Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution on Trial by Bill Whitehouse
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 31 of 42 (351876)
09-24-2006 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Moe
09-24-2006 5:57 PM


Re: Where is it wrong?
Why is it that an ARBITRARY distinction is being made between what you have defined as evolution and explanations for the origin of life? Are you saying that questions concerning the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution?
It's not arbitrary, that is how the science defines the terms. It's like trying to do chemical reactions when you only have protons, electrons and neutrons, but no atoms -- it doesn't work.
And if it has nothing to do with evolution, then how to you explain the existence of your first species? In other words, are you telling me that evolutionists are to some extent assuming their conclusions and saying that there is no need to explain the origin of life?
Evolution doesn't explain the first species (or first set of species).
Assuming life to be existing in order to study the change in species over time is not circular reasoning or assuming the conclusion when the object of study is the change in species over time.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Moe, posted 09-24-2006 5:57 PM Moe has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 32 of 42 (351877)
09-24-2006 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Moe
09-24-2006 5:50 PM


Re: Where is it wrong?
How do you define evolution o evolutionary theory? You seem to be implying that origins of life has nothing to do with evolution, and I'm not quite sure how you come to that conclusion.
Be .. cause ... the ... theo ... ry ... of .. ev ... o ... lu ... tion ... has ... damn ... all ... to ... do ... with ... the ... or ... i ... gin ... of ... life.
Sheesh.
Before you started posting about the theory of evolution, why didn't you take five minutes to find out what it is?

"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never accurate because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand." --- Bertrand Russell

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Moe, posted 09-24-2006 5:50 PM Moe has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 33 of 42 (351878)
09-24-2006 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Moe
09-24-2006 6:06 PM


Re: People's Exhibit A?
Corrigan is supposedly the defendant. The charge - even though it's not clear what it really is - is that it was illegal to teach what he taught (although we are never given any reason for that either). So the prosecution should be attempting to show that he taught material which is forbidden by law. How can that be done without discussing that material ? It's clearly more relevant to the supposed trial than most of the material that IS discussed. It should be a key part of the prosecution even if the defence does not care to dispute it. But even the prosecution is uninterested in raising the matter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Moe, posted 09-24-2006 6:06 PM Moe has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 34 of 42 (351880)
09-24-2006 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Moe
09-24-2006 5:18 PM


Errors of law
Well, in no particular order.....
While the prosecutor was qualifying his witness:
"Professor," Mr. Mayfield said, "would you be kind enough to list your major publications."
Dr. Yardley was about to begin when the defense lawyer arose. "If it please the court, your Honor," Mr. Tappin indicated, "in the interests of saving time, the defense is quite prepared to acknowledge the expertise of Professor Yardley in the field of evolutionary biology. His reputation as a first-rate scholar is recognized internationally, and we feel there is no need to go through the usual procedures for establishing expertise with respect to this witness."
"So noted," acknowledged Judge Arnsberger. "Thank you for expediting matters, Mr. Tappin."
I'd have sharp criticism for any moot court student who simply let the defense stipulate to the qualifications of an expert witness. Quite often a trial involving technical issues boils down to a battle of the experts. An important part of that battle is to make your witness look more credible than the opposition. By the prosecution allowing the defense to stipulate, the jury is deprived of its only opportunity to hear all of the witness's qualifications. It's well-established black letter law that the defense is not allowed to stipulate the prosecution's case.
Immediately following:
"Your Honor," the prosecutor said, "before beginning my examination of this witness, I would like to introduce into evidence, at this time, the People's Exhibit, marked "A"." While saying this, he had returned to his table, picked up a document, checked its identity, and delivered the bundle of papers to Judge Arnsberger.
The Judge examined the papers briefly and made a few notations, presumably, in her own log of the trial. Having done so, she said: "You may proceed Mr. Mayfield."
No foundation given for this Exhibit, no response from the defense on the request to have it admitted, and no ruling from the judge on whether the Exhibit is admitted. These are all such fundamental errors that I might well fail a moot court student on the basis of these things alone. In the past, when I have been a moot court judge in a competition, I would occasionally not rule on an objection to test whether the student would realize there was no ruling and insist on one. It was one way to determine how much attention the student is paying to the process.
Next, the prosecution begins questioning his witness on Exhibit A:
"What is your opinion, Professor Yardley, of the educational merit of these curriculum materials as far as the teaching of evolutionary biology is concerned?" the prosecutor inquired.
"Well, in certain ways," he asserted, "they appear to be reminiscent of the kind of material which is taught under the misleading title of creation science. And ..."
"Objection, your Honor," Mr. Tappin blurted out.
"On what grounds?" Judge Arnsberger asked.
"Your Honor, as has been clearly stated in the defense's opening statement, Mr. Corrigan's position is not that of the so-called "creation scientists". Unless the prosecution demonstrates in what way the position of Mr. Corrigan is "reminiscent" of the position of the creation scientists and unless the relevance of that reminiscence to the present case can be established, then all references to creation science are really immaterial and irrelevant to these proceedings, as well as being quite prejudicial to the interests of my client."
"Mr. Mayfield," inquired Judge Arnsberger, "does the prosecution intend to provide the court with the sort of demonstrations and connections about which Mr. Tappin is concerned?"
"No, your Honor," indicated the prosecutor.
"Very well," she said. "The objection of the counsel for defense is sustained, and the statement of the witness will be stricken from the records. You'll have to begin again, Mr. Mayfield."
This is rather silly. First, just because some of the state's evidence is inconsistent with the defense's argument, that doesn't make it irrelevant. As you might imagine, quite often the defense arguments and the prosecution's arguments are at odds with one another.
If, on the other hand, there was some genuine question about the applicability of the witness's observation to the case at bar, the prosecution should have been prepared to meet that question and present evidence or argument to connect the observation to the issues. Otherwise, this is yet again another elementary error, even for moot court.
Furthermore, unless I missed it, quite possible since I pretty much skimmed most of the "transcript," there was no further mention of Exhibit A until closing arguments. There, this was all that the prosecutor had to say:
First, you have been supplied with materials that constitute the written part of Mr. Corrigan's curriculum, and I believe these materials speak for themselves.
This is absurd. The prosecution has the burden of proving to the jury beyond a reasonble doubt that Corrigan "[taught] material that conflicts with established principles of both science and evolutionary theory." Simply saying the materials speak for themselves is the poorest argument I've ever heard in my life. The state needs to show what was taught and how that teaching "conflicts with establishes principles...." To expect the jury to wade through the stuff and come to its own conclusions on these matters is awful trial practice.
The prosecution did a horrible job of putting its evidence in. It consisted of complex testimony from an expert witness. The worst possible way of presenting such evidence is to let the witness drone on and on. His testimony during several places went on for many paragraphs without a single question from the prosecution. For example, beginning at the top of page 2 in part two, the witness spoke for 24 paragraphs before the prosecutor asked a clarifying question.
In the first place, most judges will not allow this sort of narrative testimony. Testimony usually consists of a question related to a particular issue, followed by an answer responsive to that question. By proceeding in this manner, the opposition has an opportunity to object to testimony that they believe to be improper in some manner, and the judge has an opportunity to rule, before the jury hears the testimony.
That aside, I guarantee that at least some, perhaps most or all, of the members of the jury will have tuned out most of the witness's testimony. It's very difficult for a jury to assimilate that much information, particularly about a complex matter, in that short a period of time. The much better practice is for the prosecutor to ask a narrow question and let the witness address that one point. Then the prosecutor asks another question and the witness answers that one. And so on.
Are those enough examples for ya, Moe? If not, I'm sure I can find more. However, unless you are prepared to suggest that these things are not rather fundamental errors, I think I've made my point.
The fact that you appear not to consider these things errors gives one pause to wonder what you were doing for your 23 years in courtroom.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Moe, posted 09-24-2006 5:18 PM Moe has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 09-25-2006 12:40 AM subbie has seen this message but not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 42 (351881)
09-24-2006 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Moe
09-24-2006 5:57 PM


Re: Where is it wrong?
The distinction is based on methodology. Ideas about natural selection acting on randomly occurring mutations can be tested by examining living organisms, observing existing ecosystems, and studying the fossilized remains of ancient organisms. In other words, this restriction of evolution then allows it focus on the concrete evidence that is available.
Abiogenesis, on the other hand, deals with an event for which there may never be any actual evidence to hold in our hands. The best that will ever be possible is to use geology to determine the conditions on the ancient earth, try to replicate portions of this understanding in a laboratory, and see if this sheds light on an event for which we may never have direct evidence.
The other reason for the split is that the two concepts are logically independent of one another. One can have no idea of the origins of something but have ample evidence for the subsequent history of that something. My own family history is one example of this; we have no idea how my ancestors first came to Ohio, but we have a clear understanding (backed up by the physical evidence in the form of birth/marriage/death records) of how they travelled from Ohio to Kansas to Oregon, up to my own birth in Alaska.
I think this is the main reason for the distinction. We have a pretty good record of the history of life on this planet (at least from a certain point), but we have no record at all of its origin, and, until recently, not even any good ideas about.
But as you say, the distinction is probably arbitrary and artificial. But, then, all distinctions and categories are artificial. We divide the world into categories to help us make sense of it. In this case, we divide evolution from abiogenesis because it is useful to distinguish between something for which we have ample evidence, and something for which we are still trying to understand even the most basic elements.

"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." -- George Bernard Shaw

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Moe, posted 09-24-2006 5:57 PM Moe has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 36 of 42 (351883)
09-24-2006 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Moe
09-24-2006 6:06 PM


Re: People's Exhibit A?
For comparison here's a quote from the Scopes trial:
From Day 4
The Prosecution:
Your honor has already held that this act is constitutional, it being the law of the land, there is but one issue before this court and jury, and that is, did the defendant violate the statute. That statute interprets itself, and says that whenever a man teaches that man descended from a lower order of animals as contradistinguished from the record of the creation of man as given by the word of God, that he is guilty. Does the proof show that he did that, that is the only issue, if it please the honorable court, before this jury.
The Prosecution was quite clear that the only question at issue was whether Scopes taught evolution. If he did that was against the law, and he should be found guilty and convicted.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Moe, posted 09-24-2006 6:06 PM Moe has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 37 of 42 (351896)
09-24-2006 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Moe
09-24-2006 5:44 PM


As far as I can see, the basic elements of evolutionary theory with respect to origins of life are being put forth. I think it's important that one not necessarily be tied to this name or that name, but take a look at the evidence itself, completely apart from any arguments from authority.
Ostensibly that is true - it's what Whitehouse laid out as the basis for the book in the introduction. Unfortunately, as several people have pointed out, origins of life (abiogenesis) research is fundamentally different from evolutionary biology. I know it sounds like nothing more than a quibble, but the reality is most evolutionary biologists (and others of that ilk), would be very quick to point out that the two are quite distinct disciplines. For Yardley to fail to jump on that point right from the beginning is suspect in my book. On the other hand, regardless of Whitehouse's introduction, this is in fact a very standard and oft-heard tactic of creationists seeking to derail discussion from the well-supported ToE to the much less well supported (in fact, in many ways highly speculative) origins research.
I guess this is another aspect that makes me question Whitehouse's motivation. Not that I have any basis to question him specifically, but the use of such tactics as are common with biblical creationists may be quite revealing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Moe, posted 09-24-2006 5:44 PM Moe has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 38 of 42 (351948)
09-24-2006 11:57 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Moe
09-24-2006 5:57 PM


Re: Where is it wrong?
Why is it that an ARBITRARY distinction is being made between what you have defined as evolution and explanations for the origin of life?
It's two different fields. It's no more arbitrary, or no less, than the distinction between the study of biology and the study of chemistry.
Evolution is a theory in biology, it explains the history and diversity of life on Earth in terms of changing gene frequencies by mutation and natural selection. Since the genes themselves are chemical things, their origin must obviously be a study for the field of chemistry.
Ultimately it's all the study of the same universe. Just because we don't know for sure how life began doesn't mean we can't come to conclusions about what's been happening since.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Moe, posted 09-24-2006 5:57 PM Moe has not replied

  
AnswersInGenitals
Member (Idle past 151 days)
Posts: 673
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 39 of 42 (351963)
09-25-2006 12:40 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by subbie
09-24-2006 6:33 PM


Re: Errors of law (and of order)
The fact that you appear not to consider these things errors gives one pause to wonder what you were doing for your 23 years in courtroom.
It appears that Ms. Moe has left the building. Perhaps to get back to her janitorial job at the courthouse. Once again we get the one shot interloper who seems sure that he/she has the solution to put the wrong thinking evolutionists in their place, whether it be their own great brainstorm or the undeniable wisdom of some book or web site they stumbled across. The real interesting question here is what, if any, good purpose is served by a thread like this. There is actually some good information here, e. g., differentiation between evolution and abiogenesis, realistic courtroom discourse, and some leads to what the theory and study of evolution is all about. But this has been repeated many, many times in previous attempts to engage people like Ms. Moe in useful discussion, always, to my recollection, to no avail.
Are we establishing a useful educational tool to be perused by some open minded students who find it easiest to learn from this kind of material? Or are we just two opposing groups of demonstrators shouting at each other across the barricades? Or perhaps this just provides us all with some sort of catharthis, since all participants emerge from these threads quite convinced that they have thrust the deciding blows. I'm curious as to what everyone thinks they accomplish in this type of thread.
(Like Wounded King, my wife and I are going sailing - well, windsurfing actually in our case - for the next week, but I'll be interested to see if there are any answers to my query when I return.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by subbie, posted 09-24-2006 6:33 PM subbie has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Moe, posted 09-25-2006 7:45 AM AnswersInGenitals has not replied

  
Moe
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 42 (352030)
09-25-2006 7:45 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by AnswersInGenitals
09-25-2006 12:40 AM


Re: Errors of law (and of order)
"It appears that Ms. Moe has left the building. Perhaps to get back to her janitorial job at the courthouse."
Actually, I went out to dinner and a movie last night.
If it makes you feel better to write things like this, I feel sorry for you and those who engage in similar tactics. Why not stick to the issues rather than engaging in personal attacks and snide remarks?
Have fun windsurfing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 09-25-2006 12:40 AM AnswersInGenitals has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by subbie, posted 09-25-2006 3:23 PM Moe has not replied
 Message 42 by subbie, posted 09-30-2006 10:22 AM Moe has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 41 of 42 (352161)
09-25-2006 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Moe
09-25-2006 7:45 AM


Re: Errors of law (and of order)
I hope you had a pleasant night out.
Any response to my answer to your question?

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Moe, posted 09-25-2006 7:45 AM Moe has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 42 of 42 (353260)
09-30-2006 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Moe
09-25-2006 7:45 AM


Re: Errors of law (and of order)
I guess Moe is no mo'.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Moe, posted 09-25-2006 7:45 AM Moe has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024