| Unmatched Subject | Matched Subject | Matched Ref | Unmatched Ref |
| III INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT SCIENCE o 33 Intelligent design is not science It fails on three distinct levels any one of which invalidates the proposition a | | |
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 |
by invoking and permitting supernatural causation | |
| intelligent design | | |
1 ID |
| violates the centuries old ground rules of science b |
violates the centuries old ground rules of science by | |
| intelligent design including it s poster child argument irreducible complexity | | |
causation 2 the argument of irreducible complexity central to ID |
| employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980 s and |
employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980 s and | |
| science in the 1980 s |
science Accepting for the sake | |
| and c intelligent design | | |
s and 3 ID |
| s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community |
s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community | |
| Furthermore intelligent design | | |
note that ID |
| has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community |
has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community | |
| generate peer reviewed publications or |
generated peer reviewed publications nor | |
| been the subject of testing and research |
been the subject of testing and research | |
| A Reliance on Supernatural Causation Removes Intelligent Design from the Realm of Science o 34 The word science derives from the Latin word scientia which means knowledge 1 58 59 Miller As distinguished from the social sciences like political and library science the natural sciences include biology chemistry astronomy physics 1 59 References to science hereafter unless otherwise noted are to the natural sciences o 35 | | |
science in the 1980 s and 3 ID 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 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 Expert testimony reveals that |
| 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 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 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 | | |
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 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 |
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 | |
| o 36 Science has deliberately left out | | |
Haught 1 63 Miller In deliberately omitting |
| 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 | |
| 9 21 Haught | | |
the natural world |
| Science does not consider issues of meaning and purpose in the world |
science does not consider issues of meaning and purpose in the world | |
| 1 64 87 Miller o 37 Supernatural explanations are | | |
1 64 87 Miller While supernatural explanations may be |
| important and may have merit but they are not part of science 3 103 Miller 9 19 20 Haught |
important and have merit they are not part of science 3 103 Miller 9 19 20 Haught | |
| o 38 | | |
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 |
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 | |
| methodological naturalism 5 23 29 30 Pennock o |
method 5 23 29 30 Pennock Methodological | |
| methodological naturalism 5 23 29 30 Pennock o 39 Methodological naturalism |
method 5 23 29 30 Pennock Methodological naturalism | |
| naturalism also sometimes known as the scientific method |
is sometimes known as the scientific method | |
| is a ground rule of science today |
is a ground rule of science today | |
| ground rule of science today |
ground rules of science to | |
| 1 59 Miller 5 8 23 Pennock This | | |
Although ID s fa ilure to meet the |
| ground rule of science requires scientists |
ground rules of science is | |
| requires scientists to seek explanations in the world around us based upon |
requires scientists to seek explanations in the world around us based upon | |
| things | | |
what |
| we can observe test replicate and verify 1 59 64 2 41 43 Miller 5 23 30 Pennock |
we can observe test replicate and verify 1 59 64 2 41 43 Miller 5 8 23 30 Pennock | |
| Professor Minnich agrees that methodological naturalism is the current rule of science 38 97 o 40 The | | |
replicate and verify 1 59 64 2 41 43 Miller 5 8 23 30 Pennock As the |
| National Academy of Sciences NAS was recognized by experts for both |
National Academy of Sciences hereinafter NAS was recognized by experts for both | |
| sides | | |
parties |
| as being the most prestigious scientific association in this country |
as the most prestigious scientific association in this country | |
| the most prestigious scientific association in this country |
the most prestigious scientific association in this country | |
| 1 94 probably the most prestigious scientific association in the world | | |
we will accordingly cite to its opinion where appropriate 1 94 |
| 160 61 Miller 14 72 Alters 37 31 Minnich |
160 61 Miller 14 72 Alters 37 31 Minnich | |
| Accordingly where appropriate the Court cites to the NAS position o 41 NAS | | |
94 160 61 Miller 14 72 Alters 37 31 Minnich NAS is in |
| 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 |
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 | |
| Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science National Academy Press 2003 The restriction to natural explanations in science is implicit in this definition because non natural explanations are not testable o 42 | | |
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 |
| This rigorous attachment to natural explanations is an essential attribute |
This rigorous attachment to natural explanations is an essential attribute | |
| of science | | |
by convention |
| 1 63 Miller 5 29 31 Pennock |
1 63 Miller 5 29 31 Pennock | |
| Both definitionally and by convention science is limited to natural explanations 5 29 30 Pennock Science is the systematic search for natural explanations for natural phenomena 1 59 63 Miller 5 30 Pennock This search is dependent on empirical observations what we can observe and measure that can be tested replicated and disproven 1 63 Miller If non natural explanations are allowed e g Dr Miller s example about God s role in helping the Red Sox win the world series the systematic search for natural causes is completely undermined 1 63 64 Miller As Pennock testified allowing non natural explanations is cheating you can t just call for quick 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 | | |
cite to its opinion where appropriate 1 94 160 61 Miller 14 72 Alters 37 31 Minnich 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 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 |
| 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 | |
| outside the natural world |
outside of the natural world | |
| is a science stopper 3 14 15 | | |
stopper 3 14 15 Miller As Dr |
| 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 |
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 | |
| o 43 Intelligent design | | |
our answer Id ID |
| is predicated on supernatural causation |
is predicated on supernatural causation | |
| is predicated on supernatural causation |
is predicated on supernatural causation | |
| 17 96 Padian 2 35 36 Miller 14 62 Alters Intelligent design | | |
revealed 17 96 Padian 2 35 36 Miller 14 62 Alters ID |
| takes a natural phenomenon and instead of accepting or seeking a natural explanation argues that the explanation is supernatural 5 107 Pennock |
takes a natural phenomenon and instead of accepting or seeking a natural explanation argues that the explanation is supernatural 5 107 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 | | |
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 |
| 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 |
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 | |
| In other words | | |
ID posits that |
| animals did not evolve naturally through evolutionary means but rather were created abruptly by a non natural or supernatural designer |
animals did not evolve naturally through evolutionary means but were created abruptly by a non natural or supernatural designer | |
| o 45 Even | | |
or supernatural designer |
| defendants own expert witnesses acknowledged this point 21 96 100 Behe |
Defendants own expert witnesses acknowledged this point 21 96 100 Behe | |
| see also P718 Michael Behe Reply to Critics | | |
this point 21 96 100 Behe P 718 |
| 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 |
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 | |
| o 46 Indeed defendants argument | | |
that defense experts own mission |
| which mirrors that of the |
which mirrors that of the | |
| intelligent design movement | | |
the IDM itself |
| 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 | |
| the ground rules of science |
the ground rules of science | |
| to allow supernatural causation of the natural world 5 32 Pennock Professor Fuller agreed that intelligent design | | |
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 |
aspires to change the ground rules of science | |
| 28 26 | | |
defense expert |
| Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science which encompasses |
Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science which encompasses | |
| intelligent design would also embrace astrology 21 37 42 Behe | | |
28 26 Fuller 21 37 42 Behe Moreover defense expert |
| Professor Minnich acknowledged that for |
Professor Minnich acknowledged that for | |
| intelligent design | | |
for ID |
| 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 | |
| causes 38 97 o 47 William Dembski an intelligent design movement | | |
to take hold and prosper William Dembski for instance an IDM |
| 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 | |
| intelligent design | | |
if ID |
| is to prosper 5 32 37 Pennock |
is to prosper 5 32 37 Pennock | |
| Dembski contends that the scientific picture of the world championed since the Enlightenment is not just wrong but massively wrong | | |
argues that this rule must be overturned if ID is to prosper 5 32 37 Pennock P 341 at 224 |
| Indeed entire fields of inquiry including especially the human sciences will need to be rethought from the ground up in terms of intelligent design |
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 | |
| 5 35 Pennock P341 William Dembski Intelligent Design A Bridge Between Science and Theology at 224 o 48 | | |
in the human sciences will need to be rethought from the ground up in terms of intelligent design |
| The Discovery Institute the think tank promoting |
The Discovery Institute the think tank promoting | |
| intelligent design has also acknowledged that the | | |
developed the Wedge Document acknowledges as Governing |
| goal is to defeat scientific materialism and |
Goals to defeat scientific materialism and | |
| and to replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God P140 at |
and replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God P 140 at | |
| 6 The Wedge Document See supra 11 | | |
which ID will supplant evolutionary theory 14 |
| o 49 Every major scientific association that has taken a position on |
Notably every major scientific association that has taken a position on | |
| this issue has stated that intelligent design | | |
ID is science has concluded that ID |
| is not and cannot be considered |
is not and cannot be considered | |
| science | | |
such |
| 1 98 99 Miller 14 75 78 Alters 37 25 Minnich |
1 98 99 Miller 14 75 78 Alters 37 25 Minnich | |
| o 50 For example NAS views intelligent design | | |
prestigious scientific association in this country views ID |
| 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 |
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 | |
| they are not testable by |
they are simply 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 Academy Press Science and Creationism A View from the National Academy of Sciences 2d Ed 1999 o 51 The | | |
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 the American Association for the Advancement of Science hereinafter AAAS the |
| largest organization of scientists in this country |
largest organization of scientists in this country | |
| the American Association for the Advancement of Science AAAS |
the American Association for the Advancement of Science hereinafter AAAS | |
| has taken a similar position on |
has taken a similar position on | |
| intelligent design | | |
on ID |
| 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 |
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 | |
| include as part of science |
in support of creation science | |
| include as part of science |
in support of creation science | |
| education P198 AAAS Board Resolution on Intelligent Design Theory Oct 18 2002 o 52 Neither plaintiffs nor defendants expert witnesses identified a single | | |
include as part of science education P 198 Not a single expert witness over the course of the six week trial identified one |
| major scientific association society or organization that endorsed |
major scientific association society or organization that endorsed | |
| intelligent design as science o 53 Defendant s experts admit that intelligent design | | |
that endorsed ID as science What is more defense experts concede that ID |
| is not a theory as that term is defined by the NAS |
is not a theory as that term is defined by the NAS | |
| 21 37 38 Behe Fuller Dep 98 According | | |
defect Id 22 61 65 Behe In addition |
| to Professor Behe intelligent design is a |
to Professor Behe s admitted | |
| to Professor Behe intelligent design is a |
to Professor Behe s assertions | |
| is a scientific theory |
is the dominant scientific theory | |
| only if that term is defined loosely enough to also include astrology 21 38 39 o 54 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 | | |
trial identified one major scientific association society or organization that endorsed ID as science What is more defense experts concede that ID 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 |
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 | | |
at 89 May 26 2005 It is therefore readily apparent to the Court that ID fails to |
| meet the essential ground rules that limit science to testable natural explanations 3 101 03 Miller 14 62 Alters |
meet the essential ground rules that limit science to testable natural explanations 3 101 03 Miller 14 62 Alters | |
| o 56 | | |
62 Alters |
| Science cannot be defined differently for Dover students than it is defined in the scientific community as an affirmative action program for a |
Science cannot be defined differently for Dover students than it is defined in the scientific community as an affirmative action program as | |
| 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 | |
| Intelligent design s failure to meet the 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 | | |
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 is at bottom |
| premised on a false dichotomy namely that to the extent evolutionary theory is discredited |
premised upon a false dichotomy namely that to the extent evolutionary theory is discredited | |
| intelligent design | | |
discredited ID |
| is confirmed 5 41 Pennock This same argument |
is confirmed 5 41 Pennock This argument | |
| same argument termed contrived dualism in McLean |
same argument termed contrived dualism in McLean | |
| v Arkansas Board of Education | | |
termed contrived dualism in McLean |
| was employed by creationists in the 1980 s to support creation science |
was employed by creationists in the 1980 s to support creation science | |
| This argument is no more availing |
this argument is merely a | |
| to justify intelligent design | | |
availing to justify ID |
| today than it was to justify creation science two decades ago |
today than it was to justify creation science two decades ago | |
| o 58 Intelligent design | | |
two decades ago ID |
| proponents primarily argue for design through negative argument against evolution |
proponents primarily argue for design through negative arguments against evolution | |
| including | | |
parts |
| Professor Behe s argument |
Professor Behe summarized the argument | |
| 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 | |
| 5 38 41 Pennock 10 148 Forrest Intelligent design attempts to poke holes in evolutionary theory to say that Darwinian mechanisms meaning natural causes cannot explain life s complexity 5 39 Pennock o 59 For example Professor Behe argued that intelligent design focuses exclusively on the proposed mechanism of how complex biological structures arose 21 63 but admitted that intelligent design does not propose any | | |
could exist and yet natural explanations have been identified in the intervening years It also bears mentioning that as Dr Miller stated 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 s alleged scientific centerpiece Irreducible complexity |
| mechanism just a negative argument against |
is a negative argument against | |
| natural selection 21 84 87 He also conceded that Pandas is making a negative argument against common descent to more greatly enhance the plausibility of the alternative of intelligent design 21 82 o 60 The following passages from Of Pandas and People P11 also reflect this negative argument against evolution Design proponents have long asserted that gaps in the fossil record are evidence for intelligent design at 87 Since it is not reliable most of the so called evidence for macro evolution and conversely against intelligent design obtained from comparative anatomy and embryology is weak and could turn out to be misleading at 133 parenthetical in original Multiple accidental gene mutations are a highly improbable source of new genetic information to code for multi functional structures at 72 and n o creatures with a partial wing or partial eye are known Should we close our minds to the possibility that the various types of plants and animals were intelligently designed This alternative suggests that a reasonable natural cause explanation for origins may never be found and that intelligent design best fits the data at 99 100 o 61 | | |
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 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 today than it was to justify creation science two decades ago ID proponents primarily argue for design through negative arguments against evolution as illustrated by 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 |
arguments against evolution are not arguments for design | |
| Just because scientists cannot explain |
just because scientists cannot explain | |
| 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 |
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 | |
| In Dr Padian s words | | |
As Dr Padian aptly noted |
| absence of evidence is not evidence of absence 17 45 |
absence of evidence is not evidence of absence 17 45 | |
| Testimony from Drs Miller and Padian was replete with | | |
expert testimony from Drs Miller and Padian provided multiple |
| 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 |
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 intermediate fossils showing evolution of the whale evolution of the immune system mapping of the chimpanzee genome spectacularly confirming common ancestry between humans and great apes etc o 62 | | |
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 that as Dr Miller stated |
| 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 | |
| No | | |
no |
| theory in science is fully understood 3 102 Miller |
theory in science is fully understood 3 102 Miller | |
| But that is true in other areas of knowledge too We do not know every detail about what happened at Gettysburg but historians do not doubt the fact of the battle and know a great deal about how it unfolded 3 104 05 Miller Just because we do not know every detail about Gettysburg or how evolution progresses does not mean we are not confident that the battle occurred | | |
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 |
| or that the theory of evolution |
for the theory of evolution | |
| is the best scientific explanation for change over time Id o 63 According to defendants own expert Stephen Fuller design does not logically follow from scientists inability to explain every detail of how evolution occurred 28 63 66 See also 2 40 Miller In fact Professor Fuller testified that even if | | |
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 negative argument of irreducible complexity |
the argument of irreducible complexity | |
| the negative argument of irreducible complexity disproved |
the negative argument of irreducible complexity is | |
| natural selection it does not follow that intelligent design is proved because it does not rule out rival hypotheses Fuller Dep at 167 70 C Irreducible Complexity Fails Even as a Purely Negative Argument Against Evolution o 64 Irreducible complexity intelligent design s alleged scientific centerpiece | | |
Dr Miller stated 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 s alleged scientific centerpiece Irreducible complexity |
| is simply a negative argument against evolution not proof of design |
is a negative argument against evolution not proof of design | |
| a negative argument against evolution |
a negative argument against evolution | |
| not proof of design 2 15 Miller a point conceded by Professor Minnich | | |
of design a point conceded by defense expert Professor Minnich 2 15 Miller |
| 38 82 irreducible complexity is not a test of intelligent design it s a test of evolution |
38 82 Minnich irreducible complexity is not a test of intelligent design it s a test of evoluti | |
| It | | |
additionally |
| fails to make any positive scientific case for |
fails to make a positive scientific case for | |
| intelligent design Moreover the evidence | | |
s a test of evoluti |
| demonstrates that irreducible complexity fails |
on Irreducible complexity additionally fails | |
| even as a purely negative argument o 65 | | |
be elaborated upon below We initially note that |
| Irreducible complexity was defined by Professor Behe in Darwin s |
irreducible complexity as defined by Professor Behe in his | |
| 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 |
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 | |
| Behe Michael Darwin s Black Box at 39 Free Press 1996 P718 at 694 o 66 | | |
natural selection to have anything to act on P 647 at 39 P 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 P718 at 695 |
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 | |
| Specifically 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 |
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 | |
| P718 at 695 | | |
first place Id |
| 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 | |
| P718 at 695 but he never has 22 61 65 | | |
Id 22 61 65 Behe In addition to Professor Behe |
| This admitted failure to properly address the very phenomenon that irreducible complexity purports to place at issue natural selection |
s admitted failure to properly address the very phenomenon that irreducible complexity purports to place at issue natural selection | |
| is a damning indictment of the entire proposition o 67 Dr Miller and Dr Padian explained | | |
phenomenon that irreducible complexity purports to place at issue natural selection Drs Miller and Padian testified |
| that Professor Behe s concept of irreducible complexity depends on ignoring ways in which evolution is known to occur |
that Professor Behe s concept of irreducible complexity depends on ignoring ways in which evolution is known to occur | |
| Behe was | | |
Behe is |
| 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 |
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 | |
| won | | |
will |
| t function in the way the system functions when all the parts are present |
not function in the same way the system functions when all the parts are present | |
| for | | |
For |
| example in the case of the bacterial flagellum as a |
example in the case of the bacterial flagellum removal | |
| rotary motor 19 88 He | | |
rotary motor However Professor Behe |
| excludes by definition the possibility that a precursor |
excludes by definition the possibility that a precursor | |
| functioned | | |
but |
| in some other way for example |
in some other way for example | |
| in the case of the bacterial flagellum | | |
but in some other way for example |
| as a secretory system 19 88 95 |
as a secretory system 19 88 95 | |
| o 68 This | | |
testimony revealed the |
| 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 | |
| As Dr Padian described it Irreducible complexity on its face is a simple statement about a machine or some kind of structure that has several parts If you take away one of those parts then it stops functioning Well any 8 year old with a broken bicycle chain knows that he can t ride around anymore with a broken bicycle chain if that part is broken it s not going to work No one s got a Nobel prize for that proposition This only makes sense in the context of intelligent design when | | |
17 45 Padian To that end expert testimony from Drs Miller and Padian provided multiple 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 that as Dr Miller stated 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 s alleged scientific centerpiece |
| irreducible complexity is invoked as a |
Irreducible complexity is a negative | |
| way to assert that no structure could have evolved by natural means 17 44 o 69 | | |
is meant by irreducible complexity renders it meaningless as a criticism of evolution 3 40 Miller |
| In fact the theory of evolution |
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 |
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 | |
| the evolution of the mammalian middle ear |
the evolution of the mammalian middle ear | |
| bones from what had been jawbones as an example of this process 17 6 17 The existence of feathers for other purposes in flightless dinosaurs is another example 17 131 45 Even Professor Minnich freely admitted that bacteria living in soil polluted with DNT on an U S Air Force base had evolved a complex multiple protein biochemical pathway by exaptation of proteins with other functions 38 71 This entire pathway didn t evolve to specifically attack this substraight substrate all right There was probably a modification of two or three enzymes perhaps cloned in from a different system that ultimately allowed this to be broken down | | |
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 Padian |
| By defining irreducible complexity in the way he has Professor Behe attempts to exclude the phenomenon of exaptation by definitional fiat |
By defining irreducible complexity in the way that he has Professor Behe attempts to exclude the phenomenon of exaptation by definitional fiat | |
| He asserts that evolution could not work by excluding one important way that evolution is known to work o 70 The National Academy of Sciences | | |
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 |
| has rejected Professor Behe s claim for irreducible complexity using |
has rejected Professor Behe s claim for irreducible complexity by using | |
| Professor Behe s claim for irreducible complexity |
Professor Behe s claim for irreducible complexity | |
| using this same | | |
the following cogent |
| 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 | |
| Jawless fish have a simpler hemoglobin than do jawed fish which in turn have a simpler hemoglobin than mammals | | |
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 P192 at 22 |
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 | |
| o 71 Professor Behe has applied |
Pennock Professor Behe has applied | |
| irreducible complexity only to a |
irreducible complexity is only a | |
| irreducible complexity only to a few select systems the bacterial flagellum the blood clotting cascade and the immune system |
irreducible complexity to only a few select systems 1 the bacterial flagellum 2 the blood clotting cascade and 3 the immune system | |
| As discussed below | | |
On cross examination |
| Professor Behe has admitted there are no peer reviewed articles |
Professor Behe admitted that There are no peer reviewed articles | |
| there are no peer reviewed |
there are no peer reviewed | |
| there are no peer reviewed articles |
there are no peer reviewed articles | |
| arguing for the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum the blood clotting cascade and the immune system or any other purportedly irreducibly complex system o 72 Because it is only a negative argument against evolution irreducible complexity unlike intelligent design is testable | | |
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 is only a negative argument against evolution it 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 |
by showing that there are intermediate structures with selectable functions that could have evolved into the allegedly irreducibly complex systems 2 15 16 Miller | |
| The fact that this negative argument | | |
the negative argument of irreducible complexity |
| is testable does not make the argument for |
is testable does not make testable the argument for | |
| intelligent design testable | | |
argument for ID |
| 2 15 Miller 5 39 39 Pennock o |
2 15 Miller 5 39 Pennock Professor | |
| o 73 Dr Miller presented evidence based on peer reviewed studies that the |
however Dr Miller presented evidence based upon peer reviewed studies that they | |
| biochemical systems claimed to be irreducibly complex by Professor Behe were in fact not so 2 21 36 o 74 | | |
based upon peer reviewed studies that they are not in fact irreducibly complex First with regard to the bacterial flagellum |
| 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 |
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 | |
| cursor to the bacterial flagellum |
precursor to the bacterial flagellum | |
| a subsystem that was fully functional namely the Type III Secretory System 2 8 20 P854 23 854 32 on bacterial flagellum | | |
that was fully functional namely the Type III Secretory System 2 8 20 Miller P 854 23 854 32 Moreover defense expert |
| 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 |
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 | |
| and | | |
Minnich |
| none of this research or thinking |
None of this research or thinking | |
| is considering intelligent design 38 12 16 He testified about this research | | |
16 Minnich In fact Professor Minnich 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 |
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 | |
| He also testified that I have no idea in terms of how it came about I just look at the structure And it has the signature of irreducible complexity and design It s a true rotary engine I just come back to that It doesn t say anything about where it came from when it was made or who was involved in it or what was involved in it 38 16 o 75 | | |
or whether 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 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 Minnich Second with regard to the blood clotting cascade |
| 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 | |
| the alleged irreducible complexity of the blood clotting cascade |
the alleged irreducible complexity of the blood clotting cascade | |
| has been disproven by peer reviewed studies going | | |
has been disproven by peer reviewed studies dating |
| 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 |
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 | |
| P854 17 854 22 | | |
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 |
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 | |
| In sum | | |
Miller Accordingly |
| scientists in peer reviewed publications have refuted Behe s |
scientists in peer reviewed publications have refuted Professor | |
| prediction about the alleged irreducible complexity of the blood clotting cascade Professor Behe tried to elide this compelling evidence by redefining the blood clotting system Behe 20 26 28 Cross examination revealed this to be an argument of convenience | | |
Miller Accordingly scientists in peer reviewed publications have refuted Professor Behe s predication 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 |
| designed to avoid peer reviewed scientific evidence that falsifies his argument not a |
designed to avoid peer reviewed scientific evidence that falsifies his argument as | |
| not a scientifically warranted redefinition |
not a scientifically warranted redefinition | |
| Behe 22 112 125 | | |
2 26 27 Miller |
| o 76 Dr Miller also presented peer reviewed studies refuting Professor Behe s claim that the immune system was irreducibly complex |
However Dr Miller presented peer reviewed studies refuting Professor Behe s claim that the immune system was irreducibly complex | |
| Professor Behe s claim that the |
Professor Behe testified that the | |
| immune system was irreducibly complex 2 21 36 P854 33 854 41 Professor Behe wrote in Darwin s Black Box | | |
which Professor Behe has applied the definition of irreducible complexity Although in Darwin s Black Box Professor Behe wrote that |
| not only that there were no natural explanations |
not only were there no natural explanations | |
| at the time but that in fact natural explanations were impossible As scientists we yearn to understand how this magnificent mechanism came to be but the complexity of the system dooms all Darwinian explanations to frustration Sisyphus himself would pity us P647 at 139 2 26 27 Miller Professor Behe argued that scientists should not even bother to investigate 2 27 Miller However scientists did not heed Professor Behe s admonition and | | |
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 at the time but that natural explanations were impossible regarding its origin P 647 at 139 2 26 27 Miller However Dr Miller presented peer reviewed studies refuting Professor Behe s claim that the immune system was irreducibly complex |
| between 1996 and 2005 various studies confirmed each element of the evolutionary hypothesis explaining the origin of the immune system 2 31 Miller |
Between 1996 and 2002 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 |
Forrest On cross examination Professor Behe | |
| cross examination Professor Behe was questioned |
cross examination Professor Behe was questioned | |
| about | | |
concerning |
| 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 | |
| confronted | | |
presented |
| with the fifty eight peer reviewed publications nine books and several immunology text book chapters about the evolution of the immune system |
with fifty eight peer reviewed publications nine books and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system | |
| P256 280 281 283 747 748 755 and 743 and | | |
textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system however |
| he insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution |
he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution | |
| it was not good enough 23 19 o 78 This evidence demonstrates that the intelligent design | | |
was not good enough 23 19 Behe We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID |
| argument depends on setting a |
argument is dependent upon setting a | |
| burden of proof for the theory of evolution that is scientifically unreasonable | | |
upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of |
| o 79 As a further example the test for |
evolution As a further example the test for | |
| intelligent design | | |
for ID |
| 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 | |
| by both Professors Behe and Minnich |
by Professors Behe and Minnich | |
| both Professors Behe and Minnich |
both Professors Behe and Minnich | |
| is to grow the bacterial flagellum in the laboratory P718 18 125 127 But nobody | | |
Behe and Minnich is to grow the bacterial flagellum in the laboratory however no one |
| inside or outside the |
inside or outside of the | |
| intelligent design movement including Behe and Minnich has conducted this test | | |
the test has conducted it P 718 18 125 27 Behe |
| 22 102 06 Behe Professor Behe |
22 102 06 Behe Professor Behe | |
| admitted | | |
conceded |
| that the proposed test could not approximate real world conditions |
that the proposed test could not approximate real world conditions | |
| 22 107 110 And even if it could | | |
even if it could Professor Minnich admitted that |
| it would be merely a test of evolution not design 2 |
it would merely be a test of evolution not design 22 | |
| evolution not design 2 15 |
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 | | |
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 |
| Professor Behe s claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community |
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 Moreover | | |
17 45 46 Padian 3 99 Miller Additionally |
| 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 | |
| intelligent design 2 15 2 35 40 Miller 28 63 66 Fuller ID doesn t follow logically Irreducible complexity is merely a test for evolution not design 2 15 Miller o 81 Defendants protestations notwithstanding the Court finds that there is no testable positive argument for intelligent design Neither Pandas nor any witness in this trial has proposed a scientific test for design 2 39 Miller D The Positive Argument for Design is Unscientific and Illogical o 82 The | | |
38 82 Minnich We therefore find that 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 Additionally even if irreducible complexity had not been rejected it still does not support ID as it is merely a test for evolution not design 2 15 2 35 40 Miller 28 63 66 Fuller We will now consider the |
| purportedly positive argument for design |
purportedly positive argument for design | |
| espoused repeatedly by Professors Behe and Minnich is encompassed in | | |
Professors Behe and Minnich throughout their expert testimony which is |
| the phrase purposeful arrangement of parts |
the purposeful arrangement of parts | |
| 18 91 I discussed this in my book Darwin s Black Box and a short description of design is shown in this quotation from Chapter 9 Quote What is design Design is simply the purposeful arrangement of parts When we perceive that parts have been arranged to fulfill a purpose that s when we infer design 19 55 | | |
As Plaintiffs aptly submit to the Court throughout the entire trial only one piece of evidence generated by Defendants addressed the strength of the ID 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 at 705 Accordingly |
| the positive argument for |
the purported positive argument for | |
| it is the purposeful 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 in the purposeful arrangement of parts o 83 | | |
design 2 15 2 35 40 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 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 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 |
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 | |
| strength of the inference |
strength of the ID 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 slides at 7 18 109 110 See also 37 50 Minnich o 84 This is not a new argument but | | |
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 37 50 Minnich As previously indicated this argument is merely |
| 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 | |
| 1 6 7 Miller 38 44 57 Minnich |
1 6 7 Miller 38 44 57 Minnich | |
| 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 |
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 | |
| Id o 85 | | |
testimony revealed that |
| This inductive argument is not scientific |
this inductive argument is not scientific | |
| 2 40 Miller As Professor Behe admitted it can never be ruled out 22 101 See also 3 99 Miller o 86 The | | |
scientific and as admitted by Professor Behe can never be ruled out 2 40 Miller 22 101 Behe 3 99 Miller Indeed the |
| assertion that design of biological systems can be inferred from the purposeful arrangement of parts is based on an analogy to human design |
assertion that design of biological systems can be inferred from the purposeful arrangement of parts is based upon an analogy to human design | |
| According to Professor Behe | | |
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 | |
| that same reasoning can be employed to determine biological design 18 116 17 23 50 |
that same reasoning can be employed to determine biological design 18 116 17 23 50 | |
| o 87 | | |
50 Behe |
| Professor Behe testified that the strength of |
Professor Behe testified that the strength of | |
| an | | |
the |
| analogy depends on the degree of similarity entailed in the two propositions |
analogy depends upon the degree of similarity entailed in the two propositions | |
| 20 69 If this is the test intelligent design completely fails o 88 | | |
in the two propositions however if this is the test ID completely fails |
| 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 |
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 | |
| This difference is noted in one of the articles relied upon by Professor Minnich rejecting the analogy between machines and biological systems because m achines are not made of parts that continually turn over renew The organism is the stability of an organism lies in resilience the homeostatic capacity to reestablish itself D251 at 176 o 89 | | |
upon the degree of similarity entailed in the two propositions however if this is the test ID 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 |
| For human artifacts we know the designer s identity human the mechanism of design |
For human artifacts we know the designer s identity human and the mechanism of design | |
| human artifacts we know the designer |
human artifacts we know the designer | |
| s identity human the mechanism of design because | | |
identity human and the mechanism of design as |
| we have experience based on empirical evidence that humans can make such things |
we have experience based upon empirical evidence that humans can make such things | |
| and many other attributes such as | | |
well as many other attributes including |
| the designer s abilities needs and desires |
the designer s abilities needs and desires | |
| Id | | |
176 |
| 1 131 33 Miller 23 63 Behe 5 55 58 Pennock With |
1 131 33 Miller 23 63 Behe 5 55 58 Pennock With | |
| intelligent design proponents say | | |
With ID proponents assert |
| that they refuse to propose hypotheses on the designer s identity do not propose a mechanism and he |
that they refuse to propose hypotheses on the designer s identity do not propose a mechanism and the | |
| she it or they has never been seen | | |
never been seen In that vein defense expert |
| Professor Minnich agreed that in the case of human artifacts and objects we know who the |
Professor Minnich agreed that in the case of human artifacts and objects we know the | |
| designer is and what the capacities of humans are | | |
know the identity and capacities of the human designer |
| but that we don t know any of those attributes for the designer of biological life 38 44 47 |
but we do not know any of those attributes for the designer of biological life 38 44 47 | |
| Professor Behe agreed that for |
Professor Behe agreed that for | |
| human design | | |
human artifacts |
| we know the designer and its attributes |
we know the designer and its attributes | |
| needs desires abilities limitations materials technology 23 61 70 | | |
human artifacts we know the designer and its attributes |
| 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 | |
| 70 | | |
61 |
| 73 Professor Behe s only response to these insurmountable points of disanalogy was that the inference still works in science fiction movies 23 73 |
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 | |
| o 90 Ultimately | | |
the Court that |
| the only attribute of design that biological systems |
the only attribute of design that biological systems | |
| share with human artifacts is their complex appearance if |
share with human artifacts is their complex appearance i | |
| their complex appearance if it looks complex or designed it must have been designed 23 73 Behe |
i e if it looks complex or designed it must have been designed 23 73 Behe | |
| Taken to its logical conclusion this positive design argument applies to every complicated thing we see in the universe tornadoes the rings of Saturn the complex ice crystals in snowflakes etc a result whereby natural explanations could be replaced in every instance by design arguments But as Professor Behe conceded about the long discarded geocentric theory scientific propositions based entirely on appearance can be very wrong 19 5 6 Behe see also 16 74 Padian o 91 | | |
exist for design of biological systems 23 61 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 Behe It is readily apparent to the Court that 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 |
| 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 |
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 | |
| Both | | |
Professors |
| Behe and Minnich asserted that there is a quantitative aspect to the inference but on cross examination admitted there |
Behe and Minnich assert that there is a quantitative aspect to the inference on cross examination they | |
| 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 |
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 | |
| In fact in the entire trial there was | | |
submit to the Court throughout the entire trial |
| only one piece of evidence generated by defendants that addressed the strength of the |
only one piece of evidence generated by Defendants addressed the strength of the | |
| intelligent design | | |
the ID |
| 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 | |
| Michael J Behe Reply to My Critics Biology and Philosophy100 16 685 709 2001 P718 at 705 o 92 This purported positive argument for intelligent design | | |
is in question and is much less plausible for those who deny God s existence P 718 at 705 Accordingly the purported positive argument for ID |
| does not satisfy the ground rules of science which require testable hypotheses based on natural explanations 3 101 03 Miller |
does not satisfy the ground rules of science which require testable hypotheses based upon natural explanations 3 101 03 Miller | |
| Intelligent design relies | | |
ID is reliant |
| on forces acting outside the natural world forces that we cannot see replicate control or test which have produced changes in this world |
upon forces acting outside of the natural world forces that we cannot see replicate control or test which have produced changes in this world | |
| 3 101 Miller While such forces may exist just as it may be true that God arranged the victory of the Red Sox in the World Series they are not testable by science | | |
that we cannot see replicate control or test which have produced changes in this world While we take no position on whether such forces exist they are simply not testable by scientific means |
| and therefore cannot qualify as part of the scientific process or as a scientific hypothesis or theory 3 101 02 Miller |
and therefore cannot qualify as part of the scientific process or as a scientific theory 3 101 02 Miller | |
| E Intelligent Design s Claims Against Evolution are Based on Discredited Science o 93 Intelligent design proponents support their argument | | |
02 Miller It is appropriate at this juncture to address ID s claims against evolution ID proponents support their assertion |
| that evolutionary theory cannot account for life s complexity by pointing |
that evolutionary theory cannot account for life s complexity by pointing | |
| not only | | |
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 o |
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 | |
| 94 | | |
Padian |
| Before discussing defendants claims about evolution |
Before discussing Defendants claims about evolution | |
| in greater detail it must be noted that the | | |
Defendants claims about evolution we initially note that an |
| 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 | |
| to the matter have rejected intelligent design proponents challenge to evolution For example NAS has adopted the position that a Evolution is the central organizing principle that biologists use to understand the world To teach biology without explaining evolution deprives students of a powerful concept that brings great order and coherence to our understanding of life P194 at 3 b Those who oppose the teaching of evolution in public schools sometimes ask that teachers present evidence against evolution However there is no debate within the scientific community over whether evolution occurred and there is no evidence that evolution has not occurred Some of the details of how evolution occurs are still being investigated But scientists continue to debate only the particular mechanisms that result in evolution not the overall accuracy of evolution as the explanation of life s history Id at 4 o 95 Dr Kenneth Miller plaintiffs expert in biology explained evolutionary theory | | |
see replicate control or test which have produced changes in this world While we take no position on whether such forces exist 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 It is appropriate at this juncture to address ID s claims against evolution ID proponents support their assertion 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 note that an 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 Plaintiffs expert in biology |
| Dr Miller is a widely recognized biology professor at Brown University |
Dr Miller a widely recognized biology professor at Brown University | |
| His research focus is cell biology P214 curriculum vitae He | | |
Miller a widely recognized biology professor at Brown University who |
| has written university level and high school biology text |
has written university level and high school biology textbooks | |
| books 1 40 47 Indeed his high school text which was selected for use in Dover is used by about 35 of the school districts in the nation 1 44 He is the former editor of several prominent cell biology journals 1 37 38 and serves as the science advisor to the PBS News Hour and formerly as an advisor to the PBS science program NOVA P214 o 96 Dr Miller explained that evolution is the process of change over time 1 70 It consists of three core propositions The first is that life in the past was different from today and that it indeed has changed over time 1 71 The second is the principle of common descent which is that living things are united by common ancestry Id The third is that changes over time and common descent are driven by forces principles and actions observable in the world today Id There are actually many forces and processes but they are typically united under the term natural selection Id o 97 Charles Darwin s contribution to evolution was to propose a plausible workable and ultimately testable mechanism for the process that drives adaptive change over time and that process is natural selection 1 72 73 o 98 According to Dr Miller since Darwin s time modern day genetics and molecular biology have provided dramatic confirmation of Darwin s theory 1 74 75 3 o 99 The National Academy of Sciences is in accord with Dr Miller s testimony that 20 th century developments in genetics and molecular biology actually support evolutionary theory The confirmation of Darwin s ideas about descent with modification by this recent molecular evidence has been one of the most exciting developments in biology this century P194 at 42 The NAS report continues by saying that These molecular studies referring to the human genome project are powerful evidence for evolution Id o 100 In testimony that was unrebutted | | |
s agree in that regard 16 83 Padian 1 107 08 Miller A series of arguments against evolutionary theory found in Pandas involve paleontology which studies the life of the past and the fossil record Plaintiffs expert Professor Padi an 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 how Pandas systematically distorts and misrepresents established important evolutionary principles We will provide several representative examples of this distortion First 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 855 6 855 19 Second Pandas misrepresents homology the central concept of comparative biology that allowed scientists to evaluate comparable parts among organisms for classification purposes for hundreds of years 17 27 40 Padian P 855 83 855 102 Third Pandas fails to address the well established biological concept of exaptation which involves a structure changing function such as 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 address exaptation because they deny that organisms change function which is a view necessary to support abrupt appearance Id Finally Dr Padian s unrebutted testimony 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 and the evolution of whales from land animals 16 107 17 16 117 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 testified that |
Dr Miller also testified that | |
| that evolution including common descent and natural selection |
that evolution including common descent and natural selection | |
| are | | |
is |
| overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community and that every major scientific association agrees 1 94 100 See e |
overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community and that every major scientific association agrees 1 94 100 Miller | |
| g P194 at 16 NAS Teaching about Evolution The concept of evolution through random genetic variation and natural selection makes sense of what would otherwise be a huge body of unconnected observations 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 | | |
the nation provided unrebutted testimony that evolution including common descent and natural selection is 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 |
| living world o 101 Despite the scientific community s overwhelming support for evolution defendants and |
in original Despite the scientific community s overwhelming support for evolution Defendants and | |
| intelligent design | | |
and ID |
| proponents insist that evolution is unsupported by empirical evidence Plaintiffs science experts Drs Miller and Padian explained how |
proponents insist that evolution is unsupported by empirical evidence Plaintiffs science experts Drs Miller and Padian clearly explained how | |
| intelligent design | | |
how ID |
| proponents generally and Pandas specifically distort and misrepresent scientific knowledge in making the anti evolution argument |
proponents generally and Pandas specifically distort and misrepresent scientific knowledge in making their anti evolution argument | |
| F Of Pandas And People Presents Discredited Science o 102 Defendants hold out Of Pandas and People as representative of the intelligent design argument The statement read | | |
proponents generally and Pandas specifically distort and misrepresent scientific knowledge in making their anti evolution argument In analyzing such distortion we turn again to Pandas the book |
| to students expressly |
to which students are expressly | |
| asserts this 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 | | |
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 |
| of the arguments against evolutionary theory in Of Pandas |
of arguments against evolutionary theory found in Pandas | |
| and People involve paleontology which studies the life of the past and the fossil record |
Pandas involve paleontology which studies the life of the past and the fossil record | |
| 16 46 47 Padian o 104 | | |
and the fossil record Plaintiffs expert |
| Professor Kevin Padian was the only testifying expert witness with any expertise in paleontology |
Professor Padi an was the only testifying expert witness with any expertise in paleontology | |
| Dr Padian s qualifications are impeccable with thirty years of research on the evolution of flight and locomotion in flying reptiles publication of nearly one hundred peer reviewed articles editorships of several major scientific publications curatorship of the Museum of Paleontology at the University of California at Berkeley and co editor and author of the Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs 16 42 59 Padian P292 curriculum vitae o 105 None of defendants testifying experts have any expertise in paleontology or the fossil record 17 16 17 Padian Furthermore there | | |
etc P 11 at 99 100 emphasis added Stated another way ID posits that 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 P 718 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 no evidence that either defendants testifying experts |
is notable that defense experts | |
| or any other intelligent design proponents including Pandas authors have such expertise since they have not published peer reviewed literature or presented at scientific conferences on paleontology or the fossil record 17 15 16 Padian | | |
Drs 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 |
| Professor Behe admitted that he |
Professor Behe admitted that There | |
| has no basis to vouch for Pandas representation of the fossil record 21 44 45 o 106 Therefore Dr Padian s testimony is uncontested o 107 Through | | |
and the fossil record Plaintiffs expert Professor Padi an was the only testifying expert witness with any expertise in paleontology 15 His testimony therefore remains unrebutted Dr |
| a series of demonstrative slides prepared |
Padian s demonstrative slides pr | |
| based on peer reviewed scientific literature Dr Padian showed how Of Pandas | | |
pr epared on the basis of peer reviewing scientific literature illustrate how |
| and People systematically distorts and misrepresents established and important evolutionary principles |
Pandas systematically distorts and misrepresents established important evolutionary principles | |
| For instance | | |
distortion First |
| 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 | |
| demonstrative | | |
P |
| P855 6 855 19 Pandas also misrepresents homology the central concept of comparative biology that |
855 6 855 19 Second Pandas misrepresents homology the central concept of comparative biology that | |
| has for hundreds of years allowed scientists to compare | | |
concept of comparative biology that allowed scientists to evaluate |
| comparable parts among organisms for classification purposes |
comparable parts among organisms for classification purposes | |
| 17 27 40 P855 83 855 102 And Pandas fails to address at all | | |
17 27 40 Padian P 855 83 855 102 Third Pandas fails to address |
| the well established biological concept of exaptation which involves a structure changing function |
the well established biological concept of exaptation which involves a structure changing function | |
| like | | |
as |
| 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 | |
| dinosaur forelimbs becoming bird wings and the front and back legs of primitive hoofed mammals becoming whale flippers and vestigial limbs respectively | | |
which involves a structure changing function such as fish fins evolving fingers and bones to become legs for weight bearing land animals |
| 16 146 48 Dr Padian testified that |
16 146 48 Padian Dr Padian testified that | |
| intelligent design proponents do not | | |
that ID proponents fail to |
| address exaptation because they deny that organisms change function |
address exaptation because they deny that organisms change function | |
| a view necessary to support the abrupt appearance argument Id |
a view necessary to support abrupt appearance Id | |
| o 108 | | |
Id Finally |
| Dr Padian s unrebutted testimony also demonstrates that Pandas distorts and misrepresents evidence in the fossil record about pre Cambrian era fossils |
Dr Padian s unrebutted testimony demonstrates that Pandas distorts and misrepresents evidence in the fossil record about pre Cambrian era fossils | |
| 16 107 17 P855 25 855 33 about | | |
the fossil record about pre Cambrian era fossils |
| the evolution of fish to amphibians |
the evolution of fish to amphibians | |
| 16 117 131 P855 34 855 45 | | |
fossils the evolution of fish to amphibians |
| the evolution of small carnivorous dinosaurs into birds |
the evolution of small carnivorous dinosaurs into birds | |
| 16 131 45 P855 46 855 55 the evolution of the mammalian middle ear 17 6 9 Padian P855 56 866 63 | | |
fossils the evolution of fish to amphibians the evolution of small carnivorous dinosaurs into birds the evolution of the mammalian middle ear |
| and the evolution of whales from land animals |
and the evolution of whales from land animals | |
| 17 17 27 P855 64 855 82 o 109 NAS publications are in agreement that Pandas misrepresents the alleged gaps in the fossil record In fact fossil discoveries since Darwin s time have confirmed his evolutionary theories At the time of Darwin there were many unsolved puzzles including missing links in the fossil record between major groups of animals Guided by the central idea of evolution thousands of scientists have spent their lives searching for evidence that either supports or conflicts with the idea For example since Darwin s time paleontologists have discovered many 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 | | |
Miller also testified that Pandas presents discredited science Dr Miller testified that Pandas treatment of biochemical similarities between organisms is inaccurate and downright false and explained how Pandas misrepresents basic molecular biology concepts to advance design theory through a series of demonstrative slides 1 112 Miller Consider for example that he testified as to 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 Dr Miller refuted Pandas claim that evolution cannot account for new genetic information and 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 |
Dr Miller testified that Pandas | |
| 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 | |
| 1 112 Miller He explained | | |
concepts to advance design theory |
| through a series of demonstrative slides |
through a series of demonstrative slides | |
| based on peer reviewed publications | | |
and downright false and explained |
| how Pandas misrepresents basic molecular biology concepts to advance the design theory |
how Pandas misrepresents basic molecular biology concepts to advance design theory | |
| For | | |
for |
| example he testified how Pandas |
example that he testified as | |
| how Pandas misinforms readers on the standard evolutionary relationships between different types of animals |
how Pandas misinforms readers on the standard evolutionary relationships between different types of animals | |
| 1 113 17 P854 9 854 16 | | |
evolutionary relationships between different types of animals |
| a distortion Professor Behe affirmed |
a distortion which Professor Behe a | |
| 23 35 36 | | |
16 In addition |
| Dr Miller also refuted Pandas claim that evolution cannot account for new genetic information |
Dr Miller refuted Pandas claim that evolution cannot account for new genetic information | |
| Dr Miller | | |
information and |
| pointed to more than three dozen peer reviewed scientific publications showing the origin of new genetic information by evolutionary processes 1 133 36 |
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 |
245 In summary Dr Miller testified that Pandas misrepresents molecular biology and genetic principles | |
| and | | |
as |
| 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 | |
| For instance Pandas reads Adherents of intelligent design assume that in the beginning all basic types of organisms were given a set of genetic instructions that harbored variation but were resilient and stable P11 at 65 1 139 40 This is an argument for special creation that has no support in the scientific literature 1 140 42 G Intelligent Design Has Not Produced Peer Reviewed Articles or Research o 111 In sum | | |
and 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 as well as 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 |
| the one textbook to which the Dover |
the one textbook to which the Dover | |
| the one textbook to which the Dover policy directs students contains |
the one textbook to which the Dover ID Policy directs students contains | |
| badly flawed and scientifically refuted science These flaws extend to intelligent design arguments writ large as discussed in the section on irreducible complexity supra o 112 Yet another measure of how intelligent design | | |
one textbook to which the Dover ID Policy directs students contains outdated concepts and badly flawed science as recognized by even the defense experts in this case A final indicator of how ID |
| 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 | |
| the concept Peer review is exquisitely important in the scientific process |
the peer review process is exquisitely important in the scientific process | |
| 1 67 Miller Peer review | | |
in the scientific process It |
| 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 | |
| Peer review helps to ensure that research papers are scientifically accurate meet the standards of the scientific method and are relevant |
Peer review helps to ensure that research papers are scientifically accurately meet the standards of the scientific method and are relevant | |
| and interesting | | |
are relevant |
| to other scientists in the field 1 39 40 Miller o 113 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 |
to other scientists in the field 1 39 40 Miller Moreover 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 | |
| to a scientific |
to be a true scientific | |
| journal in the field The journal editors will solicit critical reviews from other experts in the field These experts | | |
to a scientific journal in the field journal editors soliciting critical reviews from other experts in the field and |
| decide whether the scientist has followed proper research procedures employed up to date methods considered and cited relevant literature |
deciding whether the scientist has followed proper research procedures employed up to date methods considered and cited relevant literature | |
| inferred or speculated more than appropriate | | |
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 | |
| editor collects the reviewers comments and either accepts the submission indicates changes that must be made to allow acceptance or rejects it More respected journals have high rejection rates some as high as 90 Experts repeatedly testified that the most respected journals are Nature and Science and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science with more specialized publications in the various disciplines such as Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology and Cell having smaller circulations but also commanding wide respect 16 49 53 Padian 1 39 40 67 69 Miller o 114 Defendants | | |
concepts and badly flawed science as recognized by even the defense experts in this case A final indicator of how ID has failed to demonstrate scientific warrant is the complete absence of peer reviewed publications supporting the theory Expert testimony revealed that the peer review process is exquisitely important in the scientific process It 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 |
| expert Professor Behe recognizes the importance |
expert Professor Behe recognizes the importance | |
| to science | | |
the importance |
| of the peer review process |
of the peer review process | |
| 22 25 Behe | | |
review process and |
| has written that science must publish or perish 22 19 |
has written that science must publish or perish 22 19 | |
| 21 citing P647 Michael Behe Darwin s Black Box at 185 1996 Professor Minnich agreed that it is important | | |
find that ID is not science and cannot be adjudged a valid accepted scientific theory as it has failed |
| to publish in peer reviewed journals |
to publish in peer reviewed journals | |
| so scientific peers can evaluate the evidence and conclusions 38 32 o 115 Books even those published by academic presses are not subject to the same rigorous peer review that is employed at the most prestigious scientific journals 2 3 4 neither Miller s book Find Darwin s God nor Behe s Darwin s Black Box were peer reviewed by standards of science 2 79 81 Miller Despite Professor Behe s unsupported assertion that Darwin s Black Box was peer reviewed plaintiffs undermined this claim on cross examination Dr Behe admitted that the book contained no original research 22 23 and he had no explanation for a published statement by one claimed peer reviewer Dr Atchison that he never read the book before recommending publication 22 26 32 Simply because a scientist publishes a book does not automatically tra orm the subject matter into science it is still a question of how the idea is received by the scientific community and whether it ultimately is accepted in peer reviewed publications 16 55 56 Padian o 116 Intelligent design | | |
reviewed publications supporting the theory Expert testimony revealed that the peer review process is exquisitely important in the scientific process It 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 expert Professor Behe recognizes the importance of the peer review process and has written that science must publish or perish 22 19 25 Behe 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 involves scientists submitting a manuscript to a scientific journal in the field journal editors soliciting critical reviews from other experts in the field and deciding 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 evidence presented in this case demonstrates that ID |
| is not supported by any peer reviewed research data or publications Both |
is not supported by any peer reviewed research data or publications Both | |
| Doctors | | |
Drs |
| Padian and Forrest testified that recent literature reviews of scientific and medical electronic databases disclosed no studies supporting a biological concept of |
Padian and Forrest testified that recent literature reviews of scientific and medical electronic databases disclosed no studies supporting a biological concept of | |
| intelligent design | | |
of ID |
| 17 42 43 Padian 11 32 33 Forrest |
17 42 43 Padian 11 32 33 Forrest | |
| o 117 Professor Behe under cross examination | | |
33 Forrest On cross examination 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 |
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 | |
| He also acknowledged that there were | | |
Professor Behe conceded 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 |
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 | |
| o 118 Similarly | | |
In that regard |
| there are no peer reviewed articles supporting Professor Behe s argument that certain complex molecular structures are irreducibly complex 21 62 22 124 25 |
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 | |
| The one article referenced by Professors Behe and Minnich as supporting intelligent design Behe and Snoke Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues Protein Science P721 does not mention either irreducible complexity or intelligent design Professor Behe also admitted that this study did not rule out many known evolutionary mechanisms and that the research actually might support evolutionary pathways if a biologically realistic population size were used 22 41 55 P756 o 119 Besides | | |
conceded 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 Behe In that regard 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 Behe In addition to |
| failing to produce papers in peer reviewed journals |
failing to produce papers in peer reviewed journals | |
| intelligent design | | |
journals ID |
| also features no scientific research or testing 28 114 115 Fuller 18 22 23 105 106 Behe |
also features no scientific research or testing 28 114 15 Fuller 18 22 23 105 06 Behe | |
| Intelligent design is now nearly two decades old and it has produced no scientific research 17 45 Padian o 120 Because intelligent design | | |
over a six week trial we find that ID is not science and cannot be adjudged a valid accepted scientific theory as it |
| 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 | |
| it | | |
and |
| cannot be adjudged a valid accepted scientific theory |
cannot be adjudged a valid accepted scientific theory | |
| H Conclusion to Science Section o 121 The Court concludes that while intelligent design | | |
a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw we find that while ID |
| 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 | |
| the theory is not science Moreover because intelligent design is ultimately predicated on a supernatural creator the theory is religious a finding required by | | |
which mirrors that of the IDM itself is to change the ground rules of science to allow supernatural causation of the natural world which |
| the Supreme Court s holding in Edwards |
the Supreme Court in Edwards | |
| v | | |
|