was proof in support of creation science McLean 529 F Supp at 1267 1269 We do not find this false dichotomy any more availing to justify ID | | |
Relies on the Same Logically Flawed Argument that Doomed Creation Science o 57 Intelligent design is premised on a false dichotomy namely that to the extent evolutionary theory is discredited intelligent design is confirmed 5 41 Pennock This same argument termed contrived dualism in McLean v Arkansas Board of Education was employed by creationists in the 1980 s to support creation science This argument is no more availing to justify intelligent design |
| today than it was to justify creation science two decades ago ID proponents |
today than it was to justify creation science two decades ago o | |
| proponents primarily argue for design through negative arguments against evolution |
proponents primarily argue for design through negative argument against evolution | |
| as illustrated by | | |
against evolution including |
| 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 | |
| 10 148 Forrest However we believe that arguments against evolution are not arguments for design Expert testimony revealed that | | |
intelligent design best fits the data at 99 100 o 61 Arguments against evolution are not arguments for design |
| 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 |
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 | |
| As Dr Padian aptly noted | | |
In Dr Padian s words |
| absence of evidence is not evidence of absence 17 45 |
absence of evidence is not evidence of absence 17 45 | |
| Padian To that end expert testimony from Drs Miller and Padian provided multiple | | |
of absence 17 45 Testimony from Drs Miller and Padian was replete with |
| 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 |
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 | |
| that as Dr Miller stated | | |
great apes etc o 62 |
| 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 | |
| as no theory in science is fully understood 3 102 Miller As referenced the concept of irreducible complexity is ID | | |
167 70 C Irreducible Complexity Fails Even as a Purely Negative Argument Against Evolution o 64 Irreducible complexity intelligent design |
| 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 |
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 | |
| 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 |
evolution not design 2 15 Miller a point conceded by Professor Minnich 38 82 it s not a test of | |
| intelligent design it s a test of evoluti on Irreducible complexity additionally fails to make a positive scientific case for ID as will be elaborated upon below We initially note that | | |
a test of evolution It fails to make any positive scientific case for intelligent design Moreover the evidence demonstrates that irreducible complexity fails even as a purely negative argument o 65 |
| irreducible complexity as defined by Professor Behe in his book Darwin s Black Box and subsequently modified in his 2001 article entitled Reply to My Critics appears as follows By irreducibly complex I mean a single system which is composed of several well matched interacting parts that contribute to the basic function wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly by slight successive modifications of a precursor system because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional Since natural selection can only choose systems that are already working then if a biological system cannot be produced gradually it would have to arise as an integrated unit in one fell swoop for natural selection to have anything to act on P |
Irreducible complexity was defined by Professor Behe in Darwin s Black Box and modified in his 2001 article Reply to My Critics as follows By irreducibly complex I mean a single system which is composed of several well matched interacting parts that contribute to the basic function wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly by slight successive modifications of a precursor system because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional Since natural selection can only choose systems that are already working then if a biological system cannot be produced gradually it would have to arise as an integrated unit in one fell swoop for natural selection to have anything to act on P647 | |
| 647 at 39 P | | |
39 Free Press 1996 |
| 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 |
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 | |
| 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 |
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 | |
| Id | | |
695 |
| 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 | |
| however he has failed to do so even four years after elucidating his defect Id 22 61 65 Behe In addition to Professor Behe | | |
article Professor Behe wrote that he hoped to repair this defect in future work P718 at 695 but he never has 22 61 65 |
| s admitted failure to properly address the very phenomenon that irreducible complexity purports to place at issue natural selection |
This admitted failure to properly address the very phenomenon that irreducible complexity purports to place at issue natural selection | |
| Drs Miller and Padian testified | | |
Miller and Dr Padian explained |
| that Professor Behe s concept of irreducible complexity depends on ignoring ways in which evolution is known to occur Although Professor Behe |
that Professor Behe s concept of irreducible complexity depends on ignoring ways in which evolution is known to occur Behe | |
| is | | |
was |
| adamant in his definition of irreducible complexity when he says a precursor missing a part is by definition nonfunctional what he obviously means is that it |
adamant that in his definition of irreducible complexity when he says a precursor missing a part is by definition nonfunctional what he means is that it | |
| will | | |
won |
| not function in the same way the system functions when all the parts are present |
t function in the way the system functions when all the parts are present | |
| For | | |
for |
| example in the case of the bacterial flagellum removal of a part |
example in the case of the bacterial flagellum as a | |
| example in the case of the bacterial flagellum removal of a part |
example in the case of the bacterial flagellum as a | |
| may prevent it from acting as a rotary motor However Professor Behe excludes by definition the possibility that a precursor to the bacterial flagellum functioned not as a rotary motor but in some other way for example as a secretory system 19 88 95 Behe As expert testimony revealed the | | |
are present for example in the case of the bacterial flagellum as a rotary motor 19 88 He excludes by definition the possibility that a precursor functioned in some other way for example in the case of the bacterial flagellum as a secretory system 19 88 95 o 68 This |
| 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 | |
| In fact the theory of evolution proffers exaptation as a well recognized well documented explanation for how systems with multiple parts could have evolved through natural means Exaptation means that some precursor of the subject system had a different selectable function before experiencing the change or addition that resulted in the subject system with its present function 16 146 48 Padian For instance Dr Padian identified the evolution of the mammalian middle ear bones from what had been jawbones as an example of this process 17 6 17 |
In fact the theory of evolution has a well recognized well documented explanation for how systems with multiple parts could have evolved through natural means namely exaptation Exaptation means that some precursor of the subject system had a different selectable function before experiencing the change or addition that resulted in the subject system with its present function 16 146 48 Padian For instance Dr Padian identified the evolution of the mammalian middle ear bones from what had been jawbones as an example of this process 17 6 17 | |
| Padian | | |
down |
| By defining irreducible complexity in the way that he has Professor Behe attempts to exclude the phenomenon of exaptation by definitional fiat |
By defining irreducible complexity in the way he has Professor Behe attempts to exclude the phenomenon of exaptation by definitional fiat | |
| ignoring as he does so abundant evidence which refutes his argument Notably the NAS | | |
way that evolution is known to work o 70 The National Academy of Sciences |
| has rejected Professor Behe s claim for irreducible complexity by using |
has rejected Professor Behe s claim for irreducible complexity using | |
| the following cogent | | |
using this same |
| 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 | |
| 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 |
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 | |
| is only a negative argument against evolution it | | |
argument against evolution irreducible complexity unlike intelligent design |
| 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 |
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 | |
| Importantly however the | | |
40 Miller In |
| fact that the negative argument of irreducible complexity is |
fact Professor Fuller testified that even if the negative argument of irreducible complexity disproved | |
| negative argument of irreducible complexity is testable does not make testable the argument for |
negative argument is testable does not make the argument for | |
| ID 2 15 Miller 5 39 Pennock | | |
this fashion P192 at 22 o 71 |
| 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 |
Professor Behe has applied irreducible complexity only to a few select systems the bacterial flagellum the blood clotting cascade and the immune system | |
| the bacterial flagellum 2 the blood clotting cascade and 3 the immune system Contrary to Professor |
the bacterial flagellum the blood clotting cascade and the immune system or | |
| Behe s assertions with respect to these few biochemical systems among the myriad existing in nature however | | |
not make the argument for intelligent design testable 2 15 Miller 5 39 39 Pennock o 73 |
| Dr Miller presented evidence based upon peer reviewed studies that they |
Dr Miller presented evidence based on peer reviewed studies that the | |
| are not in fact irreducibly complex First with regard to the bacterial flagellum | | |
by Professor Behe were in fact not so 2 21 36 o 74 |
| 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 |
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 | |
| Moreover defense expert | | |
on bacterial flagellum |
| Professor Minnich admited that there is serious scientific research on the question of whether the bacterial flagellum evolved into the Type III Secretary System the Type III Secretory System into the bacterial flagellum or whether they both evolved from a common ancestor |
Professor Minnich admits that there is serious scientific research on the question of whether the bacterial flagellum evolved into the Type III Secretory System the Type III Secretory System into the bacterial flagellum or they both evolved from a common ancestor | |
| 38 12 16 Minnich None of this research or thinking involves ID 38 12 16 Minnich In fact Professor Minnich | | |
evolved from a common ancestor and none of this research or thinking is considering intelligent design 38 12 16 He |
| testified about his research as follows we re looking at the function of these systems and how they could have been derived one from the other And it s a legitimate scientific inquiry 38 16 |
testified about this research we re looking at the function of these systems and how they could have been derived one from the other And it s a legitimate scientific inquiry 38 16 | |
| Minnich Second with regard to the blood clotting cascade | | |
what was involved in it 38 16 o 75 |
| 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 | |
| dating | | |
going |
| back to 1969 which show that dolphins and whales blood clots despite missing a part of the cascade a study that was confirmed by molecular testing in 1998 1 122 29 Miller P 854 17 854 22 Additionally and more recently scientists published studies showing that in puffer fish blood clots despite the cascade missing not only one but three parts 1 128 29 |
back to 1969 which showed that dolphins and whales blood clots despite missing a part of the cascade a study that was confirmed by molecular testing in 1998 1 122 29 P854 17 854 22 More recently scientists published studies showing that in puffer fish blood clots despite the cascade missing not only one but three parts 1 128 29 | |
| Miller Accordingly | | |
In sum |
| scientists in peer reviewed publications have refuted Professor Behe s predication about the alleged irreducible complexity of the blood clotting cascade |
scientists in peer reviewed publications have refuted Behe s prediction about the alleged irreducible complexity of the blood clotting cascade | |
| Moreover cross examination revealed that Professor Behe s redefinition of the blood clotting system was likely | | |
clotting system Behe 20 26 28 Cross examination revealed this to be an argument of convenience |
| designed to avoid peer reviewed scientific evidence that falsifies his argument as it was not a scientifically warranted redefinition |
designed to avoid peer reviewed scientific evidence that falsifies his argument not a scientifically warranted redefinition | |
| 20 26 28 22 112 25 Behe The immune system is the third system to which Professor Behe has applied the definition of irreducible complexity Although in Darwin s Black Box Professor Behe wrote that not only were there no natural explanations for the immune system | | |
112 125 o 76 Dr Miller also presented peer reviewed studies refuting Professor Behe s claim that the immune system was irreducibly complex 2 21 36 P854 33 854 41 Professor Behe wrote in Darwin s Black Box not only that there were no natural explanations |
| at the time but that natural explanations were impossible |
at the time but that in fact natural explanations were impossible | |
| regarding its origin P 647 at 139 2 26 27 Miller However | | |
argument not a scientifically warranted redefinition Behe 22 112 125 o 76 |
| Dr Miller presented peer reviewed studies refuting Professor Behe s claim that the immune system was irreducibly complex Between 1996 and 2002 |
Dr Miller also presented peer reviewed studies refuting Professor Behe s claim that the immune system was irreducibly complex 2 | |
| Between 1996 and 2002 various studies confirmed each element of the evolutionary hypothesis explaining the origin of the immune system 2 31 Miller In fact on cross examination Professor Behe was questioned |
between 1996 and 2005 various studies confirmed each element of the evolutionary hypothesis explaining the origin of the immune system 2 31 Miller o 77 On cross examination Professor Behe was questioned | |
| concerning | | |
about |
| 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 | |
| presented | | |
confronted |
| with fifty eight peer reviewed publications nine books and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system |
with the fifty eight peer reviewed publications nine books and several immunology text book chapters about the evolution of the immune system | |
| however | | |
and |
| he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution and that it was not good enough 23 19 |
he insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution it was not good enough 23 19 | |
| Behe We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID | | |
19 o 78 This evidence demonstrates that the intelligent design |
| argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution As a |
argument depends on setting a burden of proof for the theory of evolution that | |
| further example the test for ID | | |
example the test for intelligent design |
| 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 | |
| however no one inside or outside of the IDM including those who propose the test has conducted it P 718 18 125 27 Behe 22 102 06 Behe Professor Behe conceded | | |
in the laboratory P718 18 125 127 But nobody inside or outside the intelligent design movement including Behe and Minnich has conducted this test 22 102 06 Behe Professor Behe admitted |
| that the proposed test could not approximate real world conditions |
that the proposed test could not approximate real world conditions | |
| and even if it could Professor Minnich admitted that it would merely be a test of evolution not design 22 107 10 Behe 2 15 Miller 38 82 Minnich We therefore find that | | |
test of evolution not design 2 15 Miller a point conceded by Professor Minnich 38 82 it s not a test of ID it s a test of evolution o 80 In summary |
| Professor Behe s claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large 17 45 46 Padian 3 99 Miller |
Professor Behe s claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community 17 45 46 Padian 3 99 Miller | |
| Additionally | | |
Moreover |
| 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 | |
| ID as | | |
logically Irreducible |
| it is merely a test for evolution not design 2 15 2 35 40 Miller |
complexity is merely a test for evolution not design 2 15 Miller | |
| 28 63 66 Fuller We will now consider the purportedly positive argument for design encompassed in the phrase used numerous times by Professors Behe and Minnich throughout their expert testimony which | | |
arrangement of parts as I have described 19 102 I want to re emphasize to say that it is important to keep in mind that the positive inductive argument for design |
| 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 |
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 | |
| 37 50 Minnich As previously indicated this argument is merely | | |
Minnich o 84 This is not a new argument but |
| 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 | |
| Minnich Behe and Paley reach the same conclusion that complex organisms must have been designed using the same reasoning except that Professors Behe and Minnich refuse to identify the designer whereas Paley inferred from the presence of design that it was God |
Minnich Minnich Behe and Paley reach the same conclusion that complex organisms must have been designed using the same reasoning except that Professors Behe and Minnich refuse to identify the designer whereas Paley inferred from the presence of design that it was God | |
| 1 6 7 Miller 38 44 57 Minnich Expert testimony revealed that this inductive argument is not scientific and as admitted by | | |
from the presence of design that it was God Id o 85 This inductive argument is not scientific 2 40 Miller As |
| Professor Behe can never be ruled out 2 40 Miller 22 101 |
Professor Behe admitted it can never be ruled out 22 101 | |
| Behe 3 99 Miller Indeed the | | |
3 99 Miller o 86 The |
| assertion that design of biological systems can be inferred from the purposeful arrangement of parts is based upon an analogy to human design |
assertion that design of biological systems can be inferred from the purposeful arrangement of parts is based on an analogy to human design | |
| Because we are able to recognize design of artifacts and objects |
because we are able to recognize design of artifacts and objects | |
| according to Professor Behe | | |
of artifacts and objects |
| 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 |
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 | |
| however if this is the test ID | | |
If this is the test intelligent design |
| completely fails Unlike biological systems human artifacts do not live and reproduce over time They are non replicable they do not undergo genetic recombination and they are not driven by natural selection 1 131 33 Miller 23 57 59 Behe |
completely fails o 88 Unlike biological systems human artifacts do not live and reproduce over deep time They are non replicable they don t undergo genetic recombination and they are not driven by natural selection 1 131 33 Miller 23 57 59 Behe | |
| For human artifacts we know the designer s identity human and the mechanism of design |
For human artifacts we know the designer s identity human the mechanism of design | |
| human artifacts we know the designer s identity human and the |
human artifacts and objects we know who the designer is and what the | |
| mechanism of design as | | |
mechanism of design because |
| we have experience based upon empirical evidence that humans can make such things |
we have experience based on empirical evidence that humans can make such things | |
| as well as many other attributes including the designer s abilities needs and desires D 251 at 176 | | |
can make such things and many other attributes such as the designer s abilities needs and desires Id |
| 1 131 33 Miller 23 63 Behe 5 55 58 Pennock With |
1 131 33 Miller 23 63 Behe 5 55 58 Pennock With | |
| ID proponents assert | | |
design proponents say |
| that they refuse to propose hypotheses on the designer s identity do not propose a mechanism and the designer he she it they has never been seen |
that they refuse to propose hypotheses on the designer s identity do not propose a mechanism and he she it or they has never been seen | |
| In that vein defense expert | | |
they has never been seen |
| Professor Minnich agreed that in the case of human artifacts and objects we know the |
Professor Minnich agreed that in the case of human artifacts and objects we know who the | |
| identity and capacities of the human designer | | |
and what the capacities of humans are |
| but we do not know any of those attributes for the designer of biological life 38 44 47 Minnich In addition Professor Behe agreed that for the design of human |
but that we don t know any of those attributes for the designer of biological life 38 44 47 Professor Behe agreed that for human | |
| artifacts we know the designer and its attributes | | |
desires abilities limitations materials technology 23 61 70 |
| 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 | |
| 61 | | |
70 |
| 73 Behe Professor Behe s only response to these seemingly insurmountable points of disanalogy was that the inference still works in science fiction movies 23 73 |
73 Professor Behe s only response to these insurmountable points of disanalogy was that the inference still works in science fiction movies 23 73 | |
| Behe It is readily apparent to the Court that | | |
in science fiction movies 23 73 o 90 Ultimately |
| the only attribute of design that biological systems appear to share with human artifacts is their complex appearance i e if it looks complex or designed it must have been designed 23 73 Behe |
the only attribute of design that biological systems share with human artifacts is their complex appearance if it looks complex or designed it must have been designed 23 73 Behe | |
| This inference to design based upon the appearance of a purposeful arrangement of parts is a completely subjective proposition determined in the eye of each beholder and |
This inference to design based on the appearance of a purposeful arrangement of parts is a completely subjective proposition determined in the eye of each beholder Both Behe and | |
| his her viewpoint concerning the complexity of a system Although | | |
completely subjective proposition determined in the eye of each beholder |
| 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 |
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 | |
| As Plaintiffs aptly submit to the Court throughout | | |
50 Behe 38 59 Minnich In fact in |
| the entire trial only one piece of evidence generated by Defendants addressed the strength of the |
the entire trial there was only one piece of evidence generated by defendants that addressed the strength of the | |
| ID | | |
design |
| 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 | |
| P 718 | | |
in mind |
| at 705 Accordingly the purported positive argument for ID does not satisfy the |
that the positive inductive argument for design is in the | |
| does not satisfy the ground rules of science which require testable hypotheses based upon natural explanations 3 101 03 Miller |
does not satisfy the ground rules of science which require testable hypotheses based on natural explanations 3 101 03 Miller | |
| ID is reliant | | |
Intelligent design relies |
| upon forces acting outside of the natural world forces that we cannot see replicate control or test which have produced changes in this world While |
on forces acting outside the natural world forces that we cannot see replicate control or test which have produced changes in this world 3 101 Miller While | |
| we take no position on whether such forces exist | | |
victory of the Red Sox in the World Series |
| they are simply not testable by scientific means and therefore cannot qualify as part of the scientific process or as a scientific theory 3 101 02 Miller |
they are not testable by science and therefore cannot qualify as part of the scientific process or as a scientific hypothesis or theory 3 101 02 Miller | |
| It is appropriate at this juncture to address ID s claims against evolution ID proponents support their assertion | | |
Design s Claims Against Evolution are Based on Discredited Science o 93 Intelligent design proponents support their argument |
| 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 |
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 | |
| note that an | | |
noted that the |
| 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 | |
| on the matter have rejected the ID proponents challenge to evolution Moreover | | |
of life s history Id at 4 o 95 Dr Kenneth Miller |
| Plaintiffs expert in biology Dr Miller a widely recognized biology professor at Brown University |
plaintiffs expert in biology explained evolutionary theory Dr Miller is a widely recognized biology professor at Brown University | |
| who has written university level and high school biology textbooks used prominently throughout the nation provided unrebutted testimony that evolution including common descent and natural selection is | | |
genome project are powerful evidence for evolution Id o 100 In testimony that was unrebutted Dr Miller testified that evolution including common descent and natural selection are |
| 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 | |
| Miller As the court in Selman explained evolution is more than a theory of origin in the context of science To the contrary evolution is the dominant scientific theory of origin accepted by the majority of scientists Selman 390 F Supp 2d at 1309 emphasis in original | | |
It is no longer possible to sustain scientifically the view that the living things we see today did not evolve from earlier forms or that the human species was not produced by the same evolutionary mechanisms that apply to the rest of the living world o 101 |
| Despite the scientific community s overwhelming support for evolution Defendants and |
Despite the scientific community s overwhelming support for evolution defendants and | |
| ID | | |
design |
| proponents insist that evolution is unsupported by empirical evidence Plaintiffs science experts Drs Miller and Padian clearly explained how |
proponents insist that evolution is unsupported by empirical evidence Plaintiffs science experts Drs Miller and Padian explained how | |
| ID | | |
design |
| proponents generally and Pandas specifically distort and misrepresent scientific knowledge in making their anti evolution argument |
proponents generally and Pandas specifically distort and misrepresent scientific knowledge in making the anti evolution argument | |
| In analyzing such distortion we turn again to Pandas the book to which students are expressly referred in the disclaimer Defendants hold out Pandas as representative of ID and Plaintiffs expert s agree in that regard 16 83 Padian 1 107 08 Miller A series | | |
point Of Pandas and People is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves P124 131 Plaintiffs experts agreed that Pandas is representative of intelligent design 16 83 Padian 1 107 08 Miller o 103 Many |
| of arguments against evolutionary theory found in Pandas involve paleontology which studies the life of the past and the fossil record |
of the arguments against evolutionary theory in Of Pandas and People involve paleontology which studies the life of the past and the fossil record | |
| Plaintiffs expert Professor Padi | | |
o 104 Professor Kevin |
| an was the only testifying expert witness with any expertise in paleontology |
Padian was the only testifying expert witness with any expertise in paleontology | |
| 15 His testimony therefore remains unrebutted Dr Padian s demonstrative slides pr epared on the basis of peer reviewing scientific literature illustrate | | |
s testimony is uncontested o 107 Through a series of demonstrative slides prepared based on peer reviewed scientific literature Dr Padian showed |
| how Pandas systematically distorts and misrepresents established important evolutionary principles |
how Of Pandas and People systematically distorts and misrepresents established and important evolutionary principles | |
| We will provide several representative examples of this distortion First | | |
distorts and misrepresents established and important evolutionary principles For instance |
| 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 | |
| Padian P | | |
97 demonstrative |
| 855 6 855 19 Second Pandas misrepresents homology the central concept of comparative biology that |
P855 6 855 19 Pandas also misrepresents homology the central concept of comparative biology that | |
| allowed scientists to evaluate comparable parts among organisms for classification purposes |
allowed scientists to compare comparable parts among organisms for classification purposes | |
| for hundreds of years 17 27 40 Padian P 855 83 855 102 Third | | |
parts among organisms for classification purposes 17 27 40 P855 83 855 102 And |
| Pandas fails to address the well established biological concept of exaptation which involves a structure changing function |
Pandas fails to address at all the well established biological concept of exaptation which involves a structure changing function | |
| such as | | |
function like |
| 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 | |
| 16 146 48 Padian Dr Padian testified that ID proponents fail to | | |
16 146 48 Dr Padian testified that intelligent design proponents do not |
| address exaptation because they deny that organisms change function which is a view necessary to support abrupt appearance Id |
address exaptation because they deny that organisms change function a view necessary to support the abrupt appearance argument Id | |
| Finally | | |
108 |
| Dr Padian s unrebutted testimony demonstrates that Pandas distorts and misrepresents evidence in the fossil record about pre Cambrian era fossils |
Dr Padian s unrebutted testimony also demonstrates that Pandas distorts and misrepresents evidence in the fossil record about pre Cambrian era fossils | |
| the evolution of fish to amphibians the evolution of small carnivorous dinosaurs into birds the evolution of the mammalian middle ear | | |
131 45 P855 46 855 55 the evolution of the mammalian middle ear 17 6 9 Padian P855 56 866 63 |
| and the evolution of whales from land animals 16 107 17 16 117 |
and the evolution of whales from land animals 17 17 | |
| 31 16 131 45 17 6 9 17 17 27 Padian P 855 25 855 33 P 855 34 855 45 P 855 46 855 55 P 855 56 866 63 P 855 64 855 82 In addition to Dr Padian Dr Miller also testified that Pandas presents discredited science | | |
ancient organisms that connect major groups such as Archaeopteryx between ancient reptiles and birds and Ichthyostega between ancient fish and amphibians By now so much evidence has been found that supports the fundamental idea of biological evolution that its occurrence is no longer questioned in science P194 P39 o 110 |
| 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 | |
| and explained | | |
reviewed publications |
| how Pandas misrepresents basic molecular biology concepts to advance design theory |
how Pandas misrepresents basic molecular biology concepts to advance the | |
| through a series of demonstrative slides 1 112 Miller Consider for | | |
misrepresents basic molecular biology concepts to advance the design theory For |
| example that he testified as to how Pandas misinforms readers on the standard evolutionary relationships between different types of animals |
example he testified how Pandas misinforms readers on the standard evolutionary relationships between different types of animals | |
| a distortion which Professor Behe a critical reviewer of Pandas who wrote a section within the book affirmed 1 113 17 Miller P 854 9 854 16 23 35 36 Behe 16 In addition | | |
theory For example he testified how Pandas misinforms readers on the standard evolutionary relationships between different types of animals 1 113 17 P854 9 854 16 a distortion Professor Behe affirmed 23 35 36 |
| Dr Miller refuted Pandas claim that evolution cannot account for new genetic information |
Dr Miller also refuted Pandas claim that evolution cannot account for new genetic information | |
| and | | |
Miller |
| pointed to more than three dozen peer reviewed scientific publications showing the origin of new genetic information by evolutionary processes 1 133 36 Miller P 245 In summary Dr Miller testified that Pandas misrepresents molecular biology and genetic principles |
pointed to more than three dozen peer reviewed scientific publications showing the origin of new genetic information by evolutionary processes 1 133 36 P245 In sum Dr Miller testified that Pandas misrepresents molecular biology and genetics principles | |
| as well as | | |
genetics principles and |
| 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 | |
| Miller Accordingly | | |
In sum |
| the one textbook to which the Dover ID Policy directs students contains outdated concepts and badly flawed science |
the one textbook to which the Dover policy directs students contains badly flawed and scientifically refuted science | |
| as recognized by even the defense experts in this case A final indicator of how ID | | |
in the section on irreducible complexity supra o 112 Yet another measure of how intelligent design |
| 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 | |
| theory Expert testimony revealed that | | |
of peer reviewed publications supporting |
| the peer review process is exquisitely important in the scientific process |
the concept Peer review is exquisitely important in the scientific process | |
| It | | |
review |
| 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 | |
| In fact defense | | |
o 114 Defendants |
| expert Professor Behe recognizes the importance of the peer review process |
expert Professor Behe recognizes the importance to science of the peer review process | |
| and | | |
Behe |
| has written that science must publish or perish 22 19 |
has written that science must publish or perish 22 19 | |
| 25 Behe | | |
69 Miller |
| Peer review helps to ensure that research papers are scientifically accurately meet the standards of the scientific method and are relevant to other scientists in the field 1 39 40 Miller Moreover |
Peer review 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 involves scientists submitting a manuscript to a scientific journal in the field journal editors |
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 soliciting critical reviews from other experts in the field |
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 | |
| and | | |
experts |
| deciding whether the scientist has followed proper research procedures employed up to date methods considered and cited relevant literature |
decide whether the scientist has followed proper research procedures employed up to date methods considered and cited relevant literature | |
| and generally whether the researcher has employed sound science The |
and generally whether the researcher has employed sound science The | |
| evidence presented in this case demonstrates that ID | | |
16 55 56 Padian o 116 Intelligent design |
| is not supported by any peer reviewed research data or publications Both |
is not supported by any peer reviewed research data or publications Both | |
| 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 |
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 | |
| ID 17 42 43 Padian 11 32 33 Forrest On cross examination | | |
flagellum the blood clotting cascade and the immune system As discussed below |
| Professor Behe admitted that There are no peer reviewed articles |
Professor Behe has admitted there are no peer reviewed articles | |
| 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 |
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 | |
| Additionally Professor Behe conceded | | |
Behe He also acknowledged |
| 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 |
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 | |
| Behe In that regard | | |
cascade o 118 Similarly |
| there are no peer reviewed articles supporting Professor Behe s argument that certain complex molecular structures are irreducibly complex 17 21 62 22 124 25 |
there are no peer reviewed articles supporting Professor Behe s argument that certain complex molecular structures are irreducibly complex 21 62 22 124 25 | |
| Behe In addition to failing to produce papers in peer reviewed journals ID | | |
o 119 Besides failing to produce papers in peer reviewed journals intelligent design |
| also features no scientific research or testing 28 114 15 Fuller 18 22 23 105 06 Behe |
also features no scientific research or testing 28 114 115 Fuller 18 22 23 105 106 Behe | |
| After this searching and careful review of ID as espoused by its proponents as elaborated upon in submissions to the Court and as scrutinized over a six week trial we find that ID is not science and cannot be adjudged a valid accepted scientific theory as it | | |
papers in peer reviewed journals intelligent design also features no scientific research or testing 28 114 115 Fuller 18 22 23 105 106 Behe Intelligent design is now nearly two decades old and it has produced no scientific research 17 45 Padian o 120 Because intelligent design |
| 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 | |
| ID as noted is grounded in theology not science Accepting for the sake of argument its proponents as well as Defendants argument that to introduce ID to students will encourage critical thinking it still has utterly no place in a science curriculum Moreover ID s backers have sought to a void the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy but not ID itself should be taught in science class This tactic is at best disingenuous and at worst a canard The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID To conclude and reiterate we express no opinion on the ultimate veracity of ID as a supernatural explanation However we commend to the attention of those who are inclined to superficially consider ID to be a true scientific alternative to evolution without a true understanding of the concept the foregoing detailed analysis It is our view that a reasonable objective observer would after reviewing both the voluminous record in this case and our narrative reach the inescapable conclusion that ID is an interesting theological argument but that it is not science | | |
|