The Significance of the Dover Decision

Randman made the following claim in another thread: Which is basically the DI party line concerning Dover. Anyone who has read the transcripts and the decision (which I have done more than twice) I don't believe could make this argument in good faith.Randman seems to flip the situation around when he says, "It was a sham and is viewed that way by everyone that isn't an evo." I understand the situation to be the exact opposite. Pretty much the only people advocating this idea are those who are ideologically aligned with the DI. There is no better illustration of this than the other attempts to inject ID into the classroom at other districts around the county that tabled their decision because of Dover. If it was universally believed that the decision was "a sham" like randman claims, then why did the other tuck tail and run?I personally challenge randman to support his contention that anyone who is not an evo views the trial as a sham.For the rest of the board, I am curious to what you know or don't know about the trial. I posed the question to randman: Who has read it all? Alternatively, how much have you read?I also asked him: This was one of the most important evidences as part of the trial that showed the genetics of ID to classical creationism. My fear is that many IDers or creationists haven't read the trial transcripts and subsequently don't understand the significance of this evidence which was uncovered or the trial itself. So my question to creationists who HAVE read the transcripts is:

• Do you understand the issue regarding the "cdesign proponentist" situation that was uncovered during the trial?
  ​
• How did the evidence regarding the dubious tactics of leaders in the ID movement in rebranding creationism as ID as shown by the "cdesign proponentist" evidence affect your position on ID or creationism?

The moderator can choose whatever forum they feel is appropriate.Edited by Admin, : Modify title, minor edits.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Sorry, I don't have a source, but a couple/few weeks ago Flock of Dodos was on TV again and the narrator mentioned that the DI itself very quickly also tucked-tail and ran. More specifically (as I remember the words) the DI un-involved itself from the trial stating that ID was not yet ready for the classroom.Perhaps someone with a copy of the film or better knowledge of the events could fill in the details.

Flock is on youtube in 10 minute chunks.Can you give me an idea what 1/2 (1/3? 1/4?) the quote you're looking for is in?I could track it down.

i got at least one christian who has publically announced his opinion of the proceedings of the trial:John E. Jones III - Wikipedia

---

Sorry, I'm not sure. I think it was in the second half.But certainly if the DI had back-pedalled like that, it should be more widely known.

As I remember it some of the DI experts - including Dembski - demanded their own lawyers and when the TMLC refused, pocketed the money they'd already been paid and left the case.
Others, notably Behe, stayed and testified (and it would have been better for the DI if he hadn't).I'm not sure that the DI as an organisation was formally involved.

Since you mentioned my name, I thought I should post but the topic has little interest to me.I am not sure how much litigation you have been involved in, but it is inconceivable to me that a reasoned person would consider a legal proceeding a good judge or forum to decide scientific theory. It is equally puzzling to see evos actually think somehow the case has any merit within science or scientific opinion whatsoever.It's baffling in fact. The law is strictly about legal rules, precedent, etc,.....it is not about scientific truth. That's not me dodging. If you want to think that, I really don't care. It's just reality. In fact, legal proceedings and litigation are often not even about the truth, period, but about the rules.As far as science, I think all the facts and arguments for Intelligent Design and against it are more easily available elsewhere. Thinking a trial transcript is the way to learn about the subject, either it's strengths or weaknesses shows, to me, a profound misunderstanding and ignorance of the differences between litigation and science.In fact, if the judge ruled in favor of teaching Intelligent Design, I would say the same thing. I may point out that the judge considers it legal, but it really has no bearing on whether it is true or not.Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

It's not. Which is why that is not what happened in the Dover decisionWhat was decided was that ID was really just creationism in disguise and therefore had no place in public school science classrooms since it had already been declared unconstitutional in previous cases.Scientific theory is "decided" by doing scientific research and subjecting it to scrutiny by your peers. However, cdesign proponentsists are loathe to do this and instead try to sneak their ideas in the back door, thus prompting the litigation. Right, which is why the Dover case was decided the way it was. Judge Jones ruled (correctly) that ID was really creationism dressed up in slightly different clothes and was, therefore, against the law as it currently exists and he based his decision on the precedent of prior cases which established the unconstitutionality of creationism in public school classrooms.If cdesign proponentsists were concerned at all about finding "scientific truths" then they would actually do some science and establish the validity of their "science" using the same rules that everyone else does instead of using school boards and legislative bodies as their laboratories.Edited by Jaderis, : No reason given.Edited by Admin, : Minor format fix.

---

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London"Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea

You stated I think you must be reading the wrong judgement. Which part of can be interpreted as "the judge considers it legal"? I've lifted that portion straight from the Judgement.The statement is as plain as a pikestaff, the judge considers it illegal based on the fact that, in his Judgement he describes it as unconstitutional, with regard to the Establishment clause (the First Ammendment of the US constitution). He goes on to declare it a violation of rights under the Pennsylvania Constitution also. Last time I checked, actions which are in breach of the First Ammendment are NOT considered legal.You cannot read from the judge's declaration of unconstitutionality that the judge considers it legal. He has stated perfectly plainly that he considers it ILLEGAL!!!!!.You say"The law is strictly about legal rules, precedent, etc,.....it is not about scientific truth. That's not me dodging. If you want to think that, I really don't care. It's just reality. In fact, legal proceedings and litigation are often not even about the truth, period, but about the rules."I agree with you as far as it goes. Yes, the law pertains to legal rules, precedent etc and one of those legal rules is that you mustn't lie under oath. Many of the witnesses for the defense must have thought that the proceedings were not about the truth, since they provided so little of it. To quote the judgement again (and remember, this quote in no way addresses science)."Moreover, defendants' asserted secular purpose of improving science education is belied by the fact that most if not all of the Board members who voted in favor of the biology curriculum change conceded that they still do not know, nor have they ever known, precicely what ID is. To assert a secular purpose against this backdrop is ludicrous. Finally, although Defendants have unceasingly attempted in vain to distance themselves from their own actions and statements, which culminated in repetitious, untruthful testimony, such a strategy constitutes additional strong evidence of improper purpose under the first prong of the Lemon test. As exhaustively detailed herein, the thought leaders of the Board made it their considered purpose to inject some form of creationism into the science classroom, and by dint of their personalities and persistence they were able to pull the majority of the Board along in their collective wake, Any asserted secular purposes by the Board are a sham and are merely secondary to a religious objective.[there then follows some legal argument using case law which establishes that it is the duty of the courts to distinguish a sham secular purpose from a sincere one. The Judgement then continues] Defendants' previously referenced flagrant and insulting falsehoods to the Court provide sufficient and compelling evidence for us to deduce that any alleged secular purposes that have been offered in support of the ID Policy are equally insincere."It's difficult to pick examples of the flagrant and insulting falsehoods since there are so many whoppers to choose from in the transcript. I can vouch that, having read the transcripts of the trial on a number of occasions, until I almost lost the will to live, that lies and falsehoods are peppered throughout Defendants' testimony. If you do require verbatim examples I will provide them. I would recommend to interested parties the whole of Bill Buckingham's testimony, but in particular his testimony with regard to the funding of the purchase of 60 copies of Pandas. This should serve to demonstrate the lies, deceit, and blatant dissembling indulged in and which the judge found "flagrant and insulting.""The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy".You state
"I am not sure how much litigation you have been involved in, but it is inconceivable to me that a reasoned person would consider a legal proceeding a good judge or forum to decide scientific theory. It is equally puzzling to see evos actually think somehow the case has any merit within science or scientific opinion whatsoever."I fully agree that a court of law is not the best place to decide scientific theory, but I would argue that it's a huge improvement in comparison to a school board peopled by a majority who admitted in open court that they had no clue what ID actually claims or what constitutes a valid scientific theory!!! Really, they had no idea what ID claims, but in their opinion it was a valid scientific theory.The Judgement stated They didn't even know what is is, never mind whether it is a valid scientific theory!In support of this part of the Judgement I provide the following evidence from the transcripts, taken from the testimony of Bill Buckingham.Mr Harvey for the plaintiffs during cross of Mr William Buckingham (Page not found | ACLU Pennsylvania start page 20, line 21, end page 21, line 3. By their own admission several other Board members testified that they had even less of and understanding and so deferred to the superior knowledge of Buckingham. For example, Heather Geesey testified that she didn't understand the substance of the curriculum change, but she voted for it. She also admitted having never read Pandas, the textbook recommended by Buckingham.See the whole of Geesey's testimony at the link below, starting page 145 and ending page 206Page not found | ACLU PennsylvaniaIn his Judgement, the judge also pointed out that her grasp of the whole thing was so poor that she referred to ID in her testimony as "intelligence design" throughout.I would also content that statements like the following have no place in deciding the validity of scientific theory Missing text added here in edit mode While the above is taken from the Judgement, the actual statements can be found in the transcript.To quote from the Judgement again (and you will find the evidence for all of this in the witness testimony transcripts - hell, transcripts are handy things) While it is significant that the Dover decision ruled that ID isn't science because of its religious overtones, I think the major significance is that a critically thinking court of law was able to cut through the tissue of lies, falsehoods, bigotry and show these particular "cintellient design proponentists" for what they were. It ripped away the smoke screen which "teach the controversy" creates.Hopefully it will be quite some time before anyone is stupid enough to try this again.Edited by Trixie, : Formatting gone mad, will sort it later after I emerge from my little dimly-lit padded room.Edited by Admin, : Attempt fix of formatting, fix some typos.Edited by Trixie, : Edited to add the missing text which admin brought to my attention

Trixie has already provided the authoritative response to your post, so I'll just reply to this: The decision wasn't about whether evolution or ID is right or wrong, but about whether evolution or ID is science. In the eyes of the judge, evolution is science and ID is not.This makes perfect sense, of course, since someone reading a traditional biology book could ask, "Where is the supporting technical literature for the views presented in this book?" and there would be no problem pointing them to that literature.Someone reading Of Pandas and People who asked the same question could not be pointed to any supporting technical literature. That's because IDists don't do science, they do political lobbying directed at the lay public, school boards, text book publishers and legislatures.--Percy

No, randman was discussing a hypothetical, he started with 'if the judge ruled in favor of teaching Intelligent Design' (my emphasis), the point he was making was that the judges decision, whichever way it went, has no impact on the truthfulness of ID. He's right too - however what does have an impact on the truthfulness of ID was how awful their best defence was when under cross-examination. It doesn't directly effect the truthfulness of ID, but it does lay out clearly the vacuum that is their present argument after thousands of years of the idea existing.It shows how ID is great at rhetoric, but when the venue doesn't favour rhetoric (such as under cross-examination where your position is nailed down) ID has nothing. The Discovery Institute came right out and said that ID is not ready yet - which was a rather telling statement.

Trixie, I did not complete reading your entire post as it appears you greatly misunderstood what I wrote. I suggest you reread it and pay attention to the context.

You're absolutely right. And this is exactly what happened, the trial wasn't about scientific truth, but about the dispute that ID is scientific truth.Like this:ID Peoples: Intelligent Design is science.
Science: Intelligent Design is not science.
ID Peoples: Yes it is, Intelligent Design is science.
Science: No, it really isn't.
ID Peoples: Yes, it is.
Science: No, sorry, it isn't.
ID Peoples: Yes, Intelligent Design is science and we're going to court to get a judge to force you to acknowledge so.
Science: Alright, lets go to court then.Court: Intelligent Design is not science.Science: Told you.
ID Peoples: Oh poo, well the courts don't mean anything anyway.

So let's imagine that a judge rules the opposite. Would you then agree with the judge?I suspect you would not, and you would correctly argue that a judge is not an arbiter of what is science and what is not.Furthermore, what the judge was really deciding was whether it was legal as he interprets the Constitution, and his interpretation and may be the current SCOTUS law is such that it discriminates against religous teaching, expression and thought. Imo, that approach is deeply wrong and a serious violation of the 1st amendment that guarantees the federal government not restrict the free exercice of religion.So as far as I am concerned, if ID is considered religion (even though it is clearly science imo), that is not grounds for a federal judge to restrict it's teaching in schools because it is not genuinely respecting an establishment of religion, and this is, imo, a very important point. The way it is now, the mere idea of a Creator or God must be excluded from a public school curriculum, based on this judges ruling, because it is religion.That's a violation of the 1st amendment and imo, will one day be overturned because the statute referring to an establishment of religion must of necessity entail a specific religion and organization. The law was there could not be a national church, nor religious expression be hindered. The idea was to allow as much religious expression as possible, not estabish the US as a secular soceity.By restricting the mere notion of God from science or anything else, what the courts are doing is the exact opposite of the 1st amendment. They are establishing secularism as the official ideology/religion to the exclusion of all else, and that's wrong, deeply wrong.So as far as I am concerned, simply because there is a religious component within a scientific theory does not invalidate it.....otherwise, evolutionism couldn't be taught..Edited by randman, : No reason given.