The Dover trial and the evolution of the anti-evolution movement.
Download Video Podcast (MP4, 53.9MB) »
Presented by Ed Brayton, Co-founder, Michigan Citizens for Science
About the Speaker
Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of Michigan Citizens for Science and co-founder of The Panda’s Thumb. He has written for such publications as The Bard, Skeptic and Reports of the National Center for Science Education, spoken in front of many organizations and conferences, and appeared on nationally syndicated radio shows and on C-SPAN.
Ed is also a Fellow with the Center for Independent Media and the host of Declaring Independence, a one hour weekly political talk show on WPRR in Grand Rapids, Michigan. His blog Dispatches from the Culture Wars is featured on Scienceblogs.com.
About the Event
Meeting summary with commentary and abbreviated calendar listing for the Freethought Association. This was meeting number 225 and was held on March 14 at 7PM at the Women’s City Club in Grand Rapids, MI.
In-SITE-FULL: Explore our newly- updated website: http://www.cfimichigan.org for our more complete calendar listing of events, news and links of interest to freethinkers, volunteer opportunities and information on our growth and expansion of services and activities. For questions pertaining to specific events, contact the person leading them (e-mail address and/ or telephone number indicated), or for more general information, write to .
FYI on FYG: The Freethought Youth’s next gathering will be on March 16;, from 7PM- 9PM at the Seaver Farm and the activity will be Game Night. Bring your favorite game to play and a snack to share. Soda and popcorn will be provided. Parents are welcome to stay for this and other Youth Group events, but this isn’t required. For additional information, contact Jeff or Cathy at 616-892-9300 or .
STUDENT FOC-us: The next FOC—Freethought/ On Campus—meeting will be on March 19, starting at 8PM at Grand Valley State University, Kirkoff Center, Room 005, on the Allendale campus. For additional information, send an e-mail to Steve Iveson, http://www.cfimichigan.org/oncampus. The following Freethought/On Campus meeting will be on March 26 (same location and time).
LIVE SCREENING VIDEO: The next FMN- Freethought Movie Night- will be on March 21 and will feature the film: The Usual Suspects. Vice- Chairman, Jason P., hosts these social gatherings at his home on Lockwood St., NE, starting at 7PM on the first and third Wednesdays of each month. Please RSVP and bring a snack to share and your own beverage. For more information or to RSVP: or call: 616-634-2471.
PHILOSOPHY & PHERMENTATION: Join us for Three Beer Discussions; small, casual philosophy discussion group gatherings. These are held at the Seaver Farm; 10721 52nd Ave., Allendale, MI. The upcoming one will be on March 23, starting at 8PM. Same contact information as for the Youth Group.
GREIGHT CONVERSATIONS: On March 24, the next in the series of Dinners for 8 will take place. These are Saturday evenings for adults to get together for drinks, dinner and good conversation. For more information, visit our website or contact coordinator Jan V. at .
THE LOCKWOOD LADIES: This month’s Freethought Women’s Group will be March 24 (usually they are held on the third Saturday of each month.) Different activities are presented at this casual gathering of freethinking women, hosted by Amanda N. (new FA Treasurer) and Assistant Director, Jennifer B. Contact Jennifer: for more information.
FAITH, MORALITY, GOD, PRAYER, BELIEF, TRUTH… The next regular meeting of the Freethought Association will feature the topic: Dangerous Words: Talking About God in an Age of Fundamentalism. This will be presented on March 28 by Gary Eberle, professor of English, Aquinas College and author of an upcoming book by the same title as his lecture.
SPRING AHEAD: Looking ahead to later in the springtime; come celebrate the season on May 26 at the Seaver Farm for the annual Spring Fling, starting at 4PM. Bring your swim suit (if you wish), dish to pass, and beverage. Bring the whole family for the bon fire, lawn sports and fun! Write to for more information.
STRATEGIC ADAPTATIONS TO ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES: The topic for this meeting was: The Dover Trial and the Evolution of the Anti- Evolution Movement. It was presented by Ed Brayton, co-founder of Michigan Citizens for Science and freelance writer for Skeptic magazine, The Bard and Reports of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) and contributor to The Panda’s Thumb, a premiere advocacy website for evolution, science and nature.
The panda’s thumb itself is an evolutionary adaptation spurred on when the panda’s formerly carnivorous ancestors changed their diet to one consisting primarily of bamboo shoots. Evolution does not create novel forms by divine fiat all at once, but instead, typically employs what is already available to then modify, through natural mechanisms over time for better environmental fitness of the organism. In this case, an already- existing wrist bone elongated to help hold the panda’s new chief source of nutrition. A better fed panda is a more successful and evolutionarily fit one that may pass on its genes more readily; offspring sharing this phenotypic characteristic similarly do better in the reproduction arena, increasing the number of such better- equipped creatures and allowing them to access environmental resources more successfully.
Sexual selection, along with natural selection, is a main driving mechanism for evolution. In a recent posting to the Panda’s Thumb, there was a fascinating example of this, as seen in the stalk- eyed fly. Like the peacock, whose exuberant train encumbers it, yet increases its opportunities for being selected as a mate more successfully than its duller competitors (thus enhancing its reproductive fitness), the stalk- eyed fly has more difficulty in flying with its elongated stalks, but is seen as a more desirable mate choice for selection. This increases the pressure for more elongation even at the expense of aerial ease.
In the introductory remarks by our own Dr. Greg Forbes, Brayton was also mentioned for his work in comedy. Brayton’s humor and wit shone throughout his engaging presentation on the Harrisburg, PA Intelligent Design court case of December 2005. He lives in Stanton, MI, where time, he told us, stopped in 1956. He poked fun at Stanton later in his presentation when he quipped that he had once been arrested for smuggling books into the town but got off on a technicality: no one could prove that they were books.
As his presentation title suggests, the central irony seen in the anti- evolution agenda is that while denying evolution, they make use of an evolutionary strategy to strive for successful propagation of their meme in the world. As the environment changes, they adapt and morph their approach to spread their creationist beliefs, at the expense of the competition: biological science. The Dover school district case was, therefore, a continuation in a long process that has involved four basic phases so far. Mr. Brayton outlined these for us: Phase One was simply to ban, outright, the teaching of evolution in public schools. Evolution was viewed as a threat to the biblical teachings of Adam and Eve and a young Earth coming into being in one supernatural act of creation by the Bible god. Interestingly, many churches were among those organizations that were opposed to banning the teaching of evolution. Many realized that the commingling of church and state was not just in violation of the Establishment Clause, but diluted their spiritual message of the teachings of Jesus by getting stuck on literalism regarding an ancient creation myth. Additionally, it lumped them in with the willfully ignorant and woefully uninformed. The separation of church and state is good for both. Places that have an official state sponsored Church have relatively poorly attended church services and religious ritual is largely reduced to quaint custom and for certain ceremonial occasions, instead of being a truly meaningful element in most people’s daily lives. Here, there is more competition to fill the pews, so church leaders must work harder and strive to instill in the congregant’s heads a real NEED for them to be steadfast churchgoers.
Phase One is associated with the Butler Act of 1922 in Tennessee, which led to the 1925 Dayton, TN so- called Scopes Monkey Trial. The trial itself was, rather than a clash of antagonistic ideological combatants, more of a collusion between different groups with their own agendas. The newly formed ACLU was eager to have a major test case to launch itself into the consciousness of the nation and the trial involving John Scopes’ teaching of evolution in violation of the Butler Act was just such a case. The small town enjoyed a surge in tourism and a crackling of excitement injected into its sleepy milieu as well as great notoriety, Darrow had another name and fame-granting case to increase his renown, and so on. Scopes was actually asked to get himself arrested in order to bring the issue to trial and, rather than being vindicated (he was, after all, in violation of the law of the time there) with evolution emerging victoriously, the case ended up being overturned on a technicality having to do with an improper fine being issued—having nothing to do with the issues raised in the trial itself.
The ban, in fact, stayed on the books for another 40-some years, when the Epperson v Arkansas Supreme Court case of 1968 invalidated an Arkansas statute that prohibited the teaching of evolution in the public schools. The Court held that the First Amendment to the US Constitution prohibits a state from requiring, in the words of the majority opinion: that teaching and learning must be tailored to the principles or prohibitions of any religious sect or dogma. End of quote. Susan Epperson was a Little Rock high school teacher and a theistic evolutionist. The most vocal proponents of creationism often frame their side as a unified one, instead of honestly noting the wide spectrum of viewpoints on the issue. At one end of the spectrum is Young Earth Creationism and at the other pole is materialistic, naturalistic biological evolutionary science. But there are many positions sprinkled in between. The one taken by Epperson espouses the view that life evolves under natural laws but that there probably exists a divine entity that fashioned the natural laws and that guides evolutionary processes. The Epperson v Arkansas case brought Phase One to an end.
Since creationists of the Bible literalist, Genesis-as-a-factual-account-of- history stripe, could no longer simply ban the teaching of evolution out of existence, they adapted to the legal environment and created the Phase Two strategy. This goes under the name of the Equal Time Dual Model. Anti-evolutionists evolved a rudimentary adaptation of partial camouflage, where they re-packaged their more blatant forebear of creationism as Creation Science, which they set in opposition to what they called Evolution- Science. This wording was a clever ploy used in establishing a false dichotomy where creationism is just another alternative- another scientific notion- in which to choose from. As has been noted many times before, the phrase creation- science is an oxymoron, since creationism is not based on- nor does it use the pedagogy, methodology or natural models of- science, while evolution- science is a redundancy like egg omelet or tuna fish. But this strategy gave the impression of two competing approaches that were on equal footing with one another, with equal scientific validity. Therefore, it was asserted, in the interest of fairness, both views should be taught side by side in the classroom.
Biological evolution was often dismissed as Darwinism, to make it appear to be some eccentric notion of a single individual rather than the foundation of biology itself, involving lines of intersecting evidence from a wide variety of other scientific disciplines. This allowed the anti-evolutionists to insinuate that one may choose from biblical authority—the very word of GOD—or some Victorian Englishman’s godless ideas. Under the Equal Time Dual Model scheme, both evolution and creationism were to be taught together and which ever one the student preferred would be part of his or her scientific understanding of the world. No other scientific branch of knowledge was presented as up for a popularity contest vote. Students were not asked to select whether heliocentrism or geocentrism was more appealing to them, or to choose between germ theory and wee demons, though demonic possession as a cause for illness and geocentrism were both, likewise, backed by the same biblical authority as divine fiat creation of life by an ancient Hebrew deity. The Equal Time Dual Model was challenged in the court beyond the district level in 1987 in Edwards v Aguillard, where this model was ruled to be unconstitutional. It’s hard to believe that this case occurred only twenty years ago. The environment was changing and the strategists had to evolve again. They needed a better camouflage and to develop more stealth. Enter Phase Three.
Phase Three is where the label Intelligent Design Theory (IDT) came into being. Now, instead of opposing creation- science with evolution- science as equal scientific approaches, they fostered the assumption that both avenues required a theory that involved a mechanism for them to work. It is true that evolution (the basic kernel idea of life changing over time) was understood to be valid long before Darwin, but it could not be considered a scientific theory until there was an underlying mechanism to evoke such transmutations. Darwin proposed the mechanisms of natural and sexual selection. IDT provided, for its mechanism, an Intelligence that was responsible for the design of natural forms and labeled this concept a theory, so it could rival the theory of evolution, while studiously avoiding any mention of God or the Bible’s two internally inconsistent Genesis stories, since such nomenclature would make IDT vulnerable to being ruled against on Establishment Clause issues in the courts.
Just as the phrase creation science did horrible violence to language and the basic understanding of what science is and how it is done, the thrust of IDT was to eviscerate the scientific meaning of the word theory. In this way, they could say that evolution was JUST a theory, using the layperson vernacular meaning of the word—a hunch, in other words. They also tended to ascribe this hunch as an unfounded assumption made by atheistic elite types, and they strove to make naturalism (regarding the natural workings of the world) and materialism (that which pertains to matter, energy and natural laws) into derogatory terms.
In science, a theory is a logically confirmed explanation of phenomena or a set of data that is testable, falsifiable and consistent with other known observations and data. This is diametrically opposed to the sense that creationists use the term when writing of Intelligent Design Theory, since they do no research, formulate no hypotheses, collect no data, and test nothing. Their assumption is made first, rather than arrived at after careful examination and analysis—and that assumption is not falsifiable and does not pertain to observable natural events and laws. Intelligent Design, furthermore, is inconsistent with any other known observations or data. Its so-called theory is immune to demolition from the introduction of facts or disconfirming data. In contrast, with science, even the most elegant scientific theory will collapse when a single datum that contradicts it is discovered. Scientific theories have enormous explanatory power as well as predictive potency. IDT explains nothing and makes no predictions that can be tested. A scientific theory is considered more robust when it brings together more streams of data and evidence from a wide range of disciplines. Evolution is the most robust scientific theory, therefore, by this standard, taking in such disparate branches of scientific investigation as chemistry, cosmology, geology, paleontology, nuclear radiation and decay, biology, zoology, plate tectonics, genetics, etc., etc. Predictions may be made across many different fields from findings in evolution. The theory of IDT has, conversely, no such connectivity and offers nothing to benefit human knowledge about the workings of the natural world or its various phenomena.
IDT’s chief posited mechanism actually is not about how ID works, but instead attempts to say why natural selection cannot create new forms emerging via evolutionary descent. Their supposedly evolution- refuting idea has been promulgated as irreducible complexity and has been. presented as something new, but as with its predecessors, it is merely a case of repackaging old notions. In this instance, a 300 year- or so- old one that was formulated by Rev. Paley, who reasoned that if one came upon a rock, its edges may be thought to have been shaped by natural occurrences. But if one came upon a watch, one would sensibly infer that an intelligent agent had crafted the object, due to its complexity. Certainly, therefore, something as complex as living beings must have had an artificer, he deduced. Irreducible complexity, especially in the hands of its main modern day proponent Michael Behe, extends this by saying that if one removed any piece of the watch, it would no longer function. Therefore, he concludes, organisms existing without one or another crucial part would be highly improbable. All the parts must have appeared at one time and all operating in perfect synchrony from the start. How could slow, step-wise evolution have produced living creatures that could survive, is the implicit question. Dr. Forbes, inone of his presentations noted that even the Paleyan timepiece was actually an example more in support of evolutionary theory than irreducible complexity. Virtually all of the components of a watch existed previously, but were put into a new arrangement for a different service. The parts were not created, as wholly novel items, that suddenly appeared together in one unchanging configuration!
Nonetheless, irreducible complexity is a challenge that resonates well for those of us in Western society. We buy an entire system and when a part goes, we typically end up replacing the whole thing. We also buy, make or use things for very specific purposes, rather than finding novel ways to press an existing thing into a new service. The throw away society that A. Toffler wrote of decades ago, is in full swing now. But evolution doesn’t work that way. Divine fiat creation does, however, so it is easier for us to respond to the idea of something that works in a specific way right out of the box—fully formed and perfectly engineered (by sentient and intelligent agents) toward its task. Evolution, however, makes use of what it has to work with and adapts the material in a good- enough fashion. Natural selection sculpts species toward a better fit over many generations. The anatomy and genetics of any given organism tell a story only of evolutionary descent, while a divine engineer, able to create any material and form and structure It wished to, would never fashion such unintelligently- designed beings. Why put forelimb structures that are homologous to terrestrial creatures in marine mammals? Why are our eyes essentially wired backwards? Even a dull-witted designer would disconnect that absurdity and reconnect it in a more sensible manner but evolution doesn’t radically rewire or reconfigure existing structures. The results of homeobox genes can be seen across eons and species, still dealing with the same body regions and protein expressions, but the different switching transforms a structure used at one time, for one purpose, into another with a new role. We can trace these back from our own bodies to the earliest fossilized beings. And we can, in the lab, cause modern animals to give birth to offspring that exhibit atavistic ancestral characteristics and features, by essentially triggering long dormant genetic expression to switch on. The switches and means to promote that expression were already there.
However, even tackling challenges put forward by Behe and Dembski—both manufactured ones and examples drawn from the natural world- irreducible complexity has been found wanting. One example of the former is a mousetrap. But clever individuals produced mousetraps with fewer and fewer parts that still worked. Again, this isn’t how evolution works—removing or creating whole discrete parts—but it was useful in showing the central flaw in this sort of argument that says that something must exist in only one specific way to function. A couple of natural mechanisms that have been proposed as challenges to evolution include blood clotting (Behe is a biochemist and has published in his field, but not in scientific, peer-reviewed journals on the subject of intelligent design—still, he is touted as a working scientist who believes in IDT, so he gets props from this connection) and the rotating flagellum. Both have been, however, well explained by evolutionary biologists. In fact, in the Dover trial itself, Behe- on the witness stand, is queried about one of his bald assertions regarding how evolutionary biology cannot address a certain biochemical function. The attorney questioning him then proceeds to haul in a large, heaping cart filled with scientific texts (some book- length—others being detailed papers), all on precisely that natural, evolved process. Furthermore—adding to the public embarrassment of Behe, these are put on the stand in front of the IDT proponent so that he must peer around the mountainous stack to answer the follow up questions!
The eye is a favorite feature of the irreducible complexity camp’s but not only can this be explained by evolution, and is known to have evolved independently many times, but we even have living examples of virtually all the transitional structures from the pigmented patch of skin that responds to light to the most complex camera-like eyes. The kind of eyes we have are unnecessary for some creatures who only need to detect light and shadow, so they never evolved anything more involved. Evolutionary tinkering is costly to the organism, so there must be a sufficient benefit—payoff—for it to emerge. Our brains are examples of such an energy hungry (costly) organ- but one that has allowed us to flourish as evolutionary success stories. The poorly designed (from an intelligent engineering standpoint) features abounding in all living beings would not be beneath the scrutiny of an all-powerful, omniscient Creator or Intelligence, but these go under the radar of evolution that does not craft optimal forms and functions out of infinite possibilities, but rather sufficient ones out of what is available in order to opass along genes into the next generation. Evolution does not look to the distant future or grand Goals in a divine Scheme or Plan, but merely equips living things with what they need for reproductive fitness in response to the environment of the time.
As alluded to, in the IDT agenda, all references to the Bible’s God and its creation account are stripped away. Gone is the 6,000 year old Earth, Adam and Eve, etc. IDT sells itself as a scientific alternative to evolution, and therefore not liable for Constitutional violations. But it is not science; it only exists to try to pick apart evolutionary theory and cast doubt in the minds of those who are not yet informed on the matter, while offering absolutely nothing itself to explain anything in the natural world. Science does not and cannot operate that way—its practitioners may not simply say something is wrong, while not formulating a countering hypothesis to test, and then appeal to the fallacy of false alternatives—if A is not fully and completely comprehended in every detail, then MY pet idea—B—is the only logical alternative. No branch of science HAS answered every detail of every question but this does not warrant an unfounded leap into an area that has never provided any fruitful information about the natural world. This offering up of a false alternative is precisely what the IDT camp does. Tellingly, those from the Discovery Institute (creationists who have made no discoveries of any kind; another large creationist organization has research in its title while doing no research), when they are among their followers, employ hardcore religious rhetoric. When they are in the general public, however, it’s a different story; in those cases they present themselves as victimized by the closed minded elitist priesthood of scientists who stubbornly refuse to countenance their theory and who disallow them from sharing it with the public that it is being kept from for, no doubt, nefarious reasons.
Brayton showed us images of banners from the creationist organization, The Center for Science and Culture, that graphically showed how their tactical strategies evolved over time, to make them better adapted to a climate that sees through overt expressions of religious sectarianism mislabeled as science. The banners even had transitional forms! The initial image showed a reproduction of Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel painted ceiling portion regarding the Creation of Man: God, supported by cherubim, touching the outstretched finger of Adam in bringing him to life. In the next banner, God is giving this animating spark to a double helix! In the following transition, the God- figure is absent as an objective form, but is replaced by cosmic nebulae…but it is depicted in the likeness of a human eye…so the Supreme Being still makes an appearance. Eventually, the transformation is complete and it becomes a thoroughgoing secular banner that seems to be all about the promotion of science. But this scientific sheep’s clothing covers the same creationist wolf, just the same.
Mentioned earlier was how the ID movement leaders frame scientific materialism in a slandering way, equating it with atheism, while portraying themselves as providing an alternative to such god-denying materialism. Using, ever more, the language of science as they evolve, creationist organizations give the impression that, far from being anti-science—they embrace science! Theirs is just an alternative, you see, that allows supernatural (not necessarily the Bible god!) causation into the picture. They have problems only with those obstinate naturalistic scientists who do not share their vision and keep them marginalized so as not to be a threat to their established power.
Brayton referred us to the Wedge Document that lays out the strategy for infiltrating public education and eroding naturalistic science. It equates the teaching of evolution with the decline of religion, cultural values and society itself, and blames every societal ill—real or imagined- on evolution. Those promoting sound science education, including a good grounding in biological evolution, are labeled as religious bigots, even though many of them are devoutly religious themselves. By generating this sense of urgency—the very destruction from within of our nation by atheistic forces, and framing this as a battle for good and God and all that is wholesome—as an integral part of the so-called Culture War—they get worried Christians to open their pocketbooks wide. When the leading proponents of IDT creationism get religiously-saturated statements they made in their sermons to their followers quoted back to them—they squawk that they are being attacked!
Ed Brayton said the the Dover trial, technically called Kitzmiller et al v Dover Area School District, was inevitable—it was bound to happen somewhere and, in fact, almost occurred in Michigan—with the Gull Lake school system. A student there, who was a daughter of a biologist, came home with YEC (Young Earth Creationist) handouts, which alarmed her father who contacted the MI Citizens for Science. They informed the school board of the consequences they faced in promoting specific religious dogma as science in the public schools and they came to their senses and realized they cannot teach that any more. In fact, Brayton told us (Dr. Forbes has been good about keeping us informed about these issues as well), there were no fewer than 6 House Bills introduced here in MI, by the Discovery Institute, to try to insinuate IDT into our public schools, right up to this last fall!
The IDT textbook: Of Pandas and People; The Central Quest For Biological Origins, was to be used for classroom instruction in the Dover case and the Thomas Moore Law Center- which was founded by Dominoes Pizza founder, Tom Monaghan—a frustrated priest associated with the Religious Right- promised to fund the school in the courtroom if it went to trial. Both they, and lawyers for the preservation of Constitutional standards, wanted a test case.
The case was a spectacle of the sort that, to quote Brayton: It turned out to be one of the most fascinating and illuminating legal cases imaginable, so full of drama and interesting characters that Paramount is planning to make a movie about it. End of quote. Among those characters were Dover School Board members Alan Bonsell and Bill Buckingham. Brayton referred to them as Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dumber. Angie Yingling, Sheila Hawkins, Heather Geesey, Jane Cleaver, Noel Weinrich and Carol and Jeff Brown. Carol and Jeff, actually ended up going over to the Plaintiff’s side, in this case that the Federal judge labeled with the phrase: breathtaking inanity.
The Freethought Association will post, or already has posted (as of this writing), the entire annotated and indexed transcript of this remarkable trial. Furthermore, it is this writer’s understanding that the actual video for this meeting’s presentation will be available for viewing on our website. Therefore, I shall not give a blow by blow account of our speaker’s account of the trial but will merely highlight some of what was presented to us.
As was mentioned, the IDT agenda is one where they must never let on to the public that their goal is to get a particular religion’s doctrines and dogma into the public school classrooms in violation of the Constitution. The school board members declared their adherence to the secular principles that were to guide them, eschewing any religious motivation. However, Buckingham made several recorded statements to the contrary, including references to how Jesus died on the cross for us a couple millennia ago and we must now stand up for him, how only the IDT textbook, Of Pandas and People was to be purchased for the school’s biology classes, and the old canard about how our nation was founded on Christianity. For some reason he heaped bigoted stupidity upon erroneous declarations as when he unnecessarily said that we weren’t a Muslim nation. Huh? And that has WHAT to do with the IDT controversy in public education? It was really rather sad to see someone who was so demonstrably and so clearly not overburdened by education or higher cognitive reasoning who was helping to shape public education in his district. He made a series of other rather foolish and religiously- saturated commentary. Grilled as a hostile witness, he demonstrated his boundless ignorance not only about the life sciences and education but even about what Intelligent Design Theory was! He had no clue! Yet this was what he wanted rammed down the student’s throats. He stated that ID was different from creationism but then was shown using the two terms interchangeably. He could not have been paid by the opposing side to do a better job for them.
Follow the money. Where did the funds come from for the purchase of the 60 copies of Of P&P that were placed in the school library and were encouraged to be checked out? All board members contended that they did not know, including the Board President, Bonsell. It came to light, however, that Buckingham had gotten up in front of his church to solicit funds from the faithful and even wrote the check for book purchases himself out of the collected donations! Further adding to the theater and antics of the case, for some reason Bonsell got the check from Buckingham and gave it to his father to buy the books (?). There is nothing like lying on the witness stand to demolish one’s case…
Heather Geesey had been confident in the district’s lawyers and in her belief that they would be impervious to a lawsuit. This belief was held even though district lawyers told her both that they would be sued and that they would lose the case! She obviously had a highly fortified cognitive dissonance mechanism working away inside her…one that was, no doubt, irreducibly complex.
The trial was very one sided. The facts, excellent legal work and consistency of testimony were pitted against the major problems, poor legal representation, holes, lies and deceit that was on the IDT proponent’s side. The attorney, opposing the insinuation of IDT textbooks into the schools, Eric Rothschild, was practically salivating to tear into it, commenting that he had waited fifteen years for this. The Pepper Hamilton attorneys threw everything into it and were referred to by Brayton as the legal dream team for civil law. The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) taught the lawyers the science of evolution. The disparity in legal talent, he also noted, was huge. Not only were those testifying on the plaintiff’s side armed with facts and on the correct side of American law but, on the other side, five individuals who were lined up to provide expert testimony withdrew (their side was paid and they still collected their money even when they were no-shows) and another two withdrew during the case—they apparently sensed the smell of death for their side of the case. One big name on the IDT side, Dembski, billed 110 hours at five figures but never showed.
During the legal discovery process there were actual Perry Mason moments—- something that rarely occurs in real life court cases—where people broke down during dramatic eureka moments, as when the smoking gun emerged for all to see. This took the form of various editions of the book Of Pandas and People. Like the aforementioned transmogrifications toward a cloak of secularity that the Center for Science and Culture Banners underwent over time, the ID book similarly started out with very overt statements about its creationist slant. Some of the evolutionary forms it took, going backwards in time were: Of Pandas and People, Biology and Origins (‘87), Biology and Creation (‘86), and Creation Biology (‘83). In the earlier ‘87 version creationism is even spelled out as the instantaneous creation of animals by a supernatural intelligence. ID contends that various forms of life came into being instantaneously by an intelligence as well, so it is difficult to maintain a distinction between it and religious doctrines, especially since, as mentioned previously, there is no actual scientific evidence provided in support for the claims of IDT. It is difficult to see how it could be taught as science instead of as supportive commentary on the Judeo-Christian creation myth.
The judge in the case, Judge Jones, had been appointed by Bush, was buds with Tom Ridge and known to be a conservative Republican, but this did not help the IDT side. Robert Pennock, on the plaintiff side, was actually written of by a newspaper reporter as being a serious brainiac (he has also authored several excellent books on creationism in all its guises including IDT) and Barbara Forrest’s testimony on the aforementioned smoking gun and the differences between philosophical and scientific endeavors did considerable damage to the ID side. They even tried hard to keep her off the stand. Moreover, the Defense was ill prepared and their case was badly planned and executed. Their star witness, Behe, had no peer reviewed work in technical, scientific journals to present in matters relating to IDT; all his published, peer- reviewed papers in his field of biochemistry are standard scientific ones. Since there IS no science to IDT, nothing scientific CAN be presented on its behalf. The ID strategy is never one to add to human knowledge but only to make attempts to undermine the credibility of real science.
It must have been an uncomfortable time for Behe on the stand. Not only was there the earlier- mentioned near burial he suffered in papers and books on the evolution of the immune system that he claimed science couldn’t address, but his credibility was further shaken when his book Darwin’s Black Box came under scrutiny. He alleged that it had been peer reviewed (even though it was written for popular consumption, not as a technical piece of scientific writing) but in the trial it came to light that the spotlighted reviewer, Atchinson, had only heard a description the book over the telephone and said he thought Behe seemed to have some good ideas; he never actually read the book. After Atchinson hung up, he never thought about it again. Clearly the ideas presented to him in the book were not the stirring ones of insightful science that would impel him to eagerly read it and motivate him to do his own research on any exciting concepts presented therein. There were two other reviewers but they both slammed the book, calling it nonsense. This is what passed for endorsement and stringent peer review.
Another absurd conjecture that was lamely produced was that, as a minority view, IDT should get a sort of affirmative action taken on its behalf. It should be inserted into education to determine its merits. This would make all fringe ideas subject to such time- wasting pursuits in public education, from Hollow Earth Theory, Geocentrism, Flat Earth Theory (just in Earth Science alone!), etc. The merit for this, as stated in the trial, was that it would help recruit future scientists.
The trial took forty days and forty nights—and this was not lost on one commentator who said that it was an interesting coincidence but not…(wait for it) by design. The result of the case? We (those of us who are interested in quality science educational standards and in a separation of State and Church) won…we won BIG! Not only did the case bring out the deceitful tactics of the IDT community and show the lack of legitimacy of their arguments, but it dealt with the very nature of science itself. It brought to light what science is and what does not constitute science; how science is done, what it produces, how it is tested and what a theory consists of as well as what fails to meet this standard. Interestingly, Judge Jones went from being thought of by his fellow conservative Republicans as a good ol’ boy to a radical liberal! This case brought Phase Three to a close. But at the outset, Brayton told us there were four Phases (so far) in the anti- evolution agenda.
Phase Four has speciated from its ancestral stock. The environmental niche it seeks to exploit is one of casting subtle doubt onto sound science while displaying the adaptive coloration of critical analysis in doing so. It targets evolution (and global warming in some cases) to be given special critical examination. No longer do they merely state, misleadingly, that evolution is only a theory that not all scientists agree with and that it is highly controversial, but cast aspersions upon the bedrock of biology (evolution) by giving the impression, more slyly, that it is something that should be evaluated very carefully. It sounds good—scientific principles should be investigated thoroughly and critically—but their targeted approach to evolution sets it off as a special case. They do not include the kinetic theory of gases, for example, as something that should be given special scrutiny as if the jury is still out on its validity.
So, in the end, nothing has changed really, except that more stealth and disingenuousness has been built into their strategies. The new creationists claim now that they do not want to have IDT taught in the classroom—just to be very critical of evolution when it is taught. They used to speak about teaching the controversy, now they just make it an implicit assumption that evolution is controversial and in need of better evaluation. Since they can only provide criticism of evolution—not positive evidence for ID—they now say that they want to introduce such criticism into the classroom under the disguise of good scientific review. Where would such specially targeted criticism come from? IDT proponents, of course. If evolution is deemed to not be on such solid footing, what else may we look to for answers to life science’s questions? Why…I guess that would be ID! Imagine that! So… while yet another battle has been won, the war continues.
Charles LaRue
