1:17 in -more testimony by Behe on irreducible complexity. Does the actor playing Behe seen smug & supercilious? Current focus on the immune system. Oops! We are in cross-examination! How did we miss the examination in chief? Behe is flummoxed, apparently, by a stack of books.
Back to bacterial flagellum-Dr. Minick (my spelling). Minick testifies that ID is testable. Lawyer attacks him for not actually performing the tests.
Laurie Lebo returns for some one-screen family therapy, centered on her relationship with her father.
Evolution defender tells us he is Roman Catholic, that Catholic tradition teaches that truth is one. Eventually, faith and science must be resolved. They are "complementary" & should not be in conflict. All well & good. The issue, though, is which takes precedence. When they appear to be in conflict, to which should we defer?
Heavy, dramatic music introduces question of whether the school board had the purpose of promoting religion. A smoking gun! (and the Science teacher uses that term.) The catalog that came with the 60 copies of "Of Pandas and People" listed the book under "Creation Science". One wonders if it was also listed under "Intelligent Design" or even "Biology". Many catalogs list books in multiple categories.
The evolution-only proponents now focus on the book, turning to the NCSE, which had a copy of a student newspaper from 1981 (!) that had an article about an "unbiased biology textbook". The article says the the book would present creation and evolution. The editor, Charles Thaxton, is the editor of "Of Pandas and People". The conclusion is made that the 1981 article refers to "Of Pandas and People", & therefore ID was not separate from a belief in creation.
This requires several things to be proven, first of which is that the reporter in the student newspaper got the facts right. Second, that the article does refer to the same project. Third, that the editor and authors did not make substantive changes to the content: that including ID is just a mask for creationism.
Lawyers obtain copies of earlier drafts of the book, & send them to Barbara Forrester, a philosopher who has been tracking ID for years. Tracking-that word again. Any relation to NCSE? [OK, I cheated and searched for "Barbara Forrester", who turns out to be Barbara Forrest. And she is one of the directors of the NSCE. Why didn't Nova choose to tell us this? See this article on the NCSE website.]
Dr. Forrester finds two drafts, the second of which pastes "Intelligent deDign" in for "Creation", then uses the same definition. Again, both of these are draft copies. Sounds like a cut-and-paste correction. Were any other changes made subsequently?
How about that? There's clear evidence that changes in the second draft (of the two being compared) were indeed made with a find/replace all technique. It is important to note that the later draft is not a final draft.
Forrester pulls in a quotation from a Christian leader in a Christian magazine. Again, assuming accuracy of the quotation-& authority of the person being quoted.
Forrester produces a " secret document" from the Discovery Institute, which lays out their goal of reversing the negative effects of evolutionary theory. How secret is this document? What does it say specifically? Must check later.
Some shady doings about the donated books. It appears that Buckingham, who denied knowing who donated the books, had been involved in collecting money for the books. Well, this is clearly bad-we weaken our testimony when we dissemble. Why make the donation anonymous in the first place?
1:43. Closing arguments. Plaintiff's lawyer calls the school board move "anti-evolution". True, he is working for his clients. But is it anti-evolution to demand that it be clearly labeled a "theory"?
1:46. Here's an exercise in irrelevance: while the judge is deliberating, the town of
Show concludes with an observation that the controversial will continue, but not before we get a couple intemperate, and a couple temperate, criticisms of the judge's decision.
No comments:
Post a Comment