The Panda's Thumb has a good resource for covering all aspects of the Dover "intelligent design" trial. The action begins on Monday, September 26.

One cannot underestimate the importance of this trial. The legal decisions resulting from this case are very likely to have direct impact on what is and is not taught in the schools. The performance of the various parties inside and outside of the court will also also impact the pro-science and evolution-denying camps.

With any luck the evolution deniers will be just as inept as they were in the last full evolution related trial in 1981's McLean v. Arkansas.


In particular, one might check out how an earlier draft of Of Panda's and People defined creation:

Around this time came Edwards v. Aguillard with a crushing defeat of creationism at the Supreme Court.

So by the time Pandas was published it dropped "creation" and had a new definition for a phrase that would become the new buzzword for post-Edwards attempts to put evolution denial in public schools:

Scratch out "creation" and insert "intelligent design"! See the Panda's Thumb story and follow the links. The format of the above definitions are inspired by Pharyngula. Bear in mind that the Discovery Institute, the ID advocates in general, and the defendents in this case are trying to insist that ID is not creationism.

__________________
Click for info on Intelligent Design or the evidence for evolution

If I was involved in one of these trials, I would simply walk in, define a scientific theory, point out where intelligent design does not fit the criteria and then ask why we are even talking about teaching something that isn't science in a science classroom.

This will depend strongly on the leanings of the judge.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

In that case you would lose the case. You must make your case on grounds that the facts (which you need to establish) show that the policy is a violation of the current Supreme Court interpretation of the First Amendment and not merely say ID is not a theory. The mere question of what should be taught in Dover's science classes is not a federal issue.

Luckily, there is a lot of reasons supporting the claim that policy was done for religious reasons which is violation of the Lemon test.
A lot of work will be done by the lawyers to show this.

__________________
Click for info on Intelligent Design or the evidence for evolution

__________________
Click for info on Intelligent Design or the evidence for evolution

Well, it should be obvious to anyone with half a brain that if it's not science it shouldn't be in a science classroom....


... oh, now I see why I'd lose the case.

It does not matter if one should or should not have in science classes. That is not what a court of law decides. A court only takes action if what is done in the science classes violates the law (in this case the First Amendment. Recall the separation of powers!

If there was no such thing as the First Amendment (or an equivalent), the judge might say (if feeling undiplomatic), "The stupidity is not unconstitional, case dismissed."

Now that the non-science is being put in science classrooms is also ground to elect some new people, but unfortunately the good guys might not win the election. That is one reason why those who are pro-science really need to emphasize more public outreach. Until the public at large know the importance of evolution to science and why the ID people are wrong we will continue to have trouble.

__________________
Click for info on Intelligent Design or the evidence for evolution

Agreed. I'm very pro public outreach. I'm sure a lot of people are. Scientists realize that most of their funding is done via the taxpayers, and that they need to demonstrate that those taxpayers are getting a bang for their buck. Unfortunately, it's not always effective or efficient.

Most scientists try to justify the investment by getting results. Makes sense, and it's great for relations with the NSF. Scientists using their grant money to do science? Perfect! But the only people who end up hearing about most of it are already science enthusiests.

Science doesn't really want to spend its money on PR. There's so little of it floating around that to spend it on propaganda seems a waste. And most scientists would prefer to actually do science over outreach. Yeah, sure, most do a little, but it's not their full time jobs. Not usually, anyway. Of course, there are a select few.

The very nature of science makes it modest. No one really wants to go out there screaming superlatives. It may look good to the media, and the public at large, but it can turn out to be a huge black eye for them within their scientific community. Science isn't supposed to dramaticise itself. Non-science, psuedo-science, and anti-science aren't bound by the same code of modesty, and so can make themselves look far more appealing to the -- if you'll excuse my use of a phrase -- unwashed masses. Sure, science can put a man on the Moon, if you believe scientists, but they can't cure cancer! Not like these here quantumagnetological bracelets can, so why should I care?

__________________
"The plan does not involve mayonaise."
"... I knew there was a catch."

You can't take the sky from me.

The ACLU has a Dover blog reporting from the trial.

__________________
Click for info on Intelligent Design or the evidence for evolution

__________________
Click for info on Intelligent Design or the evidence for evolution

An AP article says a former school board member is prepared to testify that some current board members have been trying to get creationism into the classroom for years, and the push for ID is just another such attempt.

The thing about ID is that it becomes either circular or religious at some point.
If you stick to a non-religious beginning, then little green men started life on earth; but who started the LGM? And who started their starters? That's circular.
The only alternative is something supernatural started it, and that's religion.

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov

The Panda's Thumb blog actually makes the same point, and goes one step further. According to the Discovery Institute, or so I'm told, ID is defined as such:

Bolding mine.

It's pretty difficult to side step that. LGM aren't going to be designing features of the universe.

__________________
"The plan does not involve mayonaise."
"... I knew there was a catch."

You can't take the sky from me.

Jon Stewart on the Daily Show said something like, "They're not saying the Intelligent Designer is God, just that it's someone with the power to reshape the very nature of the universe."

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

Gee....I wonder who that could be!

Pete

__________________
PJE

There's so much I don't know about astrophysics. I wish I had read that book by that wheelchair guy.

My vote Mathematicians -- we have proper tools

This looks like a job for Bicycle Repair Man, er, . . . I mean God. I think I know where I can find him.

__________________
Don of Borg - Cool, Calm, Collective.

"Within the next generation I believe that the world's leaders will discover that infant conditioning and narco-hypnosis are more efficient, as instruments of government, than clubs and prisons, and that the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Here I AM, to save the day!

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

Muskatov, why doesn't it suprise me that you're a Python fan?

Eric

Wait, I mean Pete

__________________
PJE

There's so much I don't know about astrophysics. I wish I had read that book by that wheelchair guy.

Well, that eliminates me .. I'm still working on the Local Group.

NCSE's blog for the trial has podcasts reporting from the trial as well as documents related to the trial.

__________________
Click for info on Intelligent Design or the evidence for evolution