The Dover Panda Trial is expected to end tomorrow. So it’s about time for some barely-informed speculation about what presents Hizzoner Judge Jones will bring the good girls and boys (aren’t you glad I didn’t say anything about jonesin’ for a decision?).
Under cross-examination, Michael Behe continued denying that Pandas means what it so clearly says, e.g.:
Q And that s the text that says, “Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency.” Correct?
A Yes.
Q It talks about the life beginning abruptly, not just appearing abruptly, correct?
A Well, that s certainly the word it used, but we can ask, how do we know it began abruptly? The only way that we know it began abruptly is through the fossil record.
Q But beginning is different than appearances in the fossil record, correct, Professor Behe?
A I don t take it to mean that way, no.
You may recall that during the Scopes trial, Clarence Darrow called an unusual expert witness, defense attorney William Jennings Bryan himself.
80 years later, in Dover, it’s now the prosecution bringing in the defense team as an exhibit:
During cross-examination in U.S. Middle District Court Monday, [plaintiffs’ attorney Steve] Harvey read the following line from the center’s [the Thomas More Law Center, representing the defendants] site: “Our purpose is to be the sword and shield for people of faith, providing legal representation without charge to defend and protect Christians and their religious beliefs in the public square.”
(emphasis mine)
My biggest regret about the Dover ID trial is that the Discovery Institute isn’t on the stand. They’re the ones who have been pushing ID since forever, through their Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture. Just to refresh your memory, here’s what they wrote in 1998:
THE proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built.
[…]
Discovery Institute’s Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its damning cultural legacies. Bringing together leading scholars from the natural sciences and those from the humanities and social sciences, the Center explores how new developments in biology, physics and cognitive science raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case for the supernatural. The Center awards fellowships for original research, holds conferences, and briefs policymakers about the opportunities for life after materialism.
How well have these words held up over the years? The CSC’s current “About” page says,
Started in 1996, the Center for Science and Culture is a Discovery Institute program which:
- supports research by scientists and other scholars challenging various aspects of neo-Darwinian theory;
- supports research by scientists and other scholars developing the scientific theory known as intelligent design;
- supports research by scientists and scholars in the social sciences and humanities exploring the impact of scientific materialism on culture.
- encourages schools to improve science education by teaching students more fully about the theory of evolution, including the theory’s scientific weaknesses as well strengths.
Michael Behe’s cross-examination started well. He answered the first four questions with as much confidence and aplomb as when he was answering the planned and rehearsed questions at the direct examination. For the record, those questions were:
After that, it was all downhill.
Call me a wonk if you like, but I actually slogged through the Dover trial transcripts for Michael Behe’s testimony. I do hope you appreciate, gentle readers, the sacrifices I make for you.
The nutshell version: Is Intelligent Design science that should be taught in school? It depends on what your definition of “is” is.
Popular Science has an article listing the ten worst jobs in science.
#7 is Semen Washer.
#3 is Kansas Biology Teacher.
Thanks to JF for the tip.
As I wrote elsewhere, it looks as though the question is not whether the Intelligent Design Creationists will lose the Dover case, but how badly. But I don’t imagine for a moment that they’ll just throw up their hands and give up. So the question is, what’ll they do next?
From the Dover Intelligent Design trial, in Beth Eveland’s examination in day 3:
Q. Do you have it in front of you?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And can you tell us what it is?
A. It looks to me to be a copy of a letter to the editor that I wrote.
Q. And I’m going to ask you to read this letter into the record.
A. Okay.
MR. MUISE: Objection, Your Honor. This letter is hearsay.
THE COURT: Say it again. I’m sorry.
MR. MUISE: Objection, hearsay.
THE COURT: Why is it hearsay?
MR. MUISE: She’s going to be reading in the letter, the contents of the statement. It’s an out-of-court statement. They’re obviously offering it for the truth of the matter.
THE COURT: Who wrote the letter?
MR. MUISE: She wrote the letter.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Who the hell decided that it was a good idea to stir coffee with a midget straw? And why do people put up with it?
When you prepare a can of tomato soup at home, do you stir it with a straw? When you make coffee at home and add sugar, do you reach for a chopstick? When you go canoeing, do you bring a mop handle for propulsion?
The purpose of stirring is to get everything in the coffee all mixed up, so that sugar molecules have a good chance of running into water molecules and bind to them in an orgy of hot brownian motion. And the best way to do that is to use a broad instrument that a) can shove a lot of molecules at once, and b) can set up secondary whorls and whatnot. About the worst thing you could choose would be a small, hydrodynamic object that won’t disturb the molecules much. And that’s exactly what the coffee “stirrers” provided at many coffee shops and convenience stores do.
So I’m going to issue a call to revolution. A minor one, but hopefully an effective one, fully in line with both Martin Luther King, Jr.’s nonviolent civil disobedience, and free market capitalist forces. The next time you get coffee at a coffee shop, bookstore, a 7-Eleven, or even, God forbid, Starbucks, use a spoon. If they don’t have any, ask for one. If they won’t give you one, ask them to rectify this lapse in customer service. I call upon our tea-, cocoa-, and other hot beverage-drinking brethren and sistren to join us in this glorious fight against the forces of corporate repression.
And once the running dogs of stirrerism have been sent packing, we can undertake the next item on our manifesto: real ceramic mugs for “eat in” orders.