The Significance of the Dover Decision

First posted by me elsewhere.-----Taken to School: An Interview with the Honorable Judge John E. Jones, IIITaken to School: An Interview with the Honorable Judge John E. Jones, III | PLOS Genetics-----I was alerted to this by Carol at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/evolutionversuscreationism/ (the precursor of ). Even if you never post there, it may well be worth being a member just to get Carol's tidbits. Just be sure you're set up to receive the messages via e-mail.From Carol's message there:

quote:

---

Dear Friends of NCSE,

​

Judge Jones, who presided over Kitzmiller v. Dover, is interviewed in PLoS
Genetics. The fourth issue of Evolution: Education and Outreach is now
available. And Roger Ebert offers his opinion about Expelled.

​

JUDGE JONES IN PLOS GENETICS

​

Judge John E. Jones III, who presided over the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial,
was interviewed by Jane Gitschier for PLoS Genetics. After recounting his
legal career and sketching the legal history of the creationism/evolution
controversy, Jones talked about the trial itself. Describing the expert
testimony he heard, Jones commented, "I will always remember Ken Miller's
testimony in the sense that he did A-Z evolution. And then got into
intelligent design. And having laid the foundation with the description of
evolution, got into why intelligent design doesn't work as science, to the
point where it is predominantly a religious concept." He added, "But Ken
Miller went into the immune system, the blood clotting cascade, and the
bacterial flagellum -- all three are held out by intelligent design
proponents as irreducibly complex, and in effect, having no precursors. He
[Miller] knocked that down, I thought, quite effectively -- so
comprehensively and so well. By the time Miller was done testifying, over
the span of a couple of days, the defendants were really already in the hole."

​

The expert witnesses for the defense were less impressive to
Jones: "Another remarkable moment on the science side was Michael Behe,
who was the lead witness for the defendants, and a very amiable fellow, as
was Ken Miller, but unlike Miller, in my view, Professor Behe did not
distinguish himself. He did not hold up well on cross-examination." And
the school board witnesses for the defense, whom Jones lambasted in his
decision, he described as "dreadful witnesses ... hence the description
'breathtaking inanity' and 'mendacity.' In my view, they clearly lied
under oath. They made a very poor account of themselves. They could not
explain why they did what they did. They really didn't even know what
intelligent design was. It was quite clear to me that they viewed
intelligent design as a method to get creationism into the public school
classroom. They were unfortunate and troublesome witnesses. Simply
remarkable, in that sense."

​

Noting that the plaintiffs and defendants both asked for a ruling on the
question of whether "intelligent design" constitutes science, Jones said,
"if you're going to measure the effect of a particular policy, in this case
juxtaposing intelligent design with evolution, on the intended recipients,
you have to delve into what the policy is about. What was it about? It
was about intelligent design. And to try to determine the effect on the
recipients you have to determine what does that concept or phrase stand
for? Hence, we got into a search and examination of what exactly does ID
say, what is its basis, what are its scientific bona fides or lack
thereof. That opens the door for a determination of whether ID is in fact
science. And that is what that part of the opinion was. ... I wrote about
whether ID, as presented to me, in that courtroom from September to
November of 2005, was science, and I said it was not. That it was the
progeny, the successor to creationism and creation science. That it was
dressed-up creationism."

​

Looking forward, Jones expressed uncertainty about the long-term effect of
the Kitzmiller decision, commenting, "This is speculation on my part -- I
don't think that the concept of ID itself has a lot of vitality going
forward. The Dover trial discredited that thing that is ID. To the extent
that I follow it -- I'm curious about it, but it doesn't go any further
than that -- the likely tack going forward is something like teach the
controversy, talk about the alleged flaws and gaps in the theory of
evolution and go to that place first." He noted that creationists in both
Texas and Louisiana seem to be taking such a tack. And, he noted, there is
no prospect of the creationism/evolution controversy subsiding any time
soon: "They gave me the last word in 'Judgment Day' [a NOVA program on the
trial] and I said this is not something that will be settled in my time or
even in my grandchildren's lifetimes. It's an enduring, quintessentially
American, dispute."

---

Moose