Kitzmiller vs. Dover, PA

jcrawford · Post by **jcrawford** » Fri Oct 14, 2005 3:19 pm

An intelligently designed legal attack is exposing the soft underbelly of neo-Darwinist facism in public education.

Fascinating details emerging from the court transcripts of the historic Evo/ID legal battle in PA.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/k ... dover.html

McCulloch · Post by **McCulloch** » Fri Oct 14, 2005 3:51 pm

Isn't calling evolutionary science "neo-Darwinist facism" a bit of a hyperbole?

jcrawford · Post by **jcrawford** » Fri Oct 14, 2005 4:45 pm

McCulloch wrote:Isn't calling evolutionary science "neo-Darwinist facism" a bit of a hyperbole?

Not when you read the court transcripts, especially the cross-examination of Kenneth R. Miller.

Care to sign up for the Discovery Institute's Campaign for free speech for teachers and students in public schools and universities?

http://www.discovery.org/csc/freeSpeechEvolCampMain.php

Chimp · Post by **Chimp** » Fri Oct 14, 2005 5:39 pm

What's the debate question?

micatala · Post by **micatala** » Fri Oct 14, 2005 5:55 pm

McCulloch wrote:Isn't calling evolutionary science "neo-Darwinist facism" a bit of a hyperbole?

It is not only hyperbole, it is a blatant attempt to smear those who feel that science teaching in high schools should actually be based on science, and not religion.

I found portions of the plaintiffs opening arguements interesting. It seems the Dover board members who promulgated this policy very well may be out and out liars, as is the author "Of Panda's and People." We already know that ID proponentJonathan Wells is a liar. Elsewhere, he claims he came to his anti-evolutionary views through his graduate education, forgetting that he also has claimed that he pursued his Biology degree under the inspiration of Reverend Moon specifically so he could better battle against evolution. (See the Wedge of Intelligent Design for sources on this one).

Matt, could you highlight the last sentence of the first paragraph. A board member wanted 50 percent of the topic of evolution to involve the teaching of creationism.

Could you pull up Exhibit 60, please. This is a letter that Board Member Heather Geesey wrote to the York Sunday News on June 27th, 2004. Could you highlight the last paragraph, please. You can teach creationism.

Could you pull up Exhibit 662. This is a draft change to the Dover biology curriculum prepared by Assistant Superintendent Michael Baksa. Could you highlight the bottom section, please, Matt. Creationism. And if you look at the text of this draft change to the curriculum, it's remarkably similar to the change that was actually approved, though the final version had intelligent design, not creationism.

And the entire Dover community is aware of what Mr. William Buckingham, the chair of the curriculum committee when this curriculum change was passed, has said on this subject. (Tape played.) "Such as creationism." Defendants refusal to admit their advocacy of creationism in the face of overwhelming evidence says everything about their true motives.

What the board did was add creationism to the biology curriculum under its new name, intelligent design. You will hear from Barbara Forrest, an expert on the history of intelligent design. She will describe how the textbook Of Pandas and People that the school district directs its students to was conceived and developed as a creationist book and changed the name of the concept it was promoting to intelligent design after the Edwards decision held that creation science could not be taught.

Now, the defense had this to say.

Defendants' expert will show this Court that intelligent design theory, IDT, is science, a theory that's advanced in terms of empirical evidence and technical knowledge proper to scientific and academic specialties. It is not religion.

I can't wait to see just how they think they are going to show ID is actually science. This should be interesting.

In addition, I did not see anything untowards or ‘fascist’ in Dr. Miller’s cross-examination testimony. I believe jcrawford is again misusing words and making wild, unsubstantiated assertions.

QED · Post by **QED** » Sat Oct 15, 2005 6:24 am

From Wikipedia

This is a bench trial, meaning that there is no jury, so findings of fact will be made by the judge. The trial judge is John E. Jones III of the Middle District of Pennsylvania, appointed by President George W. Bush in February, 2002

I wonder what this man's beliefs are? I would hope he was educated enough to see through any claims of "Neo-Darwinist fascism"

AmerSdlbrd · Post by **AmerSdlbrd** » Sat Oct 15, 2005 6:58 am

For anyone that hadn't found them already, the NCSE has been putting out podcasts done by Eugenie C. Scott and Nick Matzke pertaining to the first week or so of the trial. They can be found here:http://www2.ncseweb.org/wp/?cat=4

jcrawford · Post by **jcrawford** » Sat Oct 15, 2005 6:16 pm

Chimp wrote:What's the debate question?

Whether neo-Darwinists on the Dover School Board who refuse to allow free speech and debate in public high school science curriculums are evolutionary facists or not, and whether professional neo-Darwinists who testify on their behalf are academic or scientific fascists or not.

jcrawford · Post by **jcrawford** » Sat Oct 15, 2005 6:42 pm

micatala wrote:
McCulloch wrote:Isn't calling evolutionary science "neo-Darwinist facism" a bit of a hyperbole?
It is not only hyperbole, it is a blatant attempt to smear those who feel that science teaching in high schools should actually be based on science, and not religion.

That in itself makes the plaintiffs appear to be scientific and academic facists, since science is in no position to determine what religion is, and the government is in no position to decide what constitutes or separates science and religion. The neo-Darwinist plaintifs are acting like a bunch of religious inquisitors and conducting a scientific form of witch-hunt in order to deny equal rights to non-Darwinist teachers and students in public schools.

I can't wait to see just how they think they are going to show ID is actually science.

Shouldn't be too difficult. Just leave out any reference to religion like the neo-Darwinists used to do when teaching science and let the scientific facists determine and decide what religion is best for the rest of the country - theistic evolution or scientific creationism.

In addition, I did not see anything untowards or ‘fascist’ in Dr. Miller’s cross-examination testimony. I believe jcrawford is again misusing words and making wild, unsubstantiated assertions.

Miller would prevent scientists like Behe from teaching intelligently designed cellular biology in public schools and would not permit Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" or Lubenow's "Bones of Contention" in public school libraries. Sounds like academic and scientific facism to me.

Hope the judge sees through suppressive people like Miller.

jcrawford · Post by **jcrawford** » Sat Oct 15, 2005 6:45 pm

QED wrote:The trial judge is John E. Jones III of the Middle District of Pennsylvania, appointed by President George W. Bush in February, 2002

I wonder what this man's beliefs are? I would hope he was educated enough to see through any claims of "Neo-Darwinist fascism"

I sure hope he doesn't favor neo-Darwinist facism in public schools.