Home » Darwinism, News, science education » Dear Darwin lobby: The Dover trial is WHY people don’t believe you …

Dear Darwin lobby: The Dover trial is WHY people don’t believe you …

Flagellum

Not why they should.

From James Barham’s “When our best science is not good enough” ( The Best Schools, November 6, 2011),

First, the new trend in science toward enlisting the political and judicial system to help one side to prevail in a scientific dispute is highly injurious to the health of science itself, to say nothing of the polity, and it must be stopped. If a scientific consensus is so insecure that it has to have its claims imposed on the public by court order—as happened in the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover decision in Pennsylvania with respect to the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution—it can scarcely expect to command the respect of that public, and it forfeits whatever intellectual authority it might otherwise be entitled to. Similar efforts are now afoot to impose an artificial consensus on the subject of climate change. They are equally to be deplored.

The first requirement for ascertaining the reliability of a consensus scientific claim, then, is a climate of frank and open debate, free from political intimidation.

Both the Darwin lobby and Christian Darwinists whine that Americans “don’t believe in” evolution – and it never occurs either to them or  the plush-toy media figures with whom they have a cozy relationship to ask what contribution their politicizing the issues makes.

It’s this simple: In (real) science, medicine, and engineering, your results must follow certain quality standards. Even Einstein can be wrong, even if one result is that “There is no solution that works.”

In politics, you can get any results that the electorate will vote for or judges will rule. A judge could rule that Einstein is right and the faster-than-light neutrinos are wrong. Or that you can’t teach about them in school. Or whatever. That then becomes the official “truth.”

But people understand the difference between the truth standards of knowledge and the truth standards of power. Physicists have demonstrated the former by resting content with the current uncertainty until better data shall arrive; Darwinists have demonstrated the latter in abundance by relying on courts to enforce their dogmas.

Each gets the public confidence it deserves.

Follow UD News at Twitter! .

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

28 Responses to Dear Darwin lobby: The Dover trial is WHY people don’t believe you …

  1. Of note:

    “A Masterful Feat of Courtroom Deception”: Immunologist Donald Ewert on Dover Trial – audio
    http://intelligentdesign.podom.....1_03-08_00

    In this following podcast, Casey Luskin interviews microbiologist and immunologist Donald Ewert about his previous work as associate editor for the journal Development and Comparitive Immunology, where he realized that the papers published were comparative studies that had nothing to do with evolution at all.

    What Does Evolution Have to Do With Immunology? Not Much – April 2011
    http://intelligentdesign.podom.....9_03-07_00

    The deception, from neo-Darwinists at Dover, did not stop with immunology;

    The NCSE, Judge Jones, and Bluffs About the Origin of New Functional Genetic Information – Casey Luskin – March 2010
    http://www.discovery.org/a/14251

    Materialists like to claim evolution is indispensable to experimental biology and led the way to many breakthroughs in medicine, Yet in a article entitled “Evolutionary theory contributes little to experimental biology”, this expert author begs to differ.

    “Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming’s discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin’s theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.
    Philip S. Skell – Professor at Pennsylvania State University.
    http://www.discovery.org/a/2816

    Podcasts and Article of Dr. Skell
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....40981.html

    Darwinian Medicine and Proximate and Evolutionary Explanations – Michael Egnor – neurosurgeon – June 2011
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....47701.html

    Science Owes Nothing To Darwinian Evolution – Jonathan Wells – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4028096

    Thus basically we have a ‘scientific’ theory that used deception in a court of law to get its way, and is shown to be useless as a catalyst for scientific discovery, and yet the neo-Darwinists wonder why people doubt their credibility?!?

  2. correction: Philip S. Skell – (the late) Professor at Pennsylvania State University.

  3. 3
    englishmaninistanbul

    “Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.”

    Michael Crichton

  4. LOL! Coming up on six years and the ID crowd is still whining about their humiliating defeat at Dover.

    I suppose it gives them something to fill all that time they’re not using for ID research.

  5. What defeat? The judge was obviously biased- he watched “Inherit the Wind” for a historical reference.

    When someone buys the lies of the atheistic opposition on an agenda over the word of the experts, that should tell you something.

    BTW who is doing any blind watchmaker research and when will they be publishing their results?

  6. Joseph

    What defeat?

    ID’s defeat for trying to relabel Biblical Creationism as Intelligent Design in the book Of Panda And People and sneak it into Dover public schools. You can read all about it here.

    The “cdesign proponentsists” had every chance to make their scientific case in front of a national audience and the blew it. They screwed the pooch. They dropped the ball. They ate it big time. They failed.

    Six years later and you’re still crying in your beer over it.

  7. The nice thing about having the evidence on your side is knowing that THAT EVIDENCE isn’t going away.

    If anyone would like to call bullshit on that, they can begin by telling us how an immaterial rule becomes established in a material object by means of the physical properties of the material object itself.

  8. I know what happened. As I said the judge was totally clueless.

    And only the willfully ignorant think that Intelligent Design is a relabeling of Biblical Creationsim.

    The scientific case for ID was made and still stands, unrefuted as your position STILL doesn’t have anything to support it. Miller lied, on the satnd, and that is usually perjury- he got away with it because the judge is ignrant of biology and science.

    And why should I cry over that decision? It is only relates to a small insignificant district in PA and doesn’t carry any weight outside of it.

    Science can be neither legislated nor adjudicated.

  9. Intelligent Design was not defeated in 2005. The Dover school board’s decision was defeated and it was obvious the school board was A) religiously motivated and B) ignorant of Intelligent Design.

  10. Joseph

    Science can be neither legislated nor adjudicated.

    But underhanded attempts to relabel Creationism and sneak it into public schools certainly can.

  11. Actually science doesn’t give a dang about Creation. Science just cares about reality.

    And only the willfully ignorant think that Intelligent Design is a relabeling of Biblical Creationsim.

    And here you are…

  12. Six years later the ID crowd is delighted because Dover, despite the judge’s bias, illustrated the point that science is not determined in a court room. Even some materialists were shocked at the judge’s opinion.

    2nd of all, it wasn’t the ID crowd who erred in Dover, it was a small group of evangelical Christians with an agenda. The Discovery Instituted did not support them. Members of the DI were there as expert witnesses to present ID, since the defendants were using ID in their agenda.

    Furthermore, Dover’s results (with the help of “Expelled”) pressed forward the very worthy issue of academic freedom. So we’re not wining. We’re only attempting to put Dover in the right perspective for materialists who still think that scientific issues can be dealt with in the courtroom. It didn’t work, and I’m not surprised at the anger many materialist atheists feel towards the issue of academic freedom. Apparently many of them do not believe in it, but would rather indoctrinate.

  13. “Science can be neither legislated nor adjudicated.”

    “But underhanded attempts to relabel Creationism and sneak it into public schools certainly can.”

    There was indeed evidence of that fact, referring to the School Board’s actions, and they were judged accordingly. But the second part the Court’s decision was resolutely unfounded, in error, and a violation of jurisprudence. No court has the authority, let alone the scientific expertise, to adjudicate what constitutes valid science.

    Shall we submit the various ‘multi verse’ theories for a judicial appraisal next?

  14. Joseph

    And only the willfully ignorant think that Intelligent Design is a relabeling of Biblical Creationsim.

    leebowman

    There was indeed evidence of that fact, referring to the School Board’s actions, and they were judged accordingly.

    Joseph, why are you calling leebowman willfully ignorant?

  15. GinoB,

    I am calling YOU willfully ignorant and the Dover school board ignorant:

    Intelligent Design was not defeated in 2005. The Dover school board’s decision was defeated and it was obvious the school board was A) religiously motivated and B) ignorant of Intelligent Design.

    But thanks for continuing to prove that you are a troll- as if we needed more proof.

  16. Or to rephrase it Gino, “Interesting that Lee Bowman has admitted to his own ignorance.”

    Anybody can rename anything for their own convenience or agenda, be it a school board, or an author/ publisher. His reference was to Judge Jones, and of course you.

    Anything germane to add?… ;~)

  17. leebowman

    But the second part the Court’s decision was resolutely unfounded, in error, and a violation of jurisprudence. No court has the authority, let alone the scientific expertise, to adjudicate what constitutes valid science.

    Of course the court has not only the authority but the responsibility to rule on issues that are pertinent to the case being tried. The judge in this case did so based on the evidence that was presented at trial. If you want to point fingers, you should start with the ID legal team that presented such a weak and fatally flawed case.

    Shall we submit the various ‘multi verse’ theories for a judicial appraisal next?

    If you catch someone C&Ping the words ‘multi-verse” into an existing science book, then trying to sneak the changed book’s message into public science classrooms as fact, absolutely.

  18. Joseph

    I am calling YOU willfully ignorant and the Dover school board ignorant:

    Six years Joseph. Trial’s over. You lost. Get over it already.

  19. ”Of course the court has not only the authority but the responsibility to rule on issues that are pertinent to the case being tried.”

    Wrong again. First, the issue at hand was a violation of the Establishment Clause. And that was done with with reference to Lemon v. Kurtzman:

    • A lack of secular purpose
    • Having a primary effect of advancing religion

    Prong three wasn’t supported IMO. The above prongs were supported in this case, at least by inference, and thus ruled accordingly. It could be argued that yes, the Board had religious leanings, and yes, they lied about the funding of the books, etc.

    But if ID was view properly, as an investigative hypothesis, then it could be argued that there was in fact a secular purpose as well. But nonetheless, there was sufficient religious motive established to rule against the Board. Part two of the ruling was essentially based on:

    • Behe’s testimony, which by the way was correct in its support of design inferences [ID as an investigative hypothesis with evidence to support it].

    • A convincing, but skewed [and false in much of its substance] testimony by Kenneth Miller. Miller by the way, had a vested interest in the outcome of the second part of the decision, based on his business interests.

    • Theatrics [pile of books to peer around] , misstatements regarding them [no validating citations in support of Miller’s claims], and witness leading [the astrology snafu] by the Plaintiff.

    • And finally, based on Judge Jones getting his quickly encapsulated course in Biology 101.

    ”The judge in this case did so based on the evidence that was presented at trial.”

    I’m not blaming Jones; he did what he was told, and fared well afterwards.

    ”If you want to point fingers, you should start with the ID legal team that presented such a weak and fatally flawed case.”

    Correction. It was not a legal team for ID, and yes, Thomas Moore failed at key points to raise objections, in particular regarding the Comedy Central theatrics, witness leading, and over unsupported statements that an evolutionary system path had been proven in the literature presented. A few quotes out of context, but no empirical proof of that, even with the current data.

  20. Except I didn’t lose anything. Only a moron would think ID was affeted in any way, shape or form by an ignorant judge’s ruling that doesn’t apply anywhere except for a small district in PA.

    And all that is needed is for some teacher to violate Judge Jones- like Scopes did- and then another Court will get to hear it all over again. Except this time we know the anti-ID tactics so I look forward to any and all rematches.

  21. leebowman

    GB; ”Of course the court has not only the authority but the responsibility to rule on issues that are pertinent to the case being tried.”

    Wrong again. First, the issue at hand was a violation of the Establishment Clause. And that was done with with reference to Lemon v. Kurtzman:

    • A lack of secular purpose
    • Having a primary effect of advancing religion

    Prong three wasn’t supported IMO.

    If the ID side thinks they have a case for errors in the legal proceeding that should invalidate the ruling they always have the option to appeal.

    Been six years now and nothing’s been done yet. Seems like the legal experts don’t share your opinion.

  22. GinoB:

    If the ID side thinks they have a case for errors in the legal proceeding that should invalidate the ruling they always have the option to appeal.

    That is not how it works. Only the school board or the school can appeal.

    Yup it has been six years and irreducible complexity still remains unrefuted and your sorry position still can’t produce any positive evidence for support.

    All good so far…

  23. I’ve been told that since the School Board was let go, and that the time limit had lapsed, the an appeal was un obtainable. Granted, for the trial itself.

    But in this case, an ‘appeal’ would consist of a judicial review of the ID declarations by a higher court, likely the Supreme Court, and it would be based on whether the ID declarations fell within the established [or perhaps 'newly' established] bounds of jurisprudence.

    If let stand, it would broaden courts’ powers, and might please drug companies and genetic marketers. I would hope that that not be the case. But since this is a research issue rather than a marketing issue, perhaps not.

    It IS however, highly political. Sad that scientific research should be so constrained.

  24. 24

    If a scientific consensus is so insecure that it has to have its claims imposed on the public by court order—as happened in the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover decision in Pennsylvania with respect to the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution—it can scarcely expect to command the respect of that public, and it forfeits whatever intellectual authority it might otherwise be entitled to.

    Oh, but when a school board run by fundamentalists imposes a view like ID, that’s just fine!

  25. Uh… no.

    Who implied that?

  26. Well a school board run by atheists gets away with imposing a view like the untestable current theory of evolution and that is just fine!

  27. What school board? What atheists?

  28. Any school board that allows the unabashed teaching of the currently untestable theory of evolution.

    They are either atheists or liars for atheism:

    In other words, religion is compatible with modern evolutionary biology (and indeed all of modern science) if the religion is effectively indistinguishable from atheism.1

    The frequently made assertion that modern biology and the assumptions of the Judaeo-Christian tradition are fully compatible is false.2

    Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented.

    Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent.3

    As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.4

    click here for a hint:

    ‘Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear … There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either.’ 5

    Thank you for your honesty Will Provine.

    1- Academe January 1987 pp.51-52 †

    2-Evolutionary Progress (1988) p. 65 †

    3- “Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life” 1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address 1 2 †

    4- No Free Will (1999) p.123

    5- Provine, W.B., Origins Research 16(1), p.9, 1994.

Leave a Reply