The Panda trial wound up Friday, finally. The judge said he hopes to render a decision by the end of the year. So for now, we'll have to make do with the closing arguments and just one more mention of bacterial flagella and the Big Bang.
By MIKE
ARGENTO
HARRISBURG — As the Dover Panda Trial finally wound down, federal Judge John E. Jones III took a few moments to thank everybody.
After almost six weeks, 21 days of trial, 40 days overall, it was time to make nice.
The judge thanked the courthouse staff and his staff and the lawyers and the public, saying that everybody afforded the momentous events that had transpired in courtroom No. 2 with the “solemnity and dignity� they so rightly deserved.
I really, really hope he wasn’t talking about me.
Just from memory, it seems that I have worked in more comments about sex, mammary glands and bestiality than one would expect in coverage of a trial with serious ramifications in education, science and constitutional law regarding the separation of church and state.
What can I say?
I just don’t know any better.
Friday began with the courtroom packed in great anticipation of the last day of this historic trial — a 21st century replay of the Scopes Monkey Trial, except without the monkey. Every seat was taken. The press was out in full force for the first time since the beginning of the trial. The place practically throbbed.
The judge entered and called the proceedings to order and the trial resumed where it left off Thursday afternoon, with defense expert Scott Minnich, a microbiologist and a proponent of intelligent design, continuing to bore the snot out of everybody within a 10-mile radius.
That thinned the herd a bit.
Actually, it wasn’t so bad. He did get to testify about how intelligent design supporters pretty much have the same approach as creationists and that the intelligent designer could be one creator or two creators or three or a whole family of creators, sort of like The Partridge Family, except, I would suspect, without the substance-abuse problems.
And he testified about an article that said creationists who hadn’t flocked to intelligent design as a means of getting around the U.S. Supreme Court’s prohibition on teaching creationism were kind of ticked off that ID proponents had stolen the bacterial flagellum from them and the creationists think the ID people are “misguided.�
As I’ve noted previously, these guys love the bacterial flagellum and we weren’t going to get away Friday without hearing more about it.
Or the Big Bang.
Those guys love the Big Bang too.
But we’re past all of that.
It was time for the big finale.
Kind of.
First, the lawyers and the judge had to handle some complicated evidentiary matters involving matters of law and the federal hearsay rules — which really is as dull as it sounds. At one point, Witold Walczak, the ACLU lawyer, brought up a point by beginning, “Just to complicate things...�
The judge interrupted: “Good!�
Then, it was time for closing arguments. Eric Rothschild, representing the plaintiffs, went first.
One of his best moments was when he got to show the video of former school board member Bill Buckingham being interviewed on TV and talking about creationism. Buckingham denied ever mentioning creationism and when the tape showed he had, he said the report ambushed him and he was “like a deer in the headlights.� Funny, the reporter told people later that she had called Buckingham to set up the time for the interview.
Anyway, on the tape, Buckingham looks pretty relaxed.
Rothschild said, “That was no deer in the headlights. That deer was wearing shades and was totally at ease.�
And then, he got to the crux of the matter. He said as much as it pains him to mention it, many of the witnesses for the defense did not tell the truth.
Buckingham, for one.
Bonsell, for another.
Oh, pretty much all of them.
He also mentioned board member Sheila Harkins and how it’s kind of hard to tell what her deal was, which is the general impression she leaves in her wake.
Pat Gillen closed for the defendants and he tried. He argued that the judge should narrow the issues of the trial in order to give intelligent design and the defendants a chance of prevailing.
Oh, and the whole thing is Buckingham’s fault — Buckingham and his big OxyContin-fueled mouth. (Yes, he did mention Buckingham’s OxyContin addiction for what seemed like the 20th time.)
On a final note, as Rothschild began his closing, he had a quotation projected on the screen in the courtroom. It was an excerpt of the testimony of one of the plaintiffs, Fred Callahan, president of Colony Papers.
And what he said perfectly sums up this entire exercise.
“What am I supposed to tolerate? A small encroachment on my First Amendment rights? Well, I’m not going to. I think this is clear what these people have done. And it outrages me.�
Fred, all I got to say is, may the intelligent designer bless you.
----
Mike Argento, whose column appears Mondays and Thursdays in Living and Sundays in Viewpoints, can be reached at 771-2046 or at mike@ydr.com. Read more Argento columns at ydr.com/mike.
MIKE ARGENTO is the best! He ridicules everyone! I completely agree with Mike and all the nice Dover parents.
Dover public schools are no place to mention ID, God, religion, the 10 Commandments, or moral values.
I am an atheist and will be moving to Dover for my kid's sake!
It's sad that some people on the Dover school board even have their opinion taken seriously enough to warrant a trial about whether ID is a valid topic to be taught in a science class. Once again those who set themselves up as the 'moral police' get to make fools of themselves in this folly of trying to foist their 'beliefs' on impressionable students.
I hope the Judge finds this case to be ludicrous ...
I think that it's a great idea for both creationism & the big bang to be brought up in school. What are the parents so afraid of? The kids might be able to actually make an intelligent choice on their own? Wake up! Your kids do have their own opinion. Why not give them the information & let it up to them. They should have ALL of the information available.
I wonder if the "let it up to them" crowd really raises their own kids at home that way. "Yes, it's true that most people think vegetables are good for you, but here's a brochure from a kooky website that thinks sugar is actually fully nutritious. You decide what to have for dinner."
ID is not religion. ID says nothing about worship- who to worship, what to worship, how, when, why or where to worship.
ID is based on what we observe.
Why ID is scientific
The first two posts at the link above explains ID in terms that non-scientists can understand.
I wonder if Mike Argento is up for a debate on the subject?
Thanks to Mike Argento for reporting with such personality and originality on this silly, but necessary, effort within our court system.
As is abundantly clear, ID can only be considered a wildly fantastic supposition of what may have caused the origins of our universe. Its place in our Publicly financed forums is as a Mythology without even any semi-historical characters, artifacts or archaeology to support its proposition. As the er, good Doctor Behe made clear, ID is no more scientifically sound than is astrology.
Believe in an ID if you like, but without a theory to explain IT, it is religion, not science, and can't be taught as the latter using government collected & managed $$$.
Thanks YDR.com for taking this whole case seriously AND with a sense of style and humor. That's a tough trick to pull off and your staff deserves commendations for doing it.
The link in my first post didn't work so here is the URL:
http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=524
And for those who conflate ID with religion, what definition of religion are you using?
What is abundantly clear is that ID needs to be taught so that the wildly speculative nature of anti-IDists and some ID critics can be put to rest for good.
Joe G, you would have saved us an extra post of yours if you'd used the preview button. You see, someone designed this blog intelligently. Now I will borrow copiously from a Slashdot post which I cannot link to (thanks there, preview button!)
Assuming that we did teach ID in schools ... what would be the material?
"And so God created all the organisms on earth."
Little Johnny asks, "How?"
Teacher replies, "Well, he just created them. Poof! And there they were."
That's all ID would contribute to science.
If someone wants to believe now that the HOW is evolution, and the WHAT/WHO that started it all is God, then great, but it's not science. Science (apart from cosmology) makes no attempts at explaining the origin of Origin, just all the processes. In the end, to explain the origin of everything, you have to get axiomatic about something: everyone agrees that axiom to be some form of infinity, whereas some attribute consciousness to that Infinity and others, non-consciousness. Did Void spawn the Universe, or did the er ... opposite of Void (God) do it?
Intelligent Design contributes nothing to science.
Intelligent Design contributes nothing to science.
Intelligent Design contributes nothing to science.
Hear, hear, to those comments praising Mike Argento's biting humour during this hugely entertaining trial. Many's the time I've wandered to the YDR site for my fix of hilarity concerning this incredible misadventures of the Dover Area School Board and "ID proponents" in general ... Dover's goings on are not a usual subject of interest for this resident of Auckland, NZ, I can tell you!
All that remains, alas, is the denouement of this incredible fiasco, something which I am reasonably confident Judge John E.Jones has well within his capabilities and I await the Discovery Institute's inevitable attempts at spinning whatever they can out of what promises to be a very embarrassing judgement.
I await with interest Mike's acerbic take on the ID camp's efforts to take something (anything) positive from the rubble of their case and the reputations of their supporters in TMLC and DASD.
To Greg, the Kiwi.
It's unfair to use words like "denouement". I am sure that it will send most ID'ers running for their dictionaries. Next time try using apocalypse. Such as in;
All that remains, alas, is the apocalypse of this incredible fiasco.
Not quite the same meaning but at least they will get it.
I know one thing for sure. If these Fundamentalist had to pay tuition to Dover Schools for talking religion in schools their never would have been a trial. That is why Private Schools pay tuition and taxes also. So they had to sneak it in until parents complained.
Well no, it's not. It is based on the idea that God created the species/kinds. Yes, I know the page you linked to is down with the idea of evolution (just not through natural selection!), but that's just the bait of a case of bait & switch.
But sure, lets examine the ID as presented in your page as a scientific hypothesis. Because science is a process, and where the hypothesis come from is somewhat (but only somewhat) beside the point. So what does ID predict? Well, I see only two things predicted: "High information content", and "irreducible complexity". "High information content" is predicted by Evolution through natural selection, along with many things beside; it is a very well testing theory. And evolution through natural selection doesn't predict anything one way or the other when it comes to "irreducible complexity". Really. Here is how "irreducible complexity" is defined:
Thing is, Evolution through natural selection can explain such structures perfectly easily: they can evolve from simpler structures performing a different function. The Bacterial flagellum is a case in point: the motor is similar to cell membrane pores, that perform a very different function for the cell. The author is not well versed in the theory of evolution through natural selection; such changes in function play a large part in many hypothesized (and observed!) evolutionary pathways. No mention of this is made whatsoever. Oversight? No, I suspect deception.
Mike Argento's comments show how ludicrous the ID argument is. But unfortunately IDers ignore these. They quote the astounding claims of videos like "Unlocking the Mystery of Life," the bacterial flagellum video. However, after investigation, one by its claims fall short. Even the writings of the speakers in this video contradict the claims made by the video.
What does Behe (speaker in the video and originator of Irreducible Complexity) ***REALLY*** say about whether or not the bacterial flagellum (flagellar motor) could have evolved? You might be surprised!
This video is impressive...Until you know the facts.
If you want to see a detailed review that gets to the truth about the claims made in "Unlocking the Mystery of Life," see
www.epicidiot.com/evo_cre/vr_unlocking_the_mystery_of_life.htm
For even more misinformation, check out
"The Privileged Planet"
www.epicidiot.com/evo_cre/vr_privileged_planet.htm
Mr Argento- I LOVE YOU!!! You have a faithful group of freethinking fans in NC who've followed the trial via your posts to the YDR. Gas at $3.00+ per gallon teamed with work and homelife obligations precluded us from coming to the federal courthouse in Harrisburg to spectate so we turned to your blog daily to learn what was happening. You've been deemed a "Modern-Day Mencken" which does not do you justice- you're much funnier and not at all mean-spirited as he was. Keep up the good work and, oh yeah,if you ever find yourself single again...
Hey, a girl can hope, right?
Thank you, Mr. Argento! Your posts have given us the essence of the Dover Panda Trial without us having to slog through the transcripts (Darrow versus Bryan it wasn't). The brief reports from the York Daily Record simply weren't enough! You are a very witty and welcome commentator, and I hope a national magazine picks you up to report on the next one of these things. There will probably be one in Kansas very soon...
Dear Mr. Argento,
Thank you so much! A dose of humour, sarcasm, and intelligence was exactly what was needed here. Thanks to the Dover school board, not just Dover, but York County now has a reputation for being not only uneducated, but regressive and unenlightened. Your columns on the matter are a breath of fresh air.
__________________________
Joe G,
Ok, let's put religion aside for a moment. Let us stretch our imaginations for a few and say that ID and creationism aren't even remotely related.
This leaves us with what? Ah, science.
It is evident that most of the Dover school board doesn't know what ID is. Sheila Harkins has been quoted as saying that when she voted in favour of it, she didn't quite know what ID was all about. Equally evident from his moment in the lime light is that Mr. Behe doesn't know what it is. He hemmed and hawed and answered questions with a vagueness that puts politicians to shame.
Which helps us to see what ID is not.
It isn't science.
At least, not yet.
In order for an idea to blossom into science, it must be put to the rigour of the scientific processes. From observation to idea to testing to study to objective study and tesing by others to replication of studies in an attempt to replicate results. And if over time the idea, now a hypothesis, holds in good stead, it may well be welcome in the world of acknowledged science. A scientific theory isn't like a common theory. A common theory (ex: cospiracy theory) is a thought, an impression. A scientific theory, on the other hand, has been tested repeatedly and held in good stead throughout rigourous testing.
Evolutionary theory is a scientific theory. It has stood tests and studies not just over years, but over generations.
ID has yet to even be tested.
It has barely even been studied.
We don't utilize evolutionary theory because Darwin and Huxley went whinging to Parliament. We shouldn't teach ID just because Behe, Dembski, and Johnson went whining to courts and state legislatures.
If they want to study ID, and put it to the testing required by the scientific method, then so be it. If it holds up, then perhaps it should be a part of science. But we can't decide that now, and we can't decide that in a court of law. If they want for ID to be a science, then it needs to be judged and tested as a science by scientists.
Behe should be ashamed of himself. He is, to all intents and purposes, a scientist. And as such, he should bloody well know what is required by the scientific method, and that it requires the patience of a Darwin. It seems to me that he wants to see his name in the annals of science not just in his lifetime, but now. And although he may find himself part of scientific history, he may not be happy with how he is remembered.
ID should not be taught in science classes, because it is not science.
Might we one day see ID move on from mere wishful thinking to scientific theory?
It could happen.
But I wouldn't hold my breath.
Jude F.
Please allow me to join my voice to those expressing appreciation and delight at your coverage of the events in Dover. My only criticism is that you don't write a column every day LOL!
As one who experiences the fallout from low quality science education in primary and secondary school--specifically, a college biology teacher--this trial held a lot of significance for me. I *did* slog through the transcripts and read the more pedantic news reports. But my favorite place to go has been the Argento column right from the start. I'm so glad to have discovered you, and will continue to visit, even though the Dover events are on hold for the next while.
On the subject of the trial... I was astounded at some of the testimony. In some cases, I must say I can't understand why the defense attorneys put people on the stand at all. If the prosecution hadn't already made an excellent case of their own, the defense witnesses could have made it for them. Their experts were embarrassing, particularly their "expert" on the history, philosophy and sociology of science--Stephen Fuller?--whose testimony was disgracefully riddled with errors in history, and overburdened with meaningless obfuscation. Methinks he cleaves to the dreaded "deconstructionist" idiology, where the more obscure and devoid of meaning your prose is, the more profound you are deemed to be ;^)
Then there were the school board members. If I were a citizen of Dover and had voted for some of those folks, I'd be hiding my head in shame.
Of course, the bottom line here is that ID is a bankrupt proposal when it comes to science. It's nothing more than a good old fashioned argument from ignorance. It's not that it's "still young," or that it "hasn't had enough attention to mature." It's as mature as it's going to get.
Unlike what Dr. Fuller claimed, theories don't come into existence, simmer around a while, then begin to collect evidence. They are born out of evidence. That's certainly true of evolutionary theory--at the moment it was published, the theory already accounted for vast amounts of evidence (those "facts" everyone seems to think are so important). That's why it has had such a profound effect. ID was born out of nothing more than wishful thinking, and after considerable time still has absolutely no evidence to support it. It's not a theory and never will be.
So thanks, Mike Argento, for being a clear, if sometimes caustic, voice for reason. I enjoyed every column you wrote throughout this trial.
Lynn F.
Like to add my thanks Mike, for your witty and sharp reports of this ridiculous trial.
To those who wrote that we should teach ID, I would ask, What about the Gaia hypothesis - much more scientific and interesting than ID, testable and very possibly true. Or what about string theory? At least none of us would understand what they were talking about. How come school boards only concern themseleves with ID? If you can answer that you will understand what this is about.
I also want to follow the lead of those above and extend my thanks to Mike for his coverage of the Dover Trial. I discovered him in the course of researching the trial for a little educational newsletter I have been writing since last spring to educate fellow teachers in my school district about the Evolution-ID 'controversy'. Mike's take on the trial has been a wonderful source of entertainment as well as information. I am sending him a copy of my lastest 'newsletter', in which I include his column 'May The Sauce Be With You'. Although I have taught evolution and the creationism/ID controversy for some time, I decided it was time to educate my colleagues after I was participated in a panel discussion, involving students and teachers in my school, about religion in the public school system. This revealed a startling ignorance of the strength of evolution and revealed faculty members who were believers in the ID idea. Astonished at the thought that college graduates and teachers supposedly teaching critical thinking to students were also buying into ID as a disproof of evolution (I guess I should not be even though I live in one of the bluest areas of blue left coast California)I started my evolution primer on the subject and regular newsletters, especially about the trial in Dover. I think we all need to redouble our efforts to educate the public and those in our circle of friends about evolution and the nature of science itself. The bottom line to communicate is that science can tell us nothing about the existence of God and does not claim to do so. Second, there is no inherent conflict between a faith in God and an acceptance of evolution. Third, while there is nothing really wrong in believing in an intelligent designer, one must recognize that it just is not a scientific idea, that there is no empirical evidence for such a designer, and it does not belong in a biology class. School board members who attempt to include their religious beliefs in public schools should be ashamed of themselves. And to the fundamentalists who insist on forcing their particular beliefs on the rest of us I restate the message of the bumpersticker which says, "If you won't pray in my school then I won't think in your church." Thanks again, Mike. Love your column. Keep up the good work.
HEY ALICE, dont hold your breath!
Mrs. Mike Argento