Evolution Education and the Law

Legal issues, lawsuits, documents, trial materials, and updates

headerblock

Kitzmiller Legal Documents Archive

October 12, 2006

 

As a service to writers, historians, and the public, NCSE is making available an online archive of all public legal documents filed in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case. Over 300 filings were made in the case, and this does not include exhibits and other documents.

Legal rulings, briefs, etc., are U.S. government documents and so free redistributable. Exhibits of consisting of governmental documents are also public; however, books and articles retain copyright so they are not included here, although the exhibit lists used in the case are available.


NCSE Kitzmiller v. Dover Legal Documents Archive

http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/


Navigation:
The Kitzmiller Archive follows a simple clickable directory structure, and each file is described with a short text description. The file size is also listed for each file (note that some PDFs of scanned documents can be larger than 1 megabyte).


Important note:
most of the documents are PDF files, and some are quite large (several megabytes). Rather than trying to open PDFs within your web browser, which can stall or crash the browser, the best option to read these files is to use Right-click, Save As, and download the PDFs to your hard drive.

by @ 12:28 pm. Filed under Trial transcripts and exhibits

Evolutionary Immunology in the Kitzmiller Case

April 21, 2006

 

Update: The editors of Nature Immunology have put up the Bottaro et al. article for free on their website.

Bottaro, Andrea, Inlay, Matt A., and Matzke, Nicholas J. (2006). “Immunology in the spotlight at the Dover ‘Intelligent Design’ trial.” Nature Immunology. 7(5), 433-435. May 2005. (Subscription no longer required: DOI | Journal | Google Scholar | PubMed | Supplementary Material)

NCSE Homepage: Immunology in the spotlight at the Dover ID Trial
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2006/ZZ/968_immunology_in_the_spotlight_at_4_21_2006.asp

NCSE Education & Law website
Evolutionary Immunology in the Kitzmiller Case
http://www2.ncseweb.org/wp/?p=124

PT posters in Nature Immunology
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/04/pt_posters_in_n.html

Supplementary Material
http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/exhibits/immune/index.html

Annotated Bibliography on the Evolution of the Immune System
http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/exhibits/immune/immune_evo_annotated_bib.html

Longer, Unannotated Bibliography on the Evolution of the Immune System
http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/exhibits/immune/immune_evo_bib_long.html

Readers may recall an interesting episode during the Kitzmiller trial: During the cross-examination of Michael Behe, plaintiffs attorney Eric Rothschild challenged Behe’s claim that there was no scientific literature on the evolutionary origin of the immune system by presenting Behe with a tall stack of literature on the evolutionary origin of the immune system. Here are some of the press accounts:

Weiss, Mike (2005). “War of ideas fought in a small-town courtroom: Intelligent design theory vs. the science of evolution at center of Pennsylvania trial.” San Francisco Chronicle, November 6, 2005. (Link)

Behe asserted, as an example, that “scientific literature has no answers to the question of the origin of the immune system.”

Under cross-examination, the professor — whose science faculty colleagues at Lehigh University have issued a statement supporting evolutionary theory as established science — was surrounded by stacks of biology and medical texts and peer-reviewed journals piled there by plaintiffs’ attorney Rothschild, who pointed out that all the writings discussed the evolution of the immune system. But in his three days of testimony, Behe did not budge.

Gene Lyons (2005). “There’s hope for the republic yet.” Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. November 23, 2005. (Link)

But enough sophomoric humor. The scientist who fared worst on the witness stand was Michael J. Behe, a biochemist from Lehigh University and author of the best-selling book, “Darwin’s Black Box.” Surrounded by stacks of books and journal articles dealing with the evolution of the human immune system, a mystery for which, his book argued, “scientific literature has no answer,” Behe was reduced to rhetorically dismissing works he obviously knew nothing about.

Even journalists are expected to read books before reviewing them. Attorneys for the complaining parents also appear to have had a grand time taking Behe systematically through “Of Pandas and People,” repudiating one creationist nostrum after another. Indeed, his version of ID seems to boil down to the idea that God created the first living cell several billion years ago, placed it on the primordial earth, fixed himself a bowl of popcorn and sat back to enjoy the show. Maybe he did. Asked what “mechanism” the designer used, Behe offered none. In short, ID not only fails to qualify as a scientific theorem, it’s not even a hypothesis. It’s the equivalent of a 3 a. m. dormitory bull session about The Meaning of Life. The good news is that whatever Americans may tell pollsters about evolution when it’s falsely equated with atheism, when circumstances force them to think seriously, the majority reaches the right conclusion.

Nichols, Peter (2006). “Intelligent Demise.” (Profile of Eric Rothschild in the UPenn Alumni Magazine) The Pennsylvania Gazette, March/April 2006. (Link)

Behe claimed that mainstream scientists had produced “no detailed, rigorous explanations for how complex biomedical systems could arise by random mutation and natural selection.” The biochemical intricacy of the immune system is one such purposeful arrangement of parts. “I see no Darwinian explanation for such things,” he stated.

During cross examination, Rothschild stacked up on the witness stand 58 articles from prestigious journals like Science, Nature, Molecular Cell, and Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. All of them described research on the evolution of the immune system. “Is your position today that these articles aren’t good enough?” Rothschild challenged. He then piled on 10 textbooks with titles like Origin and Evolution of the Vertebrate Immune System.

“What I strongly doubt is that any of these address the question in a rigorous fashion,” the star witness replied, adding later that “I haven’t read them [all].”

“It was the high point of the trial,” Harvey recalls. “Anyone who studies that cross examination would realize that Professor Behe’s work is bankrupt. Eric just took it to pieces and did it brilliantly.”

Jeremy Manier (2006). “Unlocking cell secrets bolsters evolutionists.” Chicago Tribune, February 13, 2006. (Link)

Perhaps the strongest rebuke to ID in the Dover case concerned the claim by Behe and others that it would be impossible for evolution to produce the immune system. Miller testified that since Behe wrote his 1996 book, evolutionary biologists have built a rich account of the immune system–a point Judge Jones highlighted in his ruling.

“[Behe] was presented with fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system,” Jones wrote, “however, he simply insisted … that it was not `good enough.’”

Behe still staunchly defends ID, saying Miller and other biologists have yet to show how evolution originally produced any complex biochemistry.

“They’re saying part of the flagellum looks like some other part of the cell,” Behe said. “None of that says what the first step would be in trying to construct the flagellum.”

Proponents of intelligent design clearly are refusing to play by the normal rules of scientific evidence, Miller responds.

Behe’s dismissal of the immune system research “tells you right away, ain’t nothing gonna convince this guy,” he said.

Now, with the help of immunologists Andrea Bottaro and Matt Inlay, I have helped to tell the backstory to how this challenge was inspired, assembled, and carried out, and the impact it had in the case. This story has just been published in an essay the three of us wrote for the May 2005 issue of Nature Immunology. See the NCSE Announcement and the Supplementary Material at in the NCSE Kitzmiller documents archive. See also the Annotated Bibliography on the Evolutionary Origin of the Vertebrate Immune System and the Longer, Unannotated Bibliography on the Evolutionary Origin of the Immune System.

by @ 3:58 pm. Filed under Trial transcripts and exhibits

Kitzmiller Decision: Plaintiffs Prevail

December 20, 2005

 

The much-awaited decision in the Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District is now available here!. (pdf)

The 139 page document finds for the plaintiffs.

Judge Jones finds that “intelligent design” is not science. The DASD ID policy fails the “endorsement test” for both student and adult observers, violates both purpose and effect prongs of the Lemon test, and also violates the Pennsylvania constitution.

(more…)

by @ 8:55 am. Filed under News, Dispatches from Dover, Trial transcripts and exhibits

Barbara Forrest Supplemental Expert Report now up

December 13, 2005

 

Before trial, Barbara Forrest filed a supplemental expert report. This supplemental report was filed in light of new documents uncovered via the plaintiffs’ subpoena to the Foundation for Thought and Ethics for material relating to the origin of Of Pandas and People — specifically, the now famous Pandas drafts.

Forrest’s supplemental report was originally filed Appendix V of the Plaintiffs’ Brief Opposing the Defense Motion for Summary Judgement. We couldn’t release it before, because it was filed under seal, until entered into evidence in the case.

As evidence it is now a public document, available as Tab A in the Appendix V folder, or in the experts folder as Forrest_supplemental_report.pdf.

by @ 5:30 pm. Filed under Trial transcripts and exhibits

Two more amicus briefs

 

I have just posted amicus briefs from:

* JSPAN, the Jewish Social Policy Action Network (amicus (456 k PDF), announcement)

* SciPolicy Journal (amicus (50 k PDF), announcement)

SciPolicy is a “Journal of Science and Health Policy.” Paul Gross and other academics opposed to teaching ID in public schools are on SciPolicy’s Editorial Board.

Ironically, Steve Fuller, an expert witness for the Defense, is also on SciPolicy’s Editorial Board. A dissent statement by Fuller is also on the SciPolicy website.

Amicus briefs and related materials are all available in the amicus directory.

by @ 5:08 pm. Filed under Trial transcripts and exhibits

Defense response to Plaintiffs’ Findings of Fact

 

We realized we had somehow missed the Defendants’ response to Plaintiffs’ Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law; it is now also uploaded in the Post-Trial folder.

Defendants’ response to Plaintiffs’ Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (8.3 MB PDF)

by @ 1:45 pm. Filed under Trial transcripts and exhibits

Plaintiffs Response to Defense Findings of Fact

December 12, 2005

 

The Plaintiffs’ Response to the Defense Findings of Fact, filed November 30, 2005, is also now available (PDF).

by @ 4:00 pm. Filed under Trial transcripts and exhibits

Plaintiff Response to FTE/DI amicus briefs

 

The Plaintiffs’ Response to the amicus briefs of the Discovery Institute, the Foundation for Thought and Ethics, and a group of Discovery-Institute organized academics, has been filed and is now available online.

The amicus briefs and the Plaintiffs’ Response are all available in PDF format here. Related appendices and motions are also available. I have OCRed some of the documents that were originally flat scans.

The Response contains some of the most adroit and pointed argument amongst all of the thousands of pages of paper filed in the case. For example:

In short, the amicus briefs add nothing new to the argument for intelligent design as science. What could have been helpful to the Court, and was uniquely in control of the amicus organizations, is some explanation why the Discovery Institute’s and FTE’s own descriptions of their mission and activities as Christian apologetics are not dispositive of the religious nature of intelligent design.5

As one obvious example, the Discovery Institute does not explain — literally does not say a word about - the organization’s Wedge Document (P140), which sets forth the goals and objectives of the intelligent-design movement. The Governing Goals of the Discovery Institute are “[t]o defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies” and “[t]o replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.” P140. The Wedge Document is no anomaly, but rather reflective of the positions of the Discovery Institute and the intelligent-design movement’s leaders, such as Phillip Johnson (originator of the “Wedge” strategy described in the Wedge Document), 10: 16-17 (Forrest), William Dembski (avowed Christian apologist who advocates intelligent design as the theology of John the Apostle translated into the technical language of information theory), P357; 11: 18,48-50, 55 (Forrest), and Stephen Meyer (director of the Discovery Institute, and advocate of intelligent design as “the God hypothesis.”).6 P332; 552 (Pennock); 11: 31 (Forrest)

Similarly, the FTE declines to address facts that it is best situated to explain. Numerous documents in evidence reveal FTE to be a religious organization with religious objectives, not a scientific one pursuing scientific aims. P12; P28; P168A; P566; P633; 10:90-92, 96-101 (Forrest). The FTE ignores all this evidence in its amicus brief.

In a pre-trial hearing in this case, FTE president Jon Buell attributed religious descriptions of his organization, in legally required public filings he had signed, to mistakes by lawyers and accountants. The Court can decide whether Mr. Buell and the FTE were filing false documents with the federal government and the State of Texas, or whether they were instead misrepresenting themselves to this Court, by disowning the religious agenda stated in those documents. The overwhelming evidence from Mr. Buell’s own writings regarding his and FTE’s Christian, creationist objectives gives the Court ample basis to make that judgment. P12; P28; P168A; P566; P633; 10:90-92,96-101 (Forrest). Either way, the FTE’s submission is entitled to no credence or respect from this Court.

This is particularly true of the FTE’s rationalization for the substitution of the phrase “intelligent design” for “creation” in versions of Pandas prepared after Edwards. FTE makes the impossibly silly argument that by discarding the words “creation” and “creationism” found in early drafts, the FTE expressly rejected creationism. FTE Brief at 17. The only way the drafting history of Pandas could be interpreted as rejecting creationism is if the authors had discarded not just the word, but the explanation of what the word means — “various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive features already intact — fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc.” The retention of the central creationist concepts using a different term, “intelligent design,” dictates only one inference: intelligent design equals creationism.

If this were not true, surely the FTE would have provided an explanation in its brief for why Pandas was written by two admittedly creationist authors, one of whom was an advocate for creation science in the federal courts, and for why Buell thought that the Edwards ruling on creation science would matter so much to the financial success of Pandas. P350; 10: 102-104, 126-128 (Forrest). But there is no discussion of these facts.

In summary, the amicus originations [sic] have a lot of explaining to do. But they studiously avoid their own words and history, which reveal the religious content of intelligent design.

What all three amici are clearly devoted to is getting the Court to blame any Establishment Clause violation on the defendant board members — without addressing the facts that show that the Board was right in understanding intelligent design to be a religious, God-friendly alternative to the theory of evolution. FTE has stated in a fundraising letter that if the Court “rule[s] narrowly, focusing only on the school board’s action and not ruling on the status of Pandas … that would be great news.”7 (emphasis in original). The Discovery Institute and the FTE, having provided the Dover Board with the idea and the materials to advance its religious agenda, are content to throw the Board under the legal bus, so long as it does not involve the exposure of intelligent design as an inherently religious proposition.

The reason for this approach is obvious: it allows the FTE and Discovery Institute to fight on in the culture wars — perhaps in school boards in Kansas or Ohio — where they may be able to exert greater control over the message broadcast by government officials, avoid the type of rigorous cross-examination applied in this case to expose intelligent design’s alleged scientific underpinning to be an empty vessel, and suppress the kind of revealing acknowledgments of the religious reasons for promoting intelligent design made by Dover school board members.8 As FTE and Discovery Institute attorney Wenger recently explained to a church audience, the Dover Board could have improved its case for intelligent design by being “clever as serpents.”9

Plaintiffs argued at the close of trial that the challenged policy at issue in this case would not have been any more constitutional if the Dover Board had been more circumspect about its objectives, or better at covering its tracks, because intelligent design is an inherently religious proposition, and a modern form of creationism. By availing themselves of the opportunity to submit amicus briefs, but not contesting the evidence of their religious and creationist words and actions, the FTE, Discovery Institute, and their affiliated scientists have effectively admitted the validity of that evidence.

Zing! My screen is sizzling. By the way, the “clever as serpents” bit refers to a Bible verse quoted by Randy Wenger, the local Pennsylvania Alliance Defense Fund attorney who has been filing the briefs for the DI and FTE. In a remarkable newspaper story published on October 20, 2005, entitled “‘Bring us your legal issues,’ clergy told” Wenger basically said that Dover’s policy might have passed constitutional muster if they had hidden their unconstitutional motivations better.

I can’t post the whole news story, but here are some excerpts, including the conclusion with the Wenger quote:

‘Bring us your legal issues,’ clergy told
Conservative Christian attorneys offer free legal advice in church-culture clashes.

By Daniel Burke
Lancaster New Era
Published: Oct 20, 2005 1:33 PM EST

LANCASTER COUNTY, PA - With a golden cross gleaming behind him, Lancaster lawyer Randy Wenger called for a new analogy.

[…]

They were assembled in the Myerstown school’s Christ Hall for a conference called “When Christians and Cultures Clash.”

The Wednesday conference starred representatives of the Pennsylvania Family Institute and lawyers, like Wenger, affiliated with the Alliance Defense Fund, a team of conservative Christian attorneys.

Throughout the daylong event, the roughly 50 ministers and alumni were constantly encouraged to call on the advocates for aid in the “culture wars,” presumed to be raging across America.

[…]

But even with God’s blessing, it’s helpful to consult a lawyer before joining the battle, the speakers said.

For instance, the Dover area school board might have had a better case for the intelligent design disclaimer they inserted into high school biology classes had they not mentioned a religious motivation at their meetings, Wenger said.

“Give us a call before you do something controversial like that,” he said.

“I think we need to do a better job at being clever as serpents,” Wenger added.

Update: this just in. The independent organizations of the Discovery Institute and the Foundation for Thought and Ethics have just filed a joint reply to the Plaintiffs Response. It is a short document, now uploaded. The reply mostly makes the core ID argument that you can detect intelligent activity in nature without identifying the designer, and therefore what would otherwise be the search for miraculous intervention by God suddenly becomes scientific and constitutional. This is the core bit of legal fiction behind the creationist strategy of “intelligent design”, so I am glad that they have put it front-and-center for the judge’s consideration.

by @ 3:26 pm. Filed under Trial transcripts and exhibits

Proposed findings of fact posted on court website

November 28, 2005

 

The Middle District of Pennsylvania has just posted the Proposed Findings of Fact for Plaintiffs and Defense on their online docket for Kitzmiller v. Dover.

by @ 2:27 pm. Filed under Trial transcripts and exhibits

Final transcripts up

November 15, 2005

 

We have just received the last two transcripts for Kitzmiller v. Dover, so everyone can now complete their collections. See the Trial Chronology and Transcripts page.

We have also received scans of all of the plaintiffs’ exhibits. I assume that a document being entered as an exhibit does not obviate copyright, so we will not be able to post books, articles, drafts of books, etc. However, government documents are public domain, so we can post those.

What we might do is post an exhibit list, then upload all of the public-domain documents, and post links to the relevant websites for books and articles.

by @ 1:48 pm. Filed under Trial transcripts and exhibits

Site Links

Recent Lawsuits

Post Categories

Search


Advanced Search

Archives

October 2007
S M T W T F S
« May    
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031  

Other


External Links

Site produced by the
National Center for Science Education.

24 queries. 0.502 seconds

Fastin Drug
Mg Tramadol
P42 Pill
Soma Sd
Buy Adipex Line
Can Viagra Be Used By Women
Adipex Cheap Phentermine
Long Term Affect Of Valium
Adipex Harmful Side Effects
Adverse Effects Lipitor
Fun With Viagra
What Is Generic Volume
History On Xanax
Alprazolam Eller Kan Med Ved
Phentermine Weight Loss Pill
Tenuate Testimonials
Cod Drug Soma
What Is Ultram 50 Mg
Adipex Testimonials
Tramadol 100
Purchase Tenuate Online
Klonopin As Good As Xanax
Ativan Vs Valium
Does Ultram Make You Feel High
Ultram And Zoloft
Green Valium Pills
Viagra Without Prescription
Tenuate Cod
Xanax Dependency
Phentermine Doses
Is Ultracet A Narcotic
Phentermine Cheap Discount
Viagra Sales
Viagra Online Mexico
Viagra Message Board
Ultram 50mg
Bextra Celebrex Dog Vioxx Vs
Celebrex Adverse Side Effects
50 Celebrex Reaction Vioxx
Who Manufactures Levitra
Buy Herbal Viagra
Best Price For Didrex
Alprazolam Liquid
Order Levitra Online
Xanax Overdose Mg
Order Viagra Prescription
Buy Watson Brand Soma
Pills What They Look Like
Cheap Tenuates
Getting High On Xanax
Soma Brave New World
Xanax Abuse
Ingredients In Ultram Er
Nicknames Of Valium
Diet Phentermine Pill
Ultram Message Boards
Classification Of Atorvastatin
Buy Generic Xanax Online
What Does Soma Look Like
Phentermine Airborne Express
Tramadol Cheap
Cheapest Didrex Online
Cheap Alprazolam
Contradictions Of Lipitor
Day Lipitor Next
Snorting Tramadol
Colors Of Valium
Xanax For Social Phobia
Sniffing Ultram
Minor Tranquilizers