As this was a publicly funded event, the transcripts are publicly available. I’d like to maybe discuss these for anyone with the patience to read them.
For this thread, I’d like to focus on part #1 which you may find here.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/kansas/ ... 1.html#p10
I feel that the ID people wasted an opportunity. They showed up with the same stuff we've already seen, and generally disappointed me. I think that they could of presented something here that was at the very least science, and instead you get the guy that admits to the court that his designer is the Christian god, you get them saying that the school standards mandate atheism for children, etc.
Here's some highlights that support my point of view.
I can understand some basic confusion over obscure terms, but this person knows exactly what we’re talking about, and he’s using some obscure definition of natural that doesn’t apply in this instance. If you apply the medical sense of a natural death, yes he’s correct. But in the scientific sense of the word, natural simply means that god didn’t do it, and yes his death was natural by all means. Did we really need to go through this?Now, there is a perspective that says science proceeds by only examining natural causes. The natural cause only view. Well, in my experience and certainly in this case of origin of life that we're going to see, I think it's an especially applied rule or principle-- it's not really a principle, it's just adhered to in these origin areas because it's easy to demonstrate in the general case that it's false. For example, a case of Jones lying dead on the floor. We consider natural causes only. Oh, really. We cannot consider the possibility that there was-- that there was murder or suicide.
The 747 from a tornado in a junkyard argument. I hate to just highlight sections and say “No, this is wrong” and stop there, but this is almost as popular as abusing the second law of Thermodynamics. We should not be using this example in a debate of this scale.To illustrate, if you had a pile of bricks here and put a stick of dynamite right under it, yes, you would have a lot of energy liberated, but it would not produce anything effective like a house.
The part that follows is a section which I feel the ID people are being needlessly difficult. A quick professional answer would of done fine, but instead I lost a bit of respect for him.
Here’s one of my favorite passages, which I hope shows my opinion that the ID people were not in proper form today. I feel this passage reflects the general quality of the ID side in this particular hearing. For a bit of context, A (the ID side) had been complaining that the school standards was basically legislating atheism.CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. IRIGONEGARAY:
Q. Sir, I have only a few questions for you. As it was stated earlier, my name is Pedro Irigonegaray, I represent the majority. You've told us a little bit about your beliefs and your opinions and how you came to those. I'd like to ask you for the record, first, can you tell us how old you believe the earth is?
A. I don't know. I think it's probably really old.
Q. How old is really old?
A. I don't really know.
Q. You have no idea how old the earth is?
A. There's theories around that the earth is 10,000ish years old. There are theories around that it is four billion years old. If it was a multiple choice test and I only had two choices and I couldn't check "I don't know," and I wanted to get credit for the question, I'd check old.
Q. I understand, sir. But in all the work you have done, in all the research that you have done, in all your experience to this day you still don't have an opinion as to how old the earth is?
A. I have an opinion, I just don't really know. My opinion is it's probably fourish billion years old.
And this person, in my opinion, is one of the most worthless cross-examiners they could of picked for this court. She basically reads back to him his opinion from the transcripts.Q. I understand. Do the science standards anywhere mention the word "atheism"?
A. The ones I read did not.
Q. Do the science standards anywhere use the word "materialism"?
A. I don't see it.
Q. Do the science standards anywhere use the term "humanism"?
A. No, not to my knowledge.
Q. Do the science standards anywhere use the term "unguided" or "undirected" or "accidental"?
A. I don't recall seeing that.
Q. Do the science standards anywhere limit the ability of teachers to discuss criticisms of evolution with their students?
A. Do they prevent the teachers from discussing it with them you mean if--
Q. Let me repeat the question so you're clear, sir. Do the standards limit the teachers' and students' ability to discuss criticism of evolution?
A. I don't think so, no.
Q. Should, in your opinion, science include references to the supernatural?
A. Oh, I don't believe so.
Q. Should science include references to miracles?
A. No, not as science, no.
Q. Should science in any way advance a theistic view?
A. Atheistic view?
Q. Theistic.
A. Well, not theistic and not atheistic.
Q. Should science be absolutely neutral as it relates to theism?
A. If it was possible.
Q. Would you please tell us where specifically in the standards is the origins of life addressed?
A. Is the origin of life addressed in the standard?
Q. That's what I'm asking, yes, sir.
A. Well, I don't know that they are.
Q. All right.
A. I'm here to suggest that they be put in.
Q. Do the standards prohibit a teacher from bringing up in class the origins of life?
A. No.
Q. Is there anything in the standards that would prevent a teacher from discussing the difficulties associated with research into the origins of life?
A. A teacher?
Q. Let me repeat the question if you did not understand it.
A. Well, I'm thinking about--
Q. Is there anything in the standards--
A. Oh.
Q. -- that would prevent a teacher from discussing the difficulties associated with research into the origin of life with his or her students?
A. I don't know that it specifically addresses that.
Q. It is possible, is it not, pursuant to the standards for a teacher to discuss current research into the origins of life with a clear understanding that the field is still wide open?
A. I guess it's possible.
Q. You would agree with, would you not, that the science standards provide a foundation for the development of a curriculum and they do not limit the scope of knowledge?
A. Well, I think they do limit the scope of knowledge.
Q. In what manner, sir?
A. They adopt the natural cause only perspective and I think that limits them.
Q. And you're suggesting that supernatural causes should be inserted?
A. That's an example of precisely the kind of thinking that I said the majority report put in that I thought was the problem.
Q. Well, if it's limited to the natural and you suggest that that is inappropriate to limit it to natural, wouldn't logically that would require us to teach the supernatural?
A. If you're talking about metaphysics, yes, but we're not talking about metaphysics.
Q. We're talking about science?
A. Natural does not mean naturalism unless you exclude the possibility that-- not exclude, if you say only natural causes are permitted that, in effect, is saying-- it's what's tacit naturalism. Even though you haven't used it, you're saying natural cause only.
Q. Sir, please don't put words in my mouth. I have not used the word naturalism. Naturalism is something completely different.
A. That's true.
Q. Naturalism implies that the individual with that belief excludes the possibility of a God in any process. I am talking about the natural process which is involved in science. Do you believe that in an appropriate scientific curriculum for the children of the State of Kansas supernatural theistic opinions should be included, yes or no?
A. No.
Q. Is there any part of the curriculum that do not allow children or teachers to criticize any aspect of science?
A. Excuse me, will you repeat that again?
Q. I'll be happy to. Is there anything in the science standards that would not permit teachers from criticizing with their students any aspect of science?
A. No, I don't think so.
Q. Is there anything in the standards that would deny a teacher and student, if they chose to so do, to discuss Intelligent Design?
A. You mean a student can probably ask a question.
Q. Listen to my question carefully. Is there anything in the standards that would prohibit a teacher from discussing Intelligent Design with her students?
A. I think there is.
Q. Where?
A. When it talks about natural cause only.
Q. Where it talks about natural cause only?
A. There are statements that I read in it that I--
Q. Would you show me specifically where you suggest that that exists?
A. I don't have it here with me. But if you want to provide me, I can look.
Q. You're the witness, sir, I'm asking you. You say that it limits it that it cannot be discussed.
A. I recall-- I recall reading in the standards that the implication of a suggestion that we're dealing only with natural processes and so it is--
Q. Don't the standards also allow a teacher to discuss issues raised by students in the classroom without denying them the opportunity to do so?
A. They can ask questions, sure.
Q. Okay. And if they can ask questions isn't Intelligent Design perhaps one of those questions they could ask about?
A. And be in strict accordance with the guidelines.
Q. The guidelines do allow for students and teachers to discuss any criticism they may wish about science, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And that would include Intelligent Design, correct?
A. Well, yeah, this is the troubling thing because the standards don't talk about Intelligent Design.
Q. No, they don't. But the sciences do permit a broad range of activities, including questions from children to their teachers, and there's nothing in the standards that says Intelligent Design cannot be included in that discussion, correct?
A. That is correct.
And if I had to pick the statement I would most likely hang on a wall, I would pick this one.EXAMINATION BY MS. MORRIS:
Q. Hello, Doctor Thaxton.
A. Hello.
Q. Nice to have you here. Welcome to Kansas.
A. Thank you.
Q. I'm an elementary teacher and I'm humbled by the intelligence before me, so bear with me. I'm a little confused about the prebiotic soup. Now, did I understand correctly that either-- well, help me understand, either we don't have any-- we have no evidence of the soup or at best it was an unenergized diluted water?
A. Yes, that was a little perhaps confusing because I had two different points on there. No, there's no geologic evidence there was ever a soup, but all the theories talk about it.
Q. Okay. So I can go out of here and people will say to me you've been saying there's evidence that refutes the-- Darwin's theory of evolution and so I've been hoping these hearings would help me have some good hard evidence that I can repeat. So I can say with certainty there is no evidence of the prebiotic soup?
A. In all my reading and talking with experts about it, I've never heard anyone say they have evidence of prebiotic soup. As far as I know there's plenty of statements to show that there's evidence it did not exist.
Q. Isn't that a critical problem for the theory of evolution, didn't we need that nutrient rich muddy pond to--
A. Well, this is precisely one of the major factors that led some people to think life was dumped here by comets.
Q. Great. Thank you.
For anyone that's gotten to the end of this and forgotten what we were talking about, I'd like to discuss which side came out on top in this particular section of the debate. It is my view that the ID did nothing for their cause in this section, and could of even hurt it a bit. I've highlighted why I think this.THEREUPON, a luncheon recess was had
If you feel the ID people came out on top. Highlight sections that show this, and post them. If you feel a section I'm putting forward as being against ID was actually for it, I'm up to discuss that too.
My hope is that we can work through the entire trial this way.
