Dover Trial

Casey Luskin, responding to a point in a book review by John Derbyshire, argues that Judge Jones was incorrect in his decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover when he wrote that Intelligent Design is not supported by any peer-reviewed publications. As Wesley Elsberry shows, Luskin’s argument is not with Jones but with the defense in the Dover case, and in particular with the testimony of Michael Behe, who agreed in cross-examination 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." Q. [Rothschild] Now you have never argued for intelligent design in a peer reviewed scientific journal, correct? ...

Now the Discovery Institute is claiming (via Michael Francisco, on the DI’s EvolutionNews blog, reporting on an American Enterprise Institute article co-authored by former DI policy analyst, attorney Seth Cooper) that the newly elected Dover Area School Board intentionally cost the school district $1 million in legal fees by refusing to rescind the illegal policy in December, after the trial was over and before Judge Jones had issued his ruling. This is at odds with the fact that their rescinding the policy would not have changed the outcome of the trial or the awarding of legal fees, which is why they didn’t do it until after the ruling came. What’s worse, they have attributed malice and conflict of interest (now retracted, to the original source’s partial credit) to one of the new board members who was also a plaintiff in the lawsuit regarding this decision, even though he was not yet on the board at the time of the December discussion (there was no vote) on changing the policy due to a runoff election. And further worse–on William Dembski’s blog, someone who pointed out the facts had their comment deleted. There’s nowhere to place the blame for the $1 million in legal fees except on the original board who put the policy in place over the warnings and objections at the time that their action was unconstitutional–and perhaps to some extent on the Discovery Institute advisor who they initially spoke with about what policy to adopt, Seth Cooper. UPDATE (April 5, 2006): Michael Francisco has revised the wording of his blog post, probably to make it less actionable under defamation laws. Ed Brayton points out the specifics of his revisions.

After the Dover decision came down in December 2005, Sen. Rick Santorum resigned as a director of the Thomas More Law Center (which defended the Dover school board) and publicly stated that “I thought the Thomas More Law Center made a huge mistake in taking this case and in pushing this case to the extent they did." This was his first flip-flop, as he had earlier in 2005 written an op-ed which supported the Dover school board. Now he’s flip-flopped again, writing a forward to a new book about Philip Johnson, Darwin’s Nemesis. (Hat tip: Pharyngula.)

Genie Scott of the NCSE gave a talk on “Creationism and Evolution: Current Perspectives” to a standing-room-only audience of several hundred at the ASU Physical Sciences building. This crowd came out to see her despite the fact that Jared Diamond was speaking at ASU at the same time, about his book Collapse. The lecture began with a few words about Bob Dietz, who was a strong supporter of evolution and critic of creationism, and showed a few slides of him and his book, Creation/Evolution Satiricon: Creationism Bashed. Genie gave an overview of creation science, comparing and contrasting it with evolution. She pointed out the logical flaw of the “two model approach” in assuming that evolution and creation are the only two possibilities and that falsifying evolution is all that’s needed to prove creationism. There followed a discussion of the Paluxy river mantracks, and how Glen Kuban’s work led even the Institute for Creation Research to stop using them as evidence that humans and dinosaurs lived together. She talked briefly about some problems with the ark story and the misidentification of geological features as fossilized arks (another example which creationists themselves have refuted). Genie described the NCSE Grand Canyon raft trips, pointing out how they teach both the evolution and creationist sides of the story, while the ICR raft trip only teaches the creationist version. She put up a photo of Steve Austin and his book Grand Canyon, Monument to Catastrophe, along with a photo of “Stone Cold” Steve Austin, pointing out that they should not be confused, even though the creationist Steve Austin does work on cold stone. (This reference worked well with the young audience–my expectation was for a comparison photo of Lee Majors as the “Six Million Dollar Man” as the joke.) She spent some time describing how the Grand Canyon is composed of thousands of layers of sediment which the creationists claim to have been laid down through repeated walls of water and sediment precipitation. This set the stage for Austin’s claims about the canyons around Mt. St. Helens, where a 30’ deep ditch was cut by water in seven days–thirty feet of unconsolidated ash and loose sediment doesn’t compare to four thousand feet of individual layers of shales, limestones, sandstones, etc. Since the event was at ASU, home of the Institute of Human Origins, she mentioned Donald Johanson tiring of correcting bogus creationist claims about Lucy’s knee joint. She then turned to intelligent design, or “creationism light,” which she described as consisting of only a single philosophical claim–that you can detect the evidence of things that are designed and are the products of intelligence, and in particular the product of a divine designer. ID has proposed two concepts for identifying design, Behe’s irreducible complexity and Dembski’s design inference. She described the Discovery Institute and the Wedge Document, and pointed out that there are many criticisms of Behe’s irreducible complexity and Dembski’s complex specified information on the web. The structure of the ID arguments, she argued, is the same as that of creation science–that evolution can’t do it, therefore it must be intelligent design. Michael Behe’s favored example of the bacterial flagellum was shown in an animated slide, and Genie pointed out that they like to use examples of complex systems where we haven’t yet developed full explanations, but they ignore other examples of apparently “irreducibly complex” systems where we do have full explanations, like the evolution of the mammalian ear (which she proceeded to illustrate). She gave a history of the intelligent design movement and its roots in creationism–covering the 1981 McLean v. Arkansas decision, Jon Buell’s formation of the Foundation for Thought and Ethics, and the publications of Thaxton, Bradley, and Olsen’s Mystery of Life’s Origin and Of Pandas and People. She described the science of the latter as awful, giving as an example its treatment of genetic distances between organisms based on cytochrome c, a demonstration that the authors don’t understand evolution (a topic discussed in the Dover case). Wesley Elsberry’s work on word counts of “creationis[t/m]” vs. “intelligent design” in the sequence of manuscripts that became Of Pandas and People was graphically depicted, showing the former dropping to zero and the latter increasing to the level of the former in 1987, after the creationists lost at the U.S. Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard. She briefly commented on William Dembski’s draft of version three of Of Pandas and People, which used “sudden emergence” instead of “intelligent design,” and about the Discovery Institute’s move to a “teach the controversy” position which it has held for a few years, and its model policy for school boards to teach the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution adopted by the Grantsburg, Wisconsin school board in December 2004. She listed seven states that have introduced anti-evolution legislation this year (Alabama, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Utah), promoting books critical of intelligent design and creationism (including Young and Edis’ Why Intelligent Design Fails, Pennock’s Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics, Forrest and Gross’s Creationism’s Trojan Horse, Miller’s Finding Darwin’s God, Shanks’ God, the Devil, and Darwin, Isaak’s Counter-Creationism Handbook, and her own Evolution vs. Creationism, which she was pleased to announce had just been reviewed in the New York Times Book Review. She showed a screen shot of Amazon.com listing her book with a sales rank of #284, though she noted this is an hour-by-hour rank and she had to wait until late on Sunday night to get the shot. In closing, Genie noted that Bob Dietz was a real scientific iconoclast who advocated views that were outside of the mainstream when he initiated them–that seafloor spreading occurs and is evidence of continental drift, that moon craters are asteroid impacts not volcanoes, that shatter cones are evidence of meteoritic impacts. He didn’t respond to criticism by starting a policy institute, hiring a PR firm, and lobbying to have his theories taught in public schools–he responded by doing scientific work, by doing research, by writing and presenting papers. That’s the work that needs to be done to get things taught in public school science classes. Afterward, there was a small reception outside the auditorium, and Genie was swamped with people asking questions for quite some time. I was surprised that there were no obvious creationists or intelligent design advocates–those who were present (I’m sure there were some there) kept their views to themselves. ...

William Dembski stopped blogging at “Uncommon Descent,” but then turned the keys over to Dave Scot and a few others. A recent post there, quickly deleted, gave a quote from Dr. Raj Baldev criticizing evolution. It was no doubt deleted once the poster became aware that Baldev is an Indian astrologer and swami who endorses palmistry, numerology, and “occult reading,” and who gave private consultations to Saddam Hussein when he was in power. Ed Brayton commented on this posting before it disappeared, and now “crandaddy” at Uncommon Descent has the nerve to criticize Ed for being “bigoted” in pointing this out. As a commenter on Ed’s blog has pointed out, Michael Behe did say in the Dover case that astrology would count as science under the definition of science that admits intelligent design.

Casey Luskin offered a commentary (on the Discovery Institute’s “Evolution News & Views” blog) on Kenneth Miller’s testimony in the Dover case in which he expounded on chromosomal fusion and evidence for common ancestry between apes and humans. Mike Dunford and P. Z. Myers responded, pointing out numerous errors and misunderstandings in Luskin’s argument. Luskin’s commentary has been enshrined as a paper at the IDEA Center website called “And the Miller Told His Tale." If Luskin or the Discovery Institute were serious about “teaching the controversy,” they’d at least acknowledge the existence of these responses. But even the trackbacks for the blog entry remains empty…

Ed Brayton gives a rebuttal to what is perhaps the most egregiously dishonest critique of the Dover decision so far, by Phyllis Schlafly. John West of the Discovery Institute links to the Schlafly piece with approval. Two examples which support the heading I’ve chosen: Schlafly writes of Judge Jones: He smeared “fundamentalists,” impugned the integrity of those who disagree with him by accusing them of lying and issued an unnecessary permanent injunction.Judge Jones’ accusations of lying were directed at two individuals who testified in the trial, Dover board members Alan Bonsell and William Buckingham, not at “fundamentalists” or “those who disagree with him.” And he made the accusations because those two board members were lying, as I’ve previously described (about Bonsell here, about Buckingham here, and there’s more in the decision here) and may end up facing perjury charges. Schlafly further expands upon her misrepresentation of Jones’ criticism of these two dishonest board members: He lashed out at witnesses who expressed religious views different from his own, displaying a prejudice unworthy of our judiciary. He denigrated several officials because they “staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public."Jones never mentions his religious views, and does not denigrate these board members for expressing religious views different from his own, but for lying. Here is the passage from Jones’ decision that Schlafly is dishonestly commenting on: It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy. (p. 137 of the decision)Ed addresses more of Schlafly’s dishonesty at Dispatches from the Culture Wars.

Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission was quoted in the Washington Post about the Kitzmiller v. Dover decision: “This decision is a poster child for a half-century secularist reign of terror that’s coming to a rapid end with Justice Roberts and soon-to-be Justice Alito,” said Richard Land, who is president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission and is a political ally of White House adviser Karl Rove. “This was an extremely injudicious judge who went way, way beyond his boundaries–if he had any eyes on advancing up the judicial ladder, he just sawed off the bottom rung.” Apparently Mr. Land believes that 1965-2005 in the United States was something like Robby Berry’s “Life in Our Anti-Christian America." Timothy Sandefur rebuts Land’s nutty comment at The Panda’s Thumb. UPDATE (February 6, 2007): An updated link for Robby Berry’s “Life in Our Anti-Christian America."

It’s an excellent decision. I did spot nineteen errors, none of significance to the legal arguments (three are typos, one’s a mistaken word choice, and fifteen are instances of the same erroneous character substitution, probably facilitated by the ever-helpful Microsoft Word). Will ID advocates find them and make rhetorical use of them? The typos are on pp. 51, 114, and 120, the mistaken word choice is on p. 96, and the three examples of the incorrect character are on pp. 104, 106, 117, 118, 120, 124, 129, and 130. Warning: Reading these pages (which I strongly recommend–in fact, read the whole thing) will expose you to documentation of dishonesty and sleaziness by Christian school board members, including taking a mural depicting evolution from the classroom and burning it. Buckingham and Bonsell come across as sleazy, lying, manipulative bastards, and the rest of the board come across as ignoramuses rubber-stamping their actions. The citizens of Dover certainly did the right thing by voting out the entire school board. The science teachers of Dover, however, come across as very reasonable people who made a few compromises with the board early on in order to get the textbooks they needed to teach, but who were unwilling to teach unscientific materials or read a misleading disclaimer to their students.

Judge John E. Jones III has issued his ruling in the Dover, PA intelligent design case–Dover’s ID Policy violates both the Lemon Test and the endorsement test, and so the Dover Area School District must discontinue reading the statement at the beginning of the evolution unit about Intelligent Design and the availability of Of Pandas and People in the library. The decision covers much broader ground than this, and though the orders are only directed at DASD, this decision is likely to be influential in much the way Judge Overton’s McLean v. Arkansas creation science decision was in 1982. Ed Brayton has the text of the decision and some key quotes and commentary up at Dispatches from the Culture Wars.