Excerpts from the excellent article “Live from Pennsylvania: Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District“, by Joe Manzari, research assistant at the American Enterprise Institute.
“In his opening statement, Eric Rothschild, the attorney for Kitzmiller, argued against the legitimacy of intelligent design (ID). Unfortunately for Rothschild, the testimony of Kenneth Miller –Å“ a Roman Catholic biology professor from Brown University who staunchly defends evolution –Å“ has already refuted his argument. And even more unfortunately, Miller was his expert witness.”
“Rothschild claimed that “intelligent design is not science in its infancy, it’s not science at all.” Yet Miller’s own testimony contradicts this… “you [Miller] were presenting your scientific argument against intelligent design, and Dr. Behe was presenting his scientific argument in support of intelligent design?” Miller responded: “Absolutely.” ”
“Rothschild then asserted that “”there is no controversy in the scientific community about the soundness of evolution” …Yet only moments later, Miller pointed to “enormous controversy within evolutionary theory on the relative values and weights to give to forces such as natural selection“” ”
“Rothschild went on to claim that “Intelligent design has arguments ” but these arguments are not a positive case for intelligent design, just negative attacks on evolution” ….” However, when asked about an article he authored, Miller admitted that Dr. Behe [proposed the] “biochemical argument from design…” ”
“Rothschild claimed that arguments made by ID rely on “an act of supernatural creation.” Miller admits, however, that ID proponents like Michael Behe accept natural causes all the time — their doubt concerns whether natural causes exhaust all causes. ID proponents admit the limits of science, in that science can only infer design and not the nature of the designer…”
“Later in his testimony, Rothschild stated that ID proponents have not “publish[ed] original data in peer-reviewed scientific journals” … Miller responded “Well, the answer to that is, there’s more than one. And the one that comes to my mind right away is an issue earlier this month of the scientific journal Nature”” Despite Rothschild’s claim, an article from that group defends ID. An article which Miller alluded to but failed to mention is written by the ID proponent, Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, published in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, called “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories” *
[* Note: I have opened a blog to present evidence of Research on Intelligent Design]
“It’s hard to tell whether Miller’s testimony did his cause more damage than good.”
Appendix: Barbara Forrest’s Failure:
At a hearing on September 9th, Judge John Jones addressed Barbara Forrest, another expert witness in the case for the plaintiff. Based on his comments, it’s hard to say whether Forrest will do much better than Miller:
“”. Within Ms. Forrest’s testimony, I see repeated references to quotes that were apparently derived from magazine articles and third persons that look to me to be inadmissible hearsay… I might find it interesting and others might find it even entertaining, but for the purpose of an expert report, I’ll bet she hasn’t probably testified many times, if at all, as an expert witness.”
Additional evidence that you may present is very welcomed!
“On Right Reason, Francis Beckwith responds to a part of Pennock’s testimony for why ID = creationism. Turns out Pennock was quote-mining one of his sources.”