And if you advance to the next slide In that article, he makes the statement, "More so than other motors, the flagellum resembles a machine designed by a human. Indeed, this, more, has all the earmarks of something that arose by evolution. This transmits this torque generated by the motor that would then turn the propeller, which would push the bacterial cell through the fluid. NARRATOR: Michael Behe has argued that the flagellum could not have evolved, since its parts have no function for natural selection to act on until they are fully assembled. But evidence that refutes Behe's claim of irreducible complexity comes from a tiny syringe that injects poison, found in some of the nastiest of all bacteria.
Look at the similarities. Now, this structure doesn't rotate, but it still has to extend this structure, which is equivalent to the rod, the driveshaft here. It has to extend that, because it needs this little channel. It's like, sort of like a syringe. So the virulence factors that are made inside the cell, which is down here, can be exported, pushed up into this hole and exported out through this long, kind of, needle, perhaps into a cell in your body or mine, and thereby create misery.
The syringe on the right is made of a subset of the very same protein types found in the base of the flagellum on the left, though the syringe is missing proteins found in the motor and, therefore, can't produce rotary motion. It functions perfectly as an apparatus for transmitting disease. And yet here is a structure that functions, that is missing several of the proteins, and yet here it is, a working, viable organelle of the bacterium. So indeed, the structure is not, in that sense, irreducibly complex.
MILLER: As an example of what irreducible complexity means, advocates of intelligent design like to point to a very common machine: the mousetrap. And the mousetrap is composed of five parts. It has a base plate, the catch, a spring, a little hammer that actually does the dirty work, and a bait holder. The mousetrap will not work if any one of these five parts are taken away. That's absolutely true. But remember the key notion of irreducible complexity, and that is that this whole machine is completely useless until all the parts are in place.
Well, that, that turns out not to be true. And I'll give you an example. What I have right here is a mousetrap from which I've removed two of the five parts.
I still have the base plate, the spring, and the hammer. Now you can't catch any mice with this, so it's not a very good mousetrap. But it turns out that, despite the missing parts, it makes a perfectly good, if somewhat inelegant, tie clip. And when we look at the favorite examples for irreducible complexity, and the bacterial flagellum is a perfect example, we find the molecular equivalent of my tie clip, which is we see parts of the machine missing—two, three, four, maybe even 20—parts, but still fulfilling a perfectly good purpose that could be favored by evolution.
And that's why the irreducible complexity argument falls apart. Evolution, he says, fails to account for the network of organs and cells that defends us from disease. But other scientists who think that Darwinian evolution simply is true don't consider much of anything to be a problem with their theory. What you say is, "We can look high or we can look low in books or in journals, but the result is the same. The scientific literature has no answers on the question of the origin of the immune system.
MICHAEL BEHE Dramatization : And in the context that means that the scientific literature has no detailed testable answers to the question of how the immune system could have arisen by random mutation and natural selection. Behe, these articles rebut your assertion that scientific literature has no answers on the origin of the vertebrate immune system. My argument is that these articles have no detailed rigorous explanations for how complex biochemical systems could arise by a random mutation and natural selection.
And these articles do not address that. Eventually, Behe was almost dwarfed by the stack of scientific literature on the evolutionary origin of the immune system. Now, you know, was Michael Behe going to read every one of those books before he responded? You know, it was totally theatrics. Rothschild, would you like your books back? They're heavy. And on the last day of testimony, the final defense witness told the court about a creature that, by now, was familiar to everyone. Scott A. I am an associate professor, at the University of Idaho, in microbiology.
Minnich, can you give us an example of design at the molecular level? This is a system I work with. As the old adage goes, "You know I know what to do, but I just can't make it exciting. Minnich, a complaint that's often brought up—and plaintiffs' experts have brought it up in this case—is that intelligent design is not testable. It's not falsifiable. Would you agree with that claim? I have a quote from Mike Behe: "In fact, intelligent design is open to direct experimental rebuttal. To falsify such a claim, a scientist could go into the laboratory, place a bacterial species lacking a flagellum under some selective pressure, for motility, say, grow it for 10, generations and see if a flagellum or any equally complex system was produced.
If that happened my claims would be neatly disproven. I'd be intrigued to do it. I wouldn't expect it to work. But that's my bias. Behe have run the test that you, yourself, advocate for testing intelligent design, right? Have they been tested? You see what I'm saying, Steve? It's a problem for both sides. Local newspaper reporter Lauri Lebo sat through every day of testimony, and the conflict began to drive a wedge between Lauri and her father.
He did not believe in science, and he was all worried about me and And he said, you know, "Well, do you really believe that we came from monkeys? And so we'd fight every morning. If you believe in heaven and hell, and you believe you have to be saved, nothing else could possibly matter. Not the First Amendment, not science, not rational debate. All that matters is that you're going to be rejoined with the people you love most on this Earth.
That takes the dignity away from humanity, as far as I'm concerned. What gives dignity to man is that every one of us are made in the image of God. He is the creator, and he created the world with intention and with design. It upsets me deeply that now, in our educational system, we are indoctrinating our young people to think differently about humanity. MILLER: I've never made a secret of the fact that I'm a Roman Catholic, and a long tradition of scholarship in the Catholic Church has argued that truth is one, that science and religion should ultimately be in harmony.
But that doesn't make faith a scientific proposition. I think, as many religious people do, that faith and reason are both gifts from God. And if God is real, then faith and reason should complement each other rather than being in conflict. But science was not the only issue before the court.
The climax of the trial would be the judge's ruling on a question stemming from a different line of evidence: "When they introduced intelligent design into the classroom, were members of the Dover School Board motivated by religion? It's either purpose or effect, either one. And that trickles all the way down to any state action, and in this case, the actions of a school board.
Months before the trial, when Bertha Spahr had unpacked the boxes containing the 60 copies of Pandas given by an anonymous donor, she found a clue. In the bottom of the box I found a catalogue. I opened the catalogue to see what they had to say about the book in question. And at the very top of the catalogue page The N. And so the history of that book became important, the arguments it made became important.
And we undertook to dissect these various aspects in preparation for the case. Rummaging through the N. At the bottom of the front page, he noticed a tiny article with a headline announcing, "Unbiased Biology Textbook Planned. What was interesting is that it talked about the book being about "creation and evolution" instead of the later terms, "intelligent design and evolution. NARRATOR: If they could show Pandas started out as a creationist book, that would suggest intelligent design is simply creationism repackaged and therefore inherently religious.
Matzke emailed this information to Eric Rothschild, who immediately issued a subpoena to the publisher of Pandas for any drafts the book went through before printing. In a few months, they received two boxes of material. The lawyers sent them to Barbara Forrest. A philosophy professor and author who has been tracking intelligent design for years, she was scheduled to testify in the trial.
I had to sit down with those documents and just start flipping through them, which is what I did day and night. Buried in these documents were two drafts of Pandas straddling the case of Edwards versus Aguillard, in which the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional to teach creationism in public school science class.
One draft was written before the case and the other revised just after.see
Jack Peace wins first World Cup title in Trials Biking | York Press
BARBARA FORREST: In the first draft, which is the pre-Edwards draft, the definition of creation reads this way "Creation means that various forms of life began abruptly, through the agency of an intelligent creator, with their distinctive features already intact: fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings, et cetera. Never in our wildest dreams, though, did we think that this would actually be recorded in paper in a way that could be documented in a court case. And in comparing the Of Pandas and People drafts, Forrest discovered that the authors had apparently made their revisions in haste.
I found the word "creationists. You've got the direct physical evidence there of a transitional fossil. Citing a Christian magazine's interview, Forrest let one of the intelligent design movement's own leaders, Paul Nelson, speak for himself. Does it offer something that humankind needs to know? We don't have such a theory right now, and that's a real problem. Without a theory, it's very hard to know where to direct your research focus.
Right now, we've got a bag of powerful intuitions and a handful of notions, such as irreducible complexity, but as yet, no general theory of biological design. You know, she used their own language, things that they had written and said, to show that they themselves knew that this isn't science. Behe, using your definition, intelligent design is a scientific theory, correct?
There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect, which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is, in fact, one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other, many other theories as well. WITOLD "VIC" WALCZAK: You know, when you loosen the rules around what is science and permit the supernatural, permit deities, you are really destroying what makes science so vitally important to the progress that our civilization has witnessed over the last four or five hundred years.
You're going back before the scientific revolution. And, you know, that's a pretty scary thing. But some think the supernatural still has its place. STEVE FULLER: At the very beginning of genetics, the idea of there being a hereditary factor that somehow was responsible for the traits that we have, but one couldn't quite identify what the factor was, that was also initially regarded as supernatural, as well. So, it's not that supernaturalism hasn't been part of science.
In fact, it has been. And it's often led to very fruitful results.
- Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District - Wikipedia.
- The Right to a Fair Trial | Fair Trials.
- Learn more about our specialized publishing options.
And it seems the evolutionists want to, in a way, ignore or marginalize that very important part of the history. It's their strategy document that they drew up about nine years ago, in Their goal was to completely overthrow all of the effects of evolution on society, which they think are uniformly negative. This document states that they want to completely change American culture back to what they believe is its properly religious foundation. They want every area of life to be governed by their particular religious preferences.
And they're very clear about that in this document. NARRATOR: According to the wedge document, Darwin "portrayed humans not as moral and spiritual beings, but as animals," leading people to abandon "objective moral standards. The document lays out an ambitious agenda to overthrow this legacy, "to see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in Science," and "to see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life. Though not written by Phillip Johnson, the wedge document is an outgrowth of a broader policy he conceived called the wedge strategy. But the wedge strategy, as I have explained it, is quite simple and innocent.
When you use a wedge to split a log, you start with the sharp edge of the wedge. My job is to be the sharp edge of the wedge, to use my academic credentials and legal abilities to get some hearing for the proposition that there really is something fundamentally wrong with the Darwinian story. But I can't answer all the questions that arise, so we need other people to form the thick edge of the wedge to take on the questions that do require a scientific expertise.
MATTHEW CHAPMAN: There is something outrageous about such a huge body of evidence being put together, then being confirmed in all kinds of other scientific disciplines, particularly genetics, and having other people just sort of deny it for reasons that have nothing to do with truth. And this became apparent during the trial. And then you began to look towards the judge and think, "How is this guy going to get out of this? Bush, who has said that he thinks the jury is out on evolution, both theories should be taught. And you began to think, "What is this poor guy going to do?
Buckingham, I'd like to show you what has been identified as Exhibit P You'll need to look at the monitor. He is also a Board Member. He strongly believes creationism needs to be taught in the classroom. The camera's rolling, so I say "creationism. And I misspoke, pure and simple. I made a human mistake. I would say a human mistake. Both Buckingham and Bonsell had sworn in their depositions that they did not know who donated the 60 copies of Pandas to the high school. But by the time Buckingham took the witness stand, a different story emerged.
I said, "I'm not asking anybody for a dime. I'm not telling you I want anything. It was my understanding, at that time, that a businessman in the community had agreed to take the money and buy the books and donate them to the school. At that time I didn't know who it was. This contradicted statements Bill Buckingham and Alan Bonsell had originally made in their sworn depositions. We impeached a president about it. And people go to jail for it all the time.
It seemed to us that there was testimony that demonstrated clear inconsistency. I can't see into their hearts and know, you know, the extent of the falsehood but I do know that we asked questions that should have elicited that information, and they didn't provide that information.
What is a beta (or alpha)?
I don't I can't look. And then Judge Jones, his face had gotten bright red at this point, and he goes, "You tell me why you didn't say where that money came from to buy Of Pandas and People? And Alan Bonsell finally, under Judge Jones's grilling, started to get a little nervous. And he started flapping his hands, and he started stammering, and he completely had lost this self-assured composure that he had earlier. And finally he just said, "Well, I misspoke. Let the kids do their own research and find answers for themselves. 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. This trial has established that intelligent design is unconstitutional because it is an inherently religious proposition, a modern form of creationism. It is not just a product of religious people, it does not just have religious implications. It is, in its essence, religious. The shell game has to stop. GILLEN: In sum, your Honor, I respectfully submit that the evidence of record shows that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that the primary purpose or primary effect of the reading of a four-paragraph statement on intelligent design, explaining that it's an explanation for the origins of life different from Darwin's theory, letting the students know there are books in the library on this subject, does not, by any reasonable measure, threaten the harm which the establishment clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits.
But instead, the evidence shows that the defendants' policy has the primary purpose and primary effect of advancing science education by making the students aware of a new scientific theory, one which may well open a fascinating prospect to a new scientific paradigm. Four days after the trial ended, Dover residents rendered their own verdict on intelligent design, with a huge turnout for the school board election. By a narrow margin the people of Dover cleaned house. All eight of the nine seats up for election went to anti-intelligent-design candidates, including plaintiff and former Dover science teacher Bryan Rehm.
Among the candidates who got the fewest votes was Alan Bonsell.
- The Shoo Fly Man!
- The Pursuit of Ethical Excellence.
- DoNotPay's New Service Automatically Cancels Your Free Trials | WIRED;
- Prismatic Trial;
- Trials of Grodov Event & Store Updates!
- Heroic Polonaise No.6 in A-Flat Major by Fr D Ric Chopin for Solo Piano (1842) Op.53?
- Temple of Trials;
With the judge still deliberating, Dover's local school board election was national news and even provoked the ire of televangelist Pat Robertson. You just rejected him from your city. We pretty much knew it was going to be out by noon, so I waited at work for a phone call. I was reading it from the beginning, and he's standing over my shoulder, and he yells at me, "Go to the end! Go to the end! Spahr, Bertha Spahr knocking on my door and interrupting my class. Finding it had been introduced for religious reasons, Judge Jones decided it was "unconstitutional to teach intelligent design" in Dover science classes.
Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis, grounded in religion, into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.
The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the intelligent design policy. NARRATOR: Citing what he called the "breathtaking inanity" of the school board's decision, he found that several members had lied "to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the intelligent design policy.
JONES, III: The crushing weight of the evidence indicates that the board set out to get creationism into science classrooms, and intelligent design was simply the vehicle that they utilized to do that. Attorney that he investigate bringing perjury charges against Buckingham and Bonsell for lying under oath. And "the overwhelming evidence at trial," he said, "established that intelligent design is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.
JONES, III: In an era where we're trying to cure cancer, where we're trying to prevent pandemics, where were trying to keep science and math education on the cutting edge in the United States, to introduce and teach bad science to ninth-grade students make s very little sense to me. You know, garbage in garbage out. And it doesn't benefit any of us who benefit daily from scientific discoveries.
The administration was ordered to pay the plaintiff's legal fees, totaling more than a million dollars. And the election of a new school board, opposed to intelligent design, meant no appeal of the ruling would be mounted. In the wake of the trial, TIME Magazine named Judge Jones one of the most influential people of the year, but not everyone was so pleased with the Judge's decision. I think he went to clown college instead of law school or else he went to law school and slept during the Constitution classes, because his decision doesn't jive with the law.
I think he should be on a bench, but it ought to be in a center ring of Ringling Brothers Circus. We, as a board, were trying to make Dover the best school district it could be. That was our goal.
This Clever New Service Auto-Cancels Your Free Trials
At least mine was. I was trying to His parents, Tim and Jayne, bought him his first motorbike aged just three, farmers have granted him access to their land, his bike is supplied by a Spanish firm Gas Gas, and his teachers have moved exams to avoid clashes with competitions! I am especially looking forward to riding in front of a 'home' crowd this weekend. Having won the Trial World Cup with two rounds to spare, Jack will be able to ride with little pressure this weekend.
Watch a video
His brother Dan, meanwhile, is still in contention for the adult European crown with three rounds to go. Mother Jayne said: "As a a family, we are so proud of both the boys. Their Dad has always been into trials and so, too, their Grandad, so we can't believe it really. It is amazing what they have achieved. Around 3, people are expected to attend this weekend's GP at Tong where the Peace brothers will be flying the flag for Yorkshire.
See the full agenda. One Event. Three Days. Networking opportunities. Kenneth Getz Senior Reseach Fellow. Lode Dewulf Chief Patient Officer.