RationalWiki:Kitzmiller v. Dover annotated transcript/P007

← Previous page

Next page →

Day 2 (27 Sept 2005): Morning Session. Redirect of Dr. Kenneth Miller

Section 1 REDIRECT BY MR. WALCZAK: Q. Good morning, Dr. Miller? A. Good morning. Q. I want to cover six or seven points that were raised by Mr. Muise. First of all, if we could put Exhibit 124 on the screen? Is this the four paragraph statement that I asked you to comment on in your direct exam? A. Yes, sir, it is. Q. And as Mr. Muise pointed out, this statement was read in January. What I'd like to do now is put up I believe it's Exhibit 131, which is a statement that was read to the students in May or June that was revised slightly. Are you able to highlight, Matt, the four paragraphs? Let me represent to you, and if I'm in error I please would invite an objection, but I believe the only paragraph that is changed in any way is the third one. If you could please read that to yourself? (Brief pause.) A. I have read it, thank you. Q. Can you identify what the change would be? A. You're not playing fair. You should have told me to pay attention to the other one and read this one, but I have to tell you I don't see the change right there, I'm sorry. Q. Let me see if we can put both -- A. I thought Mr. Muise's phylum quiz was going to be tough. Q. Just wait until you get my grades. So the one on top is the one from May or June. A. Oh, okay. Now, sir, I see the difference. Q. And so what is the difference? A. Well, they left out an apostrophe in the possessive on Darwin's in the June one, and -- THE COURT: We've lapsed into English there. A. Your Honor, I'm sorry. It's the teacher in me, I can't help it, and I noticed that as far as I can tell the only other thing is that is the phrase "along with other resources," I think that's correct. Am I missing anything else, Mr. Walczak? Q. That's what I can see as well. A. Okay. I don't see any other grammatical mistakes either.	Section 1 notes
Section 2 Q. Besides "Pandas" do they mention what those specific resources are? A. No. The only book I see mentioned in "Pandas," the only book I see mentioned is "Pandas," and other resources unnamed. Q. Does this change in the May or June reading of the statement, does this in any way change the opinion which you gave to the court about whether the statement promotes student understanding of science and evolution? Does this change your opinion in any way? A. No, sir, it does not. It's still very clear that in contrast to the second paragraph, which is designed to specifically undermine Darwin's theory of evolution, or the theory of evolution in general, the third paragraph has no such undermining language with respect to "Pandas and People," and that's the only book that it specifically mentions. I think the effect is pretty much the same.	Section 2 notes
Section 3 Q. There's a term that has been used throughout the testimony thus far, and it is "origin of life," and is that term used in a scientific way? Is there a way that scientists use the term origin of life? A. Yes, sir. That term is used in a scientific way. Q. And how is that term defined? A. Well, I think the definition is reasonably straightforward, and that is origins of life research is research on, research concerning the conditions on this planet before life first appeared about three and a half billion years ago, and it involves research designed to reveal the pre-biological chemical processes that may have given rise first to self copying or self-replicating molecules, and eventually to the first living cells. Q. And is that how you have used the term whenever it's employed in your book? A. I believe it is. It's not something, it's not a question I have thought about in detail, but I believe that's exactly how we used it. Q. And when you have testified using that term, either in response to a question, that is, has been your interpretation of origins of life? A. Yes, sir, that is absolutely correct, that origins of life refers to in every sense in which I have used it and Joe Levine has used it in our book and I think in my testimony as to the origin of the first self-replicating molecules and the first living cells on this planet. Q. When you use origin of life, you're not talking about origin of man? A. No, absolutely not, sir. I think I've been very careful to use origin of species in terms of referring to that, and human origins or human evolutionary descent is quite a distinct topic from origin of life.	Section 3 notes
Section 4 Q. Mr. Muise asked you a fair bit about your personal religious views. A. Yes, I think he did. Q. And he also asked you about religious and philosophical statements made by other scientists. A. Yes, he did, and he I think named probably three of them in particular. Q. Professor Dawkins was one? A. Correct. Q. Are statements, are these scientific statements? A. No, sir. As I believe I answered for Mr. Muise, none of those statements are scientific in any sense. Q. And do scientists make say religious statements? A. Of course they do. Q. And philosophical statements? A. Yes, sir, they do. They even make statements about baseball, as Steven J. Gould did frequently, and those are not scientific statements. Q. Just because a scientist said something doesn't make it scientific? A. Of course not. Q. And are you obviously have strong religious views you published in "Finding Darwin's God? Are these views published anywhere in your biology textbook? A. No, sir, of course not. Q. Are they published in any of your scientific journals? A. They are not published in any of my scientific papers. Q. Why not? A. Because they aren't science. It's very simple.	Section 4 notes
Section 5 Q. I want to direct your attention to your testimony in the Sellman case about which Mr. Muise asked you, and I believe that's Defendant's Exhibit 211. And Mr. Muise asked you about your testimony there where you were asked about the modern usage of creationism. A. Yes, he did. Q. And as I recall your answer was essentially the definition of what would be called young earth creationism. A. Yes. In fact, I don't recall Mr. Muise asking me a question. I recall him asking me to read my testimony, and he did not ask me any questions about the nature of that testimony, and he did not ask for any clarifications. Q. It might appear that your testimony in Sellman is inconsistent with what you may have testified yesterday. Can you reconcile the testimony? A. Yes. It's very easy to reconcile that testimony, and that is that in Sellman I should have been much more specific than I was when I said what is generally meant by creationism. And in particular the definition I give to creationism is one that in this trial in order to distinguish it from intelligent design I gave to scientific creationism or young earth creationism. Now, my testimony in Sellman I think could probably be construed if one does not appreciate the sort of general way in which I used the word creationism as to exclude intelligent design as a creationist theory simply because it doesn't make the scientific predictions that young earth creationism does about the geological record and the age of the earth, but in the most general sense it is a form of, it is a form of special creation or special creationism. Again this term was not at issue in the trial in Atlanta, and that's one of the reasons why I did not carefully define that term as I should have in my testimony in Sellman. Q. But, Dr. Miller, in Sellman you were in fact asked about intelligent design, were you not? A. My recollection is that I was.	Section 5 notes
Section 6 Q. I'd like you to turn to page 139. A. This is my testimony in Sellman? Q. Yes. This would be Defendant's Exhibit 211. A. Sir, I'm going to need a copy of it. Mr. Muise gave me one, but then he took it back. Q. You don't remember it, sir? A. I've got 138 down pretty well, but 139 I'm having trouble with. Q. May I approach the witness? THE COURT: You may. A. Thank you. Q. Now, the questions Mr. Muise asked you about your answer to I believe as you put it in the modern usage of creationism was on page 138 -- A. That's correct, sir. Q. -- of the transcript? So now on page 139 I'd like you to read for the court line 7 through 11, please, beginning with the question there. A. Sure. Line 7 begins, "Question: When you were writing your material on evolution, did you add any information on intelligent design?" The answer is, "No, I did not, and the reason once again is because we have been unable to find scientific evidence supporting the idea of intelligent design."	Section 6 notes
Section 7 Q. Now, let me ask you to turn to the next page and read from line 4 to line 14 on 141, and I'll note that the first question there is by Judge Cooper in that case. A. Perhaps it would help if I read that part to make clear. So I'll begin on line 4 as you requested. "THE COURT: Is it religious based?" Q. I'm sorry, excuse me. And did you know what the court was referring to when it says "it" there? A. Oh, excuse me, let me go back to the context. The court is, the term "it" is referring to intelligent design. Q. Thank you. A. So with reference to the intelligent design, the transcript begins, "COURT: Is it religious based? WITNESS: The advocates, Your Honor, of intelligent design would argue very strongly that their ideas are not religious based. They would say it is a straightforward conclusion of analysis of information theory and what they regard as the deficiencies of evolutionary theory. "But I think it's also clear that the people who embrace intelligent design in the United States argue very strongly that they have a religious, argue very strongly that if intelligent design is not included, then their own religious beliefs will suffer. So they certainly in my experience many of them have religious motivations for embracing this particular idea. "COURT: How do you see it? WITNESS: Pardon me sir? COURT: How do you see it? WITNESS: How do I see it? I'm a -- if I had to describe myself philosophically, I'd describe myself as a pragmatist, which if it works it's good enough for me. And with respect to intelligent design, I'm still waiting, and I've been waiting for about ten years for intelligent design theory to provide a single testable scientific explanation that holds up under peer review, under scientific analysis, and it simply hasn't. "To put that in terms that my family in southern Indiana, mostly a farming family, would understand, this dog don't hunt. And in the case of intelligent design, I think that's a very good way to describe it." Q. Could you, I'm sorry, read on through line 14? A. Yes, sir. "Question by Attorney Michael Minnaeli: Maybe part of what His Honor is asking you about is how you see it in terms of a religion. Intelligent design, positing a designer, a creator Answer: Well, by definition any explanation that requires a creator, an intelligent designer, is religious on its, is certainly religious on its face, and therefore the very fact that intelligent design presupposes a creator makes it so."	Section 7 notes
Section 8 Q. I want to shift focus here a little bit. In the passage you just read, near the end you testified that you're still waiting for a single testable scientific explanation about intelligent design. Mr. Muise asked you a number of questions about whether irreducible complexity was scientifically testable, and I believe you testified in fact that it was, that tests have been done. Is irreducible complexity subject to scientific testing? A. As irreducible, if irreducible complexity is carefully framed the way that Dr. Behe did in his book "Darwin's Black Box," it makes a testable prediction, and that testable prediction is that the parts, the individual components of irreducibly complex machines should have no functions on their own, and that is testable, and as I indicated in my testimony yesterday we can actually carry that test out in many of the systems that Dr. Behe cites, and in every case it fails that test. Now, the test of irreducible complexity as a scientific statement is not a test of intelligent design, and the reason for that is irreducible complexity by itself makes no argument for design. It makes an argument against evolution. And it's that argument, the argument of evolution not working, that we can subject to a scientific test. But that's not proof of design. That's not even an argument for design. That is simply a scientific statement made against evolution that is testable. As I indicated it fails that test, but even if it passed the test, that wouldn't be an argument for design.	Section 8 notes
Section 9 Q. And when you say Dr. Behe and intelligent design have made predictions, would that be the same as hypotheses? A. Yes. I regard certain of the statements that Dr. Behe has made as hypotheses that make testable predictions. For example, he looked at the blood clotting cascade, drew the inference that all the parts of the cascade had to be present for clotting to occur, and used that as an argument from irreducible complexity that the cascade could not have evolved. "Pandas" makes exactly the same argument, and that argument can be subjected to a test. And that is if we find organisms in nature that are missing parts of that cascade, if that prediction is right, their blood should not clot. And I brought into court yesterday two examples, documented examples by science and peer reviewed journals that showed that that prediction was wrong. The blood of whales and dolphins clots, and the blood of the puffer fish clots, and had that prediction been right, neither organism should have been able to clot its blood. Q. So one of the hypotheses that's been advanced to support irreducible complexity both in "Pandas" and by Dr. Behe has been refuted? Is that the appropriate scientific term? A. I think refuted, falsified, showed to be incorrect, found out to be wrong are all appropriate scientific terms in this case. Q. And would you say the same thing about the prediction that the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex? A. Yes, sir, I would. And the reason for that once again is the prediction is that all of the parts are necessary for function. In the absence of any of the parts there is no function that can be favored by natural selection. Once we discover that ten of those parts in a different context have a selectable function, in other words they work, they do something else that's useful to the cell, the hypothesis is tested and found to be wanting. It's falsified. Q. And the immune system was another hypotheses used by intelligent design proponents? A. That's correct, sir.	Section 9 notes
Section 10 Q. I believe you pointed to ten or eleven peer reviewed scientific papers and studies that have refuted that hypothesis? A. In the interests in the case of the immune system Dr. Behe made a different prediction. Because the immune system has so many different parts and so many different cells and so many interacting systems that he could not point to a single biochemical cascade like the blood clotting, or a single structure like the flagellum, but instead he pointed to the complexity of the system that shuffles genetic information, makes it possible for us to make antibodies against just about any foreign invader, and he said that system, because it required multiple parts, could never be explained in evolutionary terms. I think he said something to the effect that Darwinian explanations are doomed to failure, and it turns out that ten years of research have proven that Darwinian explanations of that system have been abundantly successful. So in that case that prediction, too, has not borne out. Q. So the hypotheses advanced by the proponents of your irreducible complexity have been invalidated? A. They've been invalidated in every case that they've been examined. Q. Now, but I'm trying to distinguish irreducible complexity from intelligent design. A. Correct.	Section 10 notes
Section 11 Q. Let's assume that in fact there was support for irreducible complexity. Let's say that all of the scientific studies and literature had come out differently and you had not found an evolutionary pathway. Is that support for intelligent design? A. No, sir, it is not. Q. Why not? A. It's not support for intelligent design because intelligent design presupposes a mechanism that exists outside of nature, can't be tested, can't be subjected to natural examination. If irreducible complexity held up, if we couldn't find subsets that were useful, it might mean that these systems had to be assembled by a pathway that was different from the Darwinian pathway, from the evolutionary pathway, and we might then look for another pathway or other evidence in favor of that. Intelligent design would be a possibility, but intelligent design is always a possibility for everything. It's entirely possible that this universe was intelligently designed ten seconds ago, and each of us was put here with false memories and false childhoods. That's not a testable hypothesis. Is it possible? Yeah, sure. The problem with intelligent design as a scientific explanation is that it can be used to explain in non-scientific terms literally anything, and that's why it is not science.	Section 11 notes
Section 12 Q. If you could recap, what are, you talked at the very beginning of your testimony you talked about the ground rules of science, what are those ground rules? A. Well, I have to think very hard, because if I don't replicate my testimony exactly I'm sure Mr. Muise will have something to say about it, but I think the ground rules of science in the most general sense are that science is limited to the natural world. We do science based on what we can see, what we can observe, what we can test. Experiments we can carry out, control, and watch. We then look at the results of those experiments, we try to make inferences based on them, and we try to formulate testable hypotheses on the basis of that evidence. Then go out in the world and carry out those tests. The explanations that we put forward as testable hypothesis qualifies as science only if they are natural explanations, because if they are not natural explanations they can't be tested, and that would render them outside of science. And then finally the other ground rules that I'm sure I mentioned in one context or another is that science and scientific methods have to be open, they have to be made freely available for the criticism of other scientists. We often call that peer review in the formal sense, and they have to be repeatable in the sense that other scientists can carry out the same experiments, the same investigations, make similar observations, and either confirm or deny the results that we have gotten. Q. So taking those ground rules of science and applying them to the inference for design, not the irreducible complexity. A. Yes, sir. Q. The inference for design, does that inference lead to rules of science? A. No, sir, not by any sense. Q. And why not? A. It does not meet it because the idea of design is that forces acting outside of a natural world that we cannot see, cannot replicate, cannot control, and cannot test have produced changes inside the natural world. Now, they may well have. You remember my tongue in cheek explanation of the success of the Red Sox. They may well have, but that explanation is not testable by science, and therefore it cannot qualify as part of the scientific process or as the scientific theory hypothesis or idea.	Section 12 notes
Section 13 Q. Does that make it wrong? A. No, sir, it does not make it wrong. Explanations based on the supernatural could always be corrected, but since they lie outside the mechanisms of science to investigate, they are simply not part of science. Q. Are there any peer reviewed publications, or scientific papers as you put it, on your curriculum vitae to support this inference for design? A. I have not found a single peer reviewed paper anywhere in the scientific literature that supports the idea of intelligent design. Q. I want to cover one more area that Mr. Muise raised. Unanswered questions, there are unanswered questions in evolution. A. I certainly hope so. Or evolutionary researchers are out of business as of today. Q. You testified in fact there are unanswered questions in every scientific theory? A. Yes, sir, there are.	Section 13 notes
Section 14 Q. Do we know everything there is to know in other areas of study, let's say history? A. Certainly not. My daughter, my younger daughter is a history teacher, majored in history, specialized in studying the American Revolution. There are unanswered questions in the history of our own republic. So the answer is yes. Q. Do we know everything there is to know about the battle of Gettysburg? A. Well, we know who won. At least we're pretty sure who won. And we know where it took place, we know when it took place. We know the generals on both sides. We know some of the troop deployments. But if you were for example to say let's take a particular soldier from a Rhode Island regiment who wrote home to his family on day two of the battle of Gettysburg, we might know something about that, but you know, we might not know where he was or what he was on day one or where he was or what he did on day three. Now, I dare to say that there are thousands of examples in which we do not know exactly what happened in a particular place on that battlefield at a particular time. Another way of putting it is that there are gaps in the historical record. But those gaps, they're worth filling, they're interesting, because we'd like to know what every soldier did on both sides in this pivotal battle in American history. So those gaps are unacceptable, and historians try to fill them. If you discovered the unknown diary of a soldier who had been at Gettysburg, that would be great stuff. Give it to a historian, they'd write papers about it, they'd thank you. But none of this changes the conclusions that we can make from the abundant historical record that already exists as to where, when, and how the battle took place, or what the ultimate outcome was. So we can make accurate and even profound historical conclusions without having a complete historical record. Q. You're talking about history here. Does that analogy apply to science? A. Of course it does, because natural history is part of scientific investigation. Much of geology is historical in the sense that it tries to understand the processes that made up our earth. Much of cosmology and astronomy is historical in the sense that it tries to understand what has put together our universe, our solar system, and other things out there in the universe, and a great deal of biology is historical in that paleontology and even through molecular genetics we try to reconstruct what happened in the past. Q. And does the fact that we don't know all the details undermine the soundness of evolutionary theory? A. No, sir, it certainly does not. MR. WALCZAK: May I have just one moment, Your Honor? THE COURT: You may. MR. WALCZAK: I have no further questions. THE COURT: We'll give Mr. Muise the last shot. Any recross? MR. MUISE: No further questions. THE COURT: You may step down.	Section 14 notes

Exhibit management

MR. MUISE: I have forgot the exhibits. THE COURT: Do you have an agreement as to the exhibits, the numbers? I can read you the roster of what I have, and you can work along with me as we do this. I have P-11, pages 7, 37, 65, 99, 100, 139, 140, 145, 146, and 150. Does that pick up everything in P-11? MR. WALCZAK: I believe it does, Your Honor, but we would move the entire book into evidence. THE COURT: Any objection? MR. GILLEN: Not at all, Your Honor. THE COURT: P-11 is admitted in its entirety. Then we have the following additional exhibits. P-31, P-124, P-127, P-192, P-198, 214, P-214 that is, and P-245. Any objection to those? MR. GILLEN: No objections, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. They're admitted. P-434, I'm not sure what that is. What is 434? MR. WALCZAK: I'm sorry, Your Honor? 434? THE COURT: 434 I think is "Darwin's Black Box," I'm not sure. COURTROOM DEPUTY: Yes, it is. THE COURT: There are certain pages referred to in that, 39,130, and 139. Is your pleasure to admit the book or the pages? MR. WALCZAK: We'd move to admit the book. THE COURT: All right. Any objection? MR. GILLEN: We have no objection, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right, that's admitted in its entirety. P-643, again I'm not sure what P-643 is. That is -- COURTROOM DEPUTY: Excerpt of Nature Magazine, September of 2001. THE COURT: That is page 69 from Nature Magazine. I'm assuming you probably want to admit the page only, but tell me if I'm incorrect. MR. WALCZAK: We actually like to admit the article that starts on page 69. THE COURT: Any objection? MR. GILLEN: No objection. THE COURT: All right. The entire article is admitted, that is P-643 in its entirely. 649 was -- COURTROOM DEPUTY: A magazine article in the National Academy of Science. THE COURT: There were three pages referred to. 27, 5, and 16. MR. WALCZAK: We propose to admit that entire publication. MR. GILLEN: No objection, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. 649 is admitted, P-649 in its entirety. We also have P-654 and P-665. Any objection to either of those? MR. GILLEN: No, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. They're admitted. Any other plaintiff's exhibits that we have missed, Mr. Walczak? MR. WALCZAK: Some others, Your Honor. THE COURT: Because of the abundance of exhibits, should you miss something, and this will, I'll afford the same courtesy obviously to the defense, we'll double back. We're going to do the best we can to get them in, but if you discover for example over the lunch break that we forgot something, we'll take it up. That's all I have. MR. WALCZAK: Your Honor, 192 is the publication from the National Academy of Sciences. THE COURT: I recited that, and that's admitted. MR. WALCZAK: That entire exhibit? THE COURT: Yes. MR. WALCZAK: Your Honor, we would also offer for the aid of the court the demonstrative exhibits that Dr. Miller relied on, and it's not necessarily to come in as evidence, but as Your Honor is reviewing the transcript they might be of assistance to the court. THE COURT: In particular? MR. WALCZAK: There were the five demonstrative exhibits with the slides I believe that's on the chimpanzee genome, hemoglobin, the bacterial flagellum, blood clotting cascade, the immune system. THE COURT: In what form do you want to put those into the record? Do you have them printed? MR. WALCZAK: Yes, Your Honor, I do believe there are prints of the slides that are already in the exhibit binder. THE COURT: I was looking at them on the screen, so I didn't look at the binders. They're shaking their heads no, there may not be. If you want to supplement the record inasmuch as they were referred to and see if we can have an agreement, that's one where I'll allow you to double back if you want to, to put them in. MR. WALCZAK: Your Honor, Mr. Gillen and I have quickly reached agreement that we would agree to produce these slides of both of our respective demonstratives. THE COURT: The nods of the heads would indicate a meeting of the minds. So however you get them in, and why don't you mark them appropriately and we'll get them in at that time, and that would go for any demonstrative exhibits. Now, on cross examination by Mr. Muise, I have D-233, D-214, D-210, and D-211. Mr. Muise, your pleasure on that. Do you want to wait, or do you want to move to admit them now? MR. MUISE: We had 214, Your Honor, the biology book, would you mind if we have that admitted at this time? THE COURT: I couldn't hear you. Say again? MR. MUISE: The biology book, 214? THE COURT: You want to admit that? MR. MUISE: We want to admit that, Your Honor. Exhibit 210. THE COURT: I have 210. MR. MUISE: We'd also admit -- MR. WALCZAK: I'm sorry, Your Honor. THE COURT: 210 is the article. So you want to move 214 and 210. Any objection, Mr. Walczak? MR. WALCZAK: No, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. They are admitted. How about 233 and 211? MR. MUISE: We'll move for the admission of 233, Your Honor. THE COURT: Mr. Walczak? MR. WALCZAK: What is that? MR. MUISE: The Pennsylvania academic standards. MR. WALCZAK: No objection to those. THE COURT: 233 is admitted. And finally 211? MR. MUISE: We're not going to move for the admission of 211, Your Honor. THE COURT: So D-233, D-214 and D-210 are admitted. Plaintiffs will be granted leave to submit the demonstrative exhibits in some form, and you can mark those appropriately and we'll take those out of turn at that point. That would seem to cover all the exhibits for that witness. And you may call your next witness. We'll go until about 12:15 I think. So there's certainly time to start the next witness.

← Previous page

Next page →