Nick Matzke, . Darwin Day – O4R/WU – Feb. 9, 2007. “Creationism on Trial” Creationism on...

Nick Matzke, www.ncseweb.org. Darwin Day – O4R/WU – Feb. 9, 2007. “Creationism on Trial”

Creationism on Trial - Kitzmiller vs. Dover Evolution Case

The New Yorker, Dec. 2005

Darwin Day 2007

Oregonians for Rationalityand

Willamette University

Feb. 9, 2007

Nick Matzke

National Center for Science Education

http://www.ncseweb.org


National Center for Science Education

What we do: • Watchdog group• Creationism/evolution archives• Networking during crises• Information Resource for

• Teachers• Students• Media

http://www.ncseweb.org


Time magazine(summer 2005)

Dover,PA


“Intelligent design”

“Creation science”

Bans on teaching evolution

widespread

Rise of public education, evolutionteaching

-Origin of Species

History of Evolution & Antievolution

1859

1959

1909

2009

1925: Scopes v. TennesseeThe Monkey Trial

1968: Epperson v. Arkansas

1981: McLean v. Arkansas

1987: Edwards v. Aguillard

2005: Kitzmiller v. Dover


Of Pandas and People (1989)

• Creationists saw hope in one line of Edwards

• “Intelligent Design” (ID) is born as the new buzzword in the 1989 book Of Pandas and People by Davis and Kenyon

• Author 1 - Dean Kenyon: Pro-creationism affidavit in Edwards

• Author 2 - Percival Davis: The Case for Creation (1967, 1983)


McLean v. Arkansas – Dean Kenyon• Dropped out of McLean case at the last minute


Of Pandas and People Of Pandas and People (1989), pp. 99-100


Of Pandas and People

Pandas 1989, pp. 99-100


Dover Area School District


Kitzmiller et al. versus Dover Area School District


Kitzmiller v. Dover


ID Not Science


Expert Witnesses for Plaintiffs

Ken MillerBiology, Brown Univ.

Barbara ForrestHistory, SELU Kevin Padian

Paleontology, Berkeley

Robert PennockPhilosophy of Science,Michigan

Brian AltersEducation, McGill

Jack HaughtTheology, Georgetown


Expert Witnesses for Defendants

Dropped out:• John Angus Campbell (rhetoric)• William Dembski (Leading ID proponent)• Stephen Meyer (Director, Discovery Institute ID program)• Dick Carpenter (education)• Warren Nord (theology)

Michael Behe(biochemistry, Lehigh Univ.

Scott Minnich(microbiology, Univ. of Idaho) Steve Fuller

(sociology of science, Univ. Warwick, UK)


Does scientific literature exist?

Michael Behe,Darwin’s Black Box,1996:

“We can look high or we can look low, in books or in journals, but the result is the same. Thescientific literature has no answers to the question of the origin of the immune system.”

Michael Behe(biochemistry, Lehigh Univ.



Michael Behe,Darwin’s Black Box,1996:

“We can look high or we can look low, in books or in journals, but the result is the same. Thescientific literature has no answers to the question of the origin of the immune system.”



In fact, on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not “good enough.” (23:19 (Behe)).

We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution.

-- Judge Jones


The New Yorker, Dec. 2005

Caption:

“At the trial, Michael Behe, the leading intellectual of intelligent design, was cross-examined with cheerful mercilessness by Eric Rothschild. For six weeks, the courtroom of Judge John E. Jones was like the biology class you wished you could have taken.”

Rothschild cross-examines Behe


Q. And one of the peer reviewers you mentioned yesterday was a gentleman named Michael Atchison?

A. Yes, I think that's correct.

Q. I think you described him as a biochemist at the Veterinary School at the University of Pennsylvania?

A. I believe so, yes.

Q. He was not one of the names you suggested, correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. In fact, he was selected because he was an instructor of your editor's wife?

A. That's correct. My editor knew one biochemistry professor, so he asked, through his wife, and so he asked him to take a look at it as well.

Q. And you found out his name later, correct?

A. That's right, yes.


Michael Behe


Q. Professor Behe, I've shown you an exhibit marked P-754, and that's an article titled -- or a writing titled Mustard Seeds by Dr. Michael Atchison?

A. Yes.[...]Q. Professor Behe, I'd like you to look at the […] last paragraph on the first page, and I'm going to read this for the record. This is what Professor Atchison wrote. While I was identifying myself as a Christian --

MR. MUISE: Objection, Your Honor. […] My looking at this, it appears that he's just try to make an attack against Professor Atchison because he apparently has some religious views, which apparently is a theme throughout this case.

ROTHCHILD: That is absolutely not the case, Your Honor. And I think that will become clear as we go through the document.

THE COURT: All right. Inasmuch as this is a bench trial, I'm going to give Mr. Rothschild some latitude. I'll overrule the objection.



Q. “The editor was not certain that this manuscript was a good risk for publication. There were clearly theological issues at hand, and he was under the impression that these issues would be poorly received by the scientific community. If the tenets of Darwinian evolution were completely accepted by science, who would be interested in buying the book?”

“The editor shared his concerns with his wife. His wife was a student in my class. […] She advised her husband to give me a call. So unaware of all this, I received a phone call from the publisher in New York. We spent approximately ten minutes on the phone. After hearing a description of the work, I suggested that the editor should seriously consider publishing the manuscript.”

“I told him that the origin of life issue was still up in the air. It sounded like this Behe fellow might have some good ideas, although I could not be certain since I had never seen the manuscript. We hung up, and I never thought about it again, at least until two years later.”



ID Not Science


ID struck down – creationism relabeled

Barbara ForrestHistory, SELU


Early Pandas evidence #1


Intelligent Design = Creation science


The lineage of Pandas

Creation Biology (1983)

Biology and Creation (1986)

Biology and Origins (1987)


The lineage of Pandas


(creationist version)


(“intelligent design” version)

Of Pandas and People (1989, 1st ed.)

Of Pandas and People (1993, 2nd ed.)


Biology and Creation 1986

ID = creationism relabeled

Of Pandas and People 1987, version 1

Biology and Origins 1987

Of Pandas and People 1987, version 2


Intelligent Design = Creation science


The evolution of Pandas

(Biology andCreation,p. 3-33)

1986:

1987a:(Biology and Origins,p. 3-38)

1987b:(Of Pandasand People p. 3-40)

1987c:(Of Pandasand People,p. 3-41)

(CreationBiology,p. 3-34)1983:

The missing link!


Win!


Controversy!

Nick Matzke, . Darwin Day – O4R/WU – Feb. 9, 2007. “Creationism on Trial” Creationism on...

Documents

Transcript of Nick Matzke, . Darwin Day – O4R/WU – Feb. 9, 2007. “Creationism on Trial” Creationism on...