Pennock to the Court: “Methodological Naturalism is all there is, or was, or ever will be”

As I noted in a previous post, this week philosopher of science Dr. Robert Pennock testified at the Dover trial that scientists must assume that there are no influences other than those which exist in the material world then they practice science. Pennock called this methodological naturalism (MN), and emphatically told the Court that this is the way science has worked, does work, and ever will work, at least since we became enlightened during the enlightenment. The reality is that the consensus among philosophers of science is that there is no consensus among philosophers of science on the definition of science. The one exception seems to be Darwinist philosophers of science recommending MN as a definition for science when they Read More ›

Transcript of Opening Arguments in Kitzmiller Case Posted

You can now read the transcript of the opening arguments in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case on Discovery Institute’s website here (the transcript is posted as an Adobe pdf document). The opening statements provide a good snapshot as to what each side is intending to show in the case. In its opening statement, the ACLU makes clear that it is essentially trying to prove two things:

The Positive Case for Design

Harrisburg, PA — At the end of yesterday’s testimony in Kitzmiller vs. Dover, the plaintiffs’ team highlighted for reporters a key plank of their argument against the Dover Policy calling student’s attention to a book in the school library about intelligent design. Plaintiffs reiterated evolutionist Dr. Kenneth Miller’s testimony that whereas design theorist Dr. Michael Behe’s irreducible complexity argument is testable and, therefore, scientific, “Irreducible complexity is just a negative argument against Darwinism, not a positive argument for design.” Thus, while irreducible complexity is a scientific hypothesis, the design inference supposedly is not. Miller insisted this holds for all intelligent design hypotheses. None of them, Miller argued, contains positive evidence for design. But in fact, design theorists do provide a Read More ›

Did Edwards vs. Aguillard Spawn Intelligent Design? No

Harrisburg, PA — The plaintiffs in the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial are arguing that intelligent design sprang up in the wake of the 1987 Supreme Court decision against creation science, and the National Center for Science Education’s Nick Matzke is repeating the talking point to reporters: “Intelligent design is just a new label for creationism,” Mr. Matzke noted. “It is just the latest legal strategy for creationism. It evolved in 1987 right after the Supreme Court ruled against creationism and said that that was unconstitutional.” The assertion is demonstrably false. The idea of intelligent design reaches back to Socrates and Plato, and the term “intelligent design” as an alternative to blind evolution was used as early as 1897. More recently, Read More ›