[_ Old Earth _] Is ID science?

[lordkalvan]

The motivation to craft a certain public opinion favorable to Darwinism NO MATTER WHAT the actual facts is clearly seen there.

The TO point about the huge amount of damage that would have been done if the truth had come out -- is yet another example of "inconvenient details" speaking for themselves -- efforts to sweep them under the rug notwithstanding.

Which, if the jury at Dayton were representative of the public at large clearly failed. Again, if Bryan had been interested in attacking Hesperopithecus at the trial there was ample information in the public domain for him to do so. That more or less damage may have been done to the public perception of evolutionary theory is not itself evidence that evolutionary theory is wrong. And the 'truth' did come out entirely a very short time after the trial concluded: what damage was done to evolutionary theory as a result? Apparently not very much, so perhaps your and TO's conclusions are overly dramatic about the likely impact of Hesperopithecus.

 

[BobRyan]

1. The judgment in Dayton as to whether evolution had been taught in class in violation against the laws of the state of Tenn was "guilty" since Clarence Darrow IMMEDIATELY switched his plea to "GUILTY" when it came time for Bryant to cross-examine witnesses.

2. This meant that nobody actually got around to asking the Physical Education teacher IF he really did TEACH evolution on the day in question.

His answer would have been "no" and the pro-evol side did not want that to come out.

As for the TalkOrigins argument about WHY the sly tactics of Osborn (in keeping the pig's-tooth-truth away from the public eye) was a good idea (especially given his wild "APE MAN" claims for it on behalf of junk-science evolutionism) -- the statement speaks for itself.

BTW Clarence Darrow's argument "it would be a shame if only ONE view of origins was being taught in school" AS IF the Christians were guilty of blind-dark-ages censorship against academic freedom to pursue all the views available -- is "instructive".


Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

1. The judgment in Dayton as to whether evolution had been taught in class in violation against the laws of the state of Tenn was "guilty" since Clarence Darrow IMMEDIATELY switched his plea to "GUILTY" when it came time for Bryant to cross-examine witnesses.

2. This meant that nobody actually got around to asking the Physical Education teacher IF he really did TEACH evolution on the day in question.

This is a somewhat idosyncratic or perhaps even disingenuous interpretation of the concluding events of the Scopes' trial; from the Wiki article:

The confrontation between Bryan and Darrow lasted approximately two hours on the afternoon of the seventh day of the trial. It is likely that it would have continued the following morning but for Judge Raulston's announcement that he considered the whole examination irrelevant to the case and his decision that it should be "expunged" from the record. Thus Bryan was denied the chance to cross-examine the defense lawyers in return, although after the trial Bryan would distribute nine questions to the press to bring out Darrow's "religious attitude." The questions and Darrow's short answers were published in newspapers the day after the trial ended, with the New York Times characterizing Darrow as answering Bryan's questions "with his agnostic's creed, 'I don't know,' except where he could deny them with his belief in natural, immutable law."

After the defense's final attempt to present evidence was denied, Darrow asked the judge to bring in the jury only to have them come to a guilty verdict:

We claim that the defendant is not guilty, but as the court has excluded any testimony, except as to the one issue as to whether he taught that man descended from a lower order of animals, and we cannot contradict that testimony, there is no logical thing to come except that the jury find a verdict that we may carry to the higher court, purely as a matter of proper procedure. We do not think it is fair to the court or counsel on the other side to waste a lot of time when we know this is the inevitable result and probably the best result for the case.

After they were brought in, Darrow then addressed the jury, telling them that:

We came down here to offer evidence in this case and the court has held under the law that the evidence we had is not admissible, so all we can do is to take an exception and carry it to a higher court to see whether the evidence is admissible or not. . . . we cannot even explain to you that we think you should return a verdict of not guilty. We do not see how you could. We do not ask it.

Darrow closed the case for the defense without a final summation. Under Tennessee law, when the defense waived its right to make a closing speech, the prosecution was also barred from summing up its case.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial

Judge Ralston's decision prevented Bryan cross-examining witnesses, not Darrow's actions. It is also the case that Darrow does not appear to have changed the plea to guilty, but only made the point that he did not see how a not guilty verdict could be returned and he would not ask for it. A small point only, to be true, but if the plea had been changed to guilty surely there would have been no need for the jury to consider a verdict? Or is Tennessee law different in these circumstances and I am misunderstanding the situation?

 

[BobRyan]

It is imporant as you point out to "give the devil his due" when it comes to the junk-law practiced by darwinists in the case of the Scope's trial.

Scopes could not actually remember having covered the section on evolution in Hunter's textbook, but he told the group, "If you can prove that I've taught evolution and that I can qualify as a defendant, then I'll be willing to stand trial."[cite this quote]

Scopes became an increasingly willing participant, even incriminating himself and urging students to testify against him.[3] He was indicted on April 24, after three students testified against him at the grand jury, at Scopes' behest.[4]

Source L.K's OWN LINK : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial


How "curious" that the highschool football coach could not "remember teaching evolution" in a biology science class - but urged students to claim "that he did"!!

AGAIN from L.K's OWN link (inconvenient details glossed over by L.K and HIGHLIGHTED here in red)

Darrow then addressed the jury, telling them that:

[quote:1x8yp7bi]
We came down here to offer evidence in this case and the court has held under the law that the evidence we had is not admissible, so all we can do is to take an exception and carry it to a higher court to see whether the evidence is admissible or not. . . . we cannot even explain to you that we think you should return a verdict of not guilty. We do not see how you could. We do not ask it.

Darrow closed the case for the defense without a final summation. Under Tennessee law, when the defense waived its right to make a closing speech, the prosecution was also barred from summing up its case.

Scopes never testified since there was never a legal issue as to whether he had taught evolution. Scopes later admitted that, in reality, he was unsure of whether he had taught evolution ( another reason the defense did not want him to testify), but the point was not contested at the trial (Scopes 1967:59-60).

[/quote:1x8yp7bi]

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

now for distinctly NON-L.K source

FACT: Technically, the only point at issue in the trial was whether or not John Scopes actually taught the evolution of man from lower orders of animals, so naturally the lawyers for the prosecution did question the relevance of the testimony of expert witnesses. The verbal testimony of the evolutionists assembled by the defense was prevented, however, because Darrow adamantly refused to let his scientific witnesses be cross-examined by the prosecution (transcript, pages 206-208).

Bryan had asked for, and received, the right to cross-examine the expert witnesses, but Darrow was so opposed to allowing his experts to be questioned that he never called them to the witness stand! Bryan pointed out that under the conditions demanded by Darrow, the evolutionists could take the witness stand and merely express their speculations and opinions on evolution without fear of being contradicted.

The wisdom of this position was amply demonstrated by the confused and convoluted opinions of the one scientist who had been permitted to testify earlier for the defense. Throughout the trial the definition of the term evolution was so hopelessly muddled by the defense and its’ witnesses that it seems unlikely that any of the jurors could have known exactly what evolution is and is not. Evolution, for example, was repeatedly confused with embryology and even aging! The defense lawyer, Dudley Field Malone, is a case in point:

[quote:20ww6ga6]
“The embryo becomes a human being when it is born. Evolution never stops from the beginning of the one cell until the human being returns in death to lifeless dust. We wish to set before you evidence of this character in order to stress the importance of the theory of evolution.†(transcript, page 116)

Another lawyer for the defense, Arthur Garfield Hays, added chaos to confusion when he said:

“I know that in the womb of the mother the very first thing is a cell and that cell grows and it subdivides and it grows into a human being and a human being is born. Does that statement, as the boy stated on the stand, that he was taught that man comes from a cellâ€â€is that a theory that man descended from a lower order of animals? I don’t know and I dare say your honor has some doubt about it. Are we entitled to find out whether it is or not in presenting this case to the jury?†(transcript, page 156)

Darrow himself gave the impression that he had almost no understanding of the meaning of the term evolution. When judge Raulston, who became understandably confused by all of the double talk on the subject of evolution, asked Darrow if he believed that all life came from one cell,


Darrow replied:

“Well I am not quite so clear, but I think it did.†“ All human life comes from one cell. You came from one and I came from oneâ€â€nothing else a single cell.†(transcript, page 189)

Even Dr. Maynard M. Metcalf, a zoologist from Johns Hopkins University, made this same mistake in his expert testimony and then went on to obfuscate the definition of evolution beyond recognition. First Dr. Metcalf assured the Court of his qualifications as an evolutionist by stating:

“I have always been particularly interested in the evolution of the individual organism from the egg, and also the evolution of the organism as a whole from the beginning of life, that has been a sort of peculiar interest of mine, always.†(transcript, page 136)

When asked by Darrow to tell what is meant by “the fact of evolution,†Dr. Metcalf responded with this:

“Evolution I think means the change; in the final analysis I think it means the change of an organism from one character into a different character, and by character I mean its structure, or its behavior, or its functions or its method of development from the egg or anything elseâ€â€the change of an organism from one set characteristic which characterizes it into a different condition, characterized by a different set of characteristics either structural or functional could be properly called, I think, evolutionâ€â€to be the evolution of that organism; but the term in general means the whole series of such changes which have taken place during hundreds of millions of years which have produced from lowly beginnings the nature of which is not by any means fully understood to organism of much more complex character, whose structure and function we are still studying, because we haven’t begun to learn what we need to know about them.†(transcript, pages 139-140)

So much for the fact of evolution. One can only imagine what questions Bryan might have asked Dr. Metcalf if Darrow would have allowed his expert witness to be questioned. Bryan was clearly aware of the confusion that was being introduced by the defense on the definition of evolution and pointed out that even one of the school children who had testified seemed to have a better grasp of evolution than the lawyers for the defense:

“The little boy understood what he was talking about and to my surprise the attorneys didn’t seem to catch the significance of the theory of evolutionâ€â€he thought that little boy was talking about individuals coming up from one cell.†“Bryan emphasized that evolution was†“Not the growth of an individual from one cell, but the growth of all life from one cell.†(transcript, page 173)

Bryan pointed out that even the National Education Association was confused on the subject and as a result, their attempt to make an official statement condemning Tennessee for “ignorance and bigotry†was frustrated by their inability to agree on a definition for evolution (transcript, page 173).

http://www.scopestrial.org/scopes.htm
[/quote:20ww6ga6]

 

[BobRyan]

And "again" we have the point made --

L.K.
I am not sure what you are expecting of science. Total certainty? Complete absence of doubt? An absolute end to the accumulation and refining of knowledge? Perhaps you agree with the closing remarks of the TO article that you keep referring to:
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=31996&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=315#p396390

What am I "expecting" from science?

Answer: "Demonstratable Details" and "honesty about the level of GUESSWORK" when guesswork is being MIXED IN instead of presenting pure fantasy as "reveale truth" with bogus claims like "irrefutable" (NEBRASKA MAN) and "incontrovertable" (PILTDOWN)

I expect science to SHOW us what it discovers IN nature --

Hint: Be an EYE WITNESS
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=33266#p395365

Actual science is able to show us the mechanisms it discovers in nature - it is fine to animate that discovery as long as the science details being demonstrated are legit as we see in the case above.

But "making stuff up AND THEN HIDING the fuzzy nature of the guesswork" is not science -- it is the heart and soul of "junk-science"!

REAL science has NO interest in HIDING the level of GUESSWORK in it's presentation for fear of causing the public to use critical analysis instead of uncritical cheerleader like kool-aid drinking.

notice that OSBORN is commended (by the scorched-earth-for-Darwin groups in that TalkOrigins article) for finding a way to HIDE the fuzzy nature in his guesswork and AVOID the possibility of being QUESTIONED by anyone but uncritical devotees!!

Yes those are the methods of junk-science!

How sad.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Now and then I DO agree with TALK ORIGINS

Ironically, the similarity between peccary teeth and those of hominids had been noted 13 years before Osborn published his description of Hesperopithecus. In 1909, W. D. Matthew and Harold Cook had the following to say in describing Prosthennops: [quote:1iujur0h]"The anterior molars and premolars of this genus of peccaries show a startling resemblance to the teeth of Anthropoidea, and might well be mistaken for them by anyone not familiar with the dentition of Miocene peccaries."

(p. 390) Matthew was Osborn's younger colleague at the American Museum of Natural History, and there is no way that Osborn could not have known about this 1909 warning.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/wolfmellett.html

L.K -- since you brought this Nebraska Man -- Ape-Man example up -- I have to assume you simply did not read these details carefully.[/quote:1iujur0h]

TalkOrigins -- thanks to L.K -

And what if Bryan had found out about the uncertain status of Hesperopithecus? If such doubts had been raised at the Scopes trial, it could have led to disastrous consequences for Scopes's defense and even for the public image of evolution

Clearly, it would have been best for Osborn to back off and stay out of reach in New York. So, having fulfilled his obligation to Scopes's defense with the July 12 piece in The New York Times, Osborn sat out the Scopes trial, not even submitting written testimony.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/wolfmellett.html

Did you notice the degree to which TalkOrigins just appealed to the reader to JOIN with Osborn in that spirit of deception - APPLAUDING him for taking steps to AVOID letting the TRUTH come out about the pigs tooth -- WHEN that truth is not FAVORABLE to the darwinist's story telling!

Bob