16. Kitzmiller vs. the Dover Board of Education, a review
The URL for my book is www.Evo-illusion.com.
The above video is about my book Evo-illusion, now available at Amazon. The page begins below.
On November 13, 2007 PBS had a Nova special, “Judgment Day-Intelligent Design on Trial”, about a debate and court case in Dover, Pennsylvania involving a battle between believers of Intelligent Design and believers in Evolution at a Dover Area High School. The school board was attempting to show that Darwinian evolution was not a lock, and other ideas should be presented to the students; not by teaching ID in the classrooms, but by having a book in the library on the subject. The ID’ers were strongly opposed by evolution believers, who wanted all theories beside evolution to be kept out of school books, and completely out of discussion in science classes. The amazing thing is what this case, Kitzmiller vs. The Dover School Board, was really about. It was not about bringing ID into the science classrooms (which I strongly oppose). It was about science teachers being asked to read a notice that there is a book in the library, “Of Pandas and People”, by Charles B. Thaxton, that discusses an opposing viewpoint. The teachers met, and as a group decided to refuse to read the notice. So the principal came around the classes and he read the notice himself, about a one minute interruption. That’s it. Ms. Kitzmiller sued to stop the principal from doing just that: reading a notice that there is a book in the library that has a different idea that opposed evolution. I find it amazing that the theory of evolution is so weak and unsure of itself that it needs to prevent students from knowing that there is a book in their library with another idea. Did Kitzmiller et al actually think that if this book was not identified as being in the library the students would permanently, for the rest of their lives, be blocked from ever hearing about Intelligent Design? Astounding. What an incredible waste of time and money this case was. If Intelligent Design was force-taught as an entity in science classrooms, I could see a good reason for this court case. If evolution was valid, it would not mind competition at all. It would trump the competition with a huge avalanche of proof and information. But it can’t. And doesn’t. So Ms. Kitzmiller and her lawyers, mostly ACLU members, wasted millions of taxpayer dollars stopping the notification of students that there was a single book in the library on ID. What an incredible waste of time and money. I wonder if the school board would like to have that money back now for more important matters. Like teaching students math, English, history…….
In reality, there is no evidence for Darwin’s ideas, but the evolutionists pretend that anything they find is evidence. Zero fossils over millions of years of any single species show the kind of evolution that could form hearts and eyes, nor the kind of evolution that could change one species into another. No species are currently forming new organs or new anything; supposedly that ended millions of years ago. Evolution scientists try to make you think that a moth that changes color, or a bacteria that becomes drug-resistant is a good example of current evolution, and the followers swoon. Evolution is the greatest example of group psychology imaginable. Believers in evolution throw logic out the window. The psychology of this fake science is really far more interesting than the theory itself. True objective science is non-existent in the world of evolution believers. Since the source for intelligence in nature cannot be scientifically found, ID should not be taught in science classrooms. It is unlikely that Darwinian evolution will be removed from the classroom. So, to be purely scientific, the evidence that Darwin my not have been correct, and there is plenty of that, should be taught.
Here is a summary of some of the battles in the Dover courtroom:
(1) The Linear Evolution of Man:
A poster showing the steps in human evolution, like the one above, was painted by a student and hung in one of the biology classrooms. The poster was a beautiful work of art, and I’m sure done with great sincerity. The student is obviously a talented artist. It is a shame that the anti-evolutionists did such a dumb thing destroying it. However, that series of evolving man is non-existent in science or the fossil record. The artist copied a drawing that was the complete figment of the imagination of an evolution “scientist”. This unscientific drawing has been, and still is, printed in millions of textbooks and taught as if it is true science. Why don’t we see the same series for elephants and bears? This same series of fossils should certainly exist for them, as well as millions of other species. It doesn’t. Why don’t evolutions believers even question that fact, instead of sweeping it under the rug and playing pretend?
When I studied evolution in college, Neanderthal was considered the species that just preceded humans. Oops, paleontologists found that Neanderthal cohabited earth for 15,000 years with humans. Cambridge Professor Paul Mellars, says “no evidence has been found of cultural interaction” and evidence from mitochondrial DNA studies have been interpreted as evidence that Neanderthals were not a subspecies of H. So Neanderthal was removed from the evolutionary line to homo sapien. And, professor Mellars gets a gold star for honest science.
According to “The Blind Watchmaker“ “…….one of the fastest evolutionary changes (is) the swelling of the human skull from Australopithecus-like ancestor, with a brain volume of about 500 cubic centimetres to the modern Homo Sapiens’s average brain volume of about 1,400 cc.” It’s fast, but really “only .01 cc. per generation”. Did Dawkins consider that maybe Australopithecus didn’t evolve into Homo Sapiens since their cranial sizes were so different?Maybe they were just separate but similar species. Wouldn’t good objective science require the consideration of this possibility? Of course that almost never happens. Bending of the evidence again here, rather than bending of the theory. No gold star for Dawkins.
Re: Homo Habilis 8/13/07 AP, WASHINGTON — “Surprising fossils dug up in Africa are creating messy kinks in the iconic straight line of human evolution with its knuckle-dragging ape and briefcase-carrying man. The new research by famed paleontologist Meave Leakey in Kenya shows our family tree is more like a wayward bush with stubby branches. The old theory was that the first and oldest species in our family tree, Homo habilis evolved into Homo erectus, which then became us, Homo sapiens.
But those two earlier species lived side-by-side about 1.5 million years ago in parts of Kenya for at least half a million years, Leakey and colleagues report in a paper published in Thursday’s journal London. The two species lived near each other, but probably didn’t interact with each other, each having their own “ecological niche,” Spoor said.”
So, what does this do to the evolutionary lineage of homo sapiens? Is it possible that the homo sapien “precursor” fossils aren’t precursors at all, but just separate but similar extinct species? Would real objective science require that that be listed as a possibility? Of course, in every science except evolution. Just a note: This one was the hardest for me to swallow. I was sure that the evolutionary lineage from homo habilis to homo sapiens was correct; that it was absolutely proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.
By the way, where is elephantus habilis, e. erectus, and e. sapiens? Where are the linear evolution charts for bears? Rhinos? Isn’t it puzzling that there are no precursors for any modern animals like the so called human precursors? They would have made extremely large fossils that would be recent, and therefore easy finds. I guess they just haven’t been located yet.
(2) Tiktaalic: a recently found fossil that is currently being celebrated as a great and historic transitional species was presented in the program as evidence that fish grew legs and crawled out of the oceans and waterways. This is the perfect example of wishful evolution evidence.
Notice how tiktaalic (above) is drawn with much longer forelegs than the actual fossil’s stubs (below), and is in a “wishful thinking” standing position. Also note how the hind end of tiktaalic is also pictured with two leg-fins, even though no hind end was found. Of course this artwork will be placed in textbooks to make tiktaalic more believable as a transitional species. In reality, evolution scientists found only the front half of tiktaalic, so they have absolutely no idea what the hind end looks like, an important fact that was not even mentioned on this broadcast, an amazing omission. How do they know it is configured like a quadruped? Another giant guess! They found half of a fossil and turned it into one of the “greatest evolutionary finds of all time”.
Does that stumpy “fin-leg” look like it is on it’s way to being the foreleg of a horse? It would take an incredible amount of imagination to think so. If you found this fossil, would you immediately think you found a great transition? Does this guy look like a walker?
Neil Shubin, one of the discoverers, is a hero. As a result of the find he wrote “The Inner Fish”, which is a hot seller, and he is being touted and interviewed on many TV talk shows. Interestingly, Shubin heads the Field Museum where I first started my critical thinking about Darwin. This find is a real WOW for evolution. Finally the missing fossil that evolutionists have been waiting for and predicting. And there it is! Just as predicted, at the 375 MYA level of strata!
Shubin and the group of diggers certainly should be complimented for finding a new species, and going to that frozen area of Northern Canada to do the digging. But that’s it. I just re-watched the Dover Nova section on this subject. Shubin had the “fin-leg” bones painted in, showing how each bone corresponds with human arms and tetrapod foreleg bones. Shubin went over it so quickly without really showing the fin-leg, as if he didn’t want the bones to be carefully scrutinized. I froze that scene. Those bones don’t at all correspond to human arms or tetrapod legs. You would have to be on drugs to think they do.
Why is tiktaalic a transitional species?
Because the fore-fins have bones.
Because Shubin and other evolutionists say it is, and that’s final.
Hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent on the find. They have to come up with something big.
Making it a transitional species makes Shubin and the other diggers heroes. They can write books.
It’s one more dagger in the heart of Creationism.
Why is tiktaalic not a transitional species?
Tiktaalic has seven or eight tiny bones that are supposed to correspond to tetrapod/human digits, which of course have five. Did tiktaalic dis-evolve the excess?
The back half of the tiktaalic fossil is missing, so they have no idea if has two, three or zero “fin-limbs” in its hind area. Pictured a left-below is a mudskipper. These are amphibious fish with two fin-forelegs and and no hind fin-legs at all. We don’t know if tiktaalic looked like this. There is no idea what tiktaakic’s back half looked like, so it is astounding that evolution scientists could celebrate it as much as they have as the huge quadruped transitional find!
Tiktaalik’s ribs are fish-like, good for swimmers, and not linked in the middle by a sternum, which would mean it couldn’t support itself. No quadrupeds have ribs like tiktaalik.
Considering the ribs, and anatomy of the forelegs, the missing rear legs, tiktaalic couldn’t support itself on land. (And, this is according to ev scientists also.)
The amazing thing about tiktaalik is that evolutionists immediately tout it as the great missing transitional fossil that was really needed to prove Darwin. My great problem with this is, where is the objective science? Where are the doubters? Real science requires a doubting eye. Where is the testing? The waiting to find additional fossils that back up the current thrill fossil? But no, tiktaalik is twisted and bent so that it fits the theory, not the other way around, as good science dictates. The only “science” that does this is evolution.
Then, some horrible news for Neil Shubin. Footprints of an obvious quadruped were found in Poland:
“The fish–tetrapod transition was thus seemingly quite well documented. There was a consensus that the divergence between some elpistostegalians (such as Tiktaalik or Panderichthys) and tetrapods might have occurred during the Givetian, 391–385 Myr ago. Coeval with the earliest fossil tetrapods, trackways dating to the Late Devonian were evidence for their ability to walk or crawl on shores.
Now, however, Niedźwiedzki et al. lob a grenade into that picture. They report the stunning discovery of tetrapod trackways with distinct digit imprints from Zachemie, Poland, that are unambiguously dated to the lowermost Eifelian (397 Myr ago). This site (an old quarry) has yielded a dozen trackways made by several individuals that ranged from about 0.5 to 2.5 metres in total length, and numerous isolated footprints found on fragments of scree. The tracks predate the oldest tetrapod skeletal remains by 18 Myr and, more surprisingly, the earliest elpistostegalian fishes by about 10 Myr.”
(Philippe Janvier & Gaël Clément, “Muddy tetrapod origins,” Nature Vol. 463:40-41 (January 7, 2010).)
Lucky for Neil, his book came out, his TV interviews were completed, and his money was deposited in the bank before this disastrous find. But, what is the bet we will continue to hear bold claims of Tiktaalik being a transitional tetrapod?
(3) In his testimony, Michael Behe brought up the fact that “irreducible complexity” of a plethora of animal organs makes evolution not possible. His example was the rotating flagellum of bacteria. This was truly a fascinating part of the program. A small super miniature motor made up of forty protein molecules rotates a corkscrew-shaped flagellum, allowing the bacteria to travel. The “motor” looks much like a turbine motor of today. To think that this “motor” appeared before there was such a thing as a turbine motor anywhere on the planet earth is simply mind boggling. Dr. Behe’s testimony was countered by Dr. David DeRosier from Brandeis University who showed a bacterial injector with a needle mechanism. By removing thirty proteins from the motor-flagellum system, the motor system looks quite similar to the injector. The difference is that the “needle” is, of course, hollow, and straight. Dr. DeRosier felt that the needle mechanism is simpler but similar to the motor flagellum, and therefore a step in the evolution of the motor system, proving that irreducible complexity is wrong. In the reenactment, Dr. Behe simply slumped, as if his irreducible complexity idea had collapsed. I can’t believe that in the actual trial Dr. Behe collapsed the way the Nova re-enactment showed. What the evolutionists proved was that Dr. Behe is absolutely correct. Dr. Behe should have said, “OK, if the injector is a step in the evolution toward the motor, please show me any possible steps in that evolution, and how the addition of each additional protein benefits the individual. Also, how about showing me any possible steps in the evolution from nothing to the injector.” Adding one missing protein, or two, or three to the injector would make the injector no closer to a being motor. They would be useless additions until all of the missing proteins are added. Once the proteins were added, the needle would have to evolve into a corkscrew, and close the opening that made it a needle. There are absolutely no possible intermediate steps from injector to motor. Further, removing any single part from the injector would render it completely useless. Remove the needle and what would you have? Nothing; a mini-tumor. Early on, when the needle was short, if it did evolve, it would again be useless, as it would be unable to penetrate the outer cell wall of a species that it is attacking. It would be useless until it could; a useless miniature tumor. If the base mechanism was missing, of course the “needle” would be unsupported and worthless. If Dr. Behe thought one more level, he could have clobbered the evolutionists.
The elephant in the china shop here is the bacteria itself which is nearly irreducibly complex. Bacteria have comparatively few parts, and therefore can’t survive with any missing. The ribosomes make proteins, the nucleoid carry DNA, the cytoplasm, flagellum, and cell wall and membrane are the main parts. Of course with the cell wall missing, the bacteria is non-existent. Without the nucleoid, it couldn’t exist and reproduce. Without the cytoplasm it would be mush. One wonders what steps there were in bacterial evolution. I would love to hear a plausible explanation. Cell wall first, then nucleoid? Ribosomes first?
Use the lower left arrow.
Dr. Behe used a mouse trap as an example of IC. Removing any one part would render it useless as a mouse trap. This makes complete common sense. However, a pro-evolutionist professor Ken Miller (video above) removed the “trigger”, and smugly wore it in the courtroom as a tie holder supposedly showing IC to be wrong. Again, wishful “evidence” by the evolutionists. For that matter, you could remove all the metal parts and use the wood base as a bookmark, or kindling for a fire. The “tie holder” example is an example of nothing, and does not at all disprove IC. Think about an eye without a retina, or optic nerve. Would that make a good tie holder, or a good anything? Dr. Behe’s thinking on irreducible complexity is almost right on the mark, and not disproved at all by the ridiculous negative evidence provided by the evolutionists.
In reality, a far better term for irreducible complexity would be essential irreducible complexity. One problem with IC is that it works backward. That is, it takes a complete and functioning organ and, by removing any part, supposedly the organ would be rendered useless. When an organ evolves, it goes from nothing to the functioning organ. The parts are gradually evolving and being added to the organ or organ system from nothing, rather than the organ parts being reduced from a fully functioning organ. Also organs can function with parts missing. Eyes could still provide vision without the iris, just not very well in bright light. A liver can function without a large portion of its cells missing. IC should look at evolving organs from nothing to a semi or full functioning organ, rather than taking parts away from a fully functioning organ.
With essential irreducible complexity, an organ would be simplified down to its bare “essentials”. That is, the non-essential parts would be discounted, so that the parts left would be the ones that the organ or organ system could not possibly function without. In the case of the vision system, the retina, optic nerve, thalamus, visual cortex, and visual code together would be essentially irreducibly complex. There would be absolutely no vision if any one of these parts was removed or not functionally evolved. Translated, that means evolution in microsteps could not possibly put together a vision system. The evolving system would be useless until all of the above parts were present and evolved enough to provide some function.There would be no “advantage” to the individual during the process from nothing to partial function.
(4)The evolutionauts brought up the fact that apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes, while humans have 23. This would seem to make the evolutionary connection between humans and apes not possible. Then scientists found that two of the human chromosomes were joined like conjoined twins, making the true human total more similar to that of the apes’. Evolutionauts were ecstatic, as if this was just one more piece of evidence that humans evolved from early apes. Have any evolutionauts ever taken a course in Logic 1? Here would be a possible test question:
1. Homo Sapiens have 23 chromosomes with two joined. Apes have 24. From this we can deduce that:
A. Apes and homo sapiens have the same phylogeny.
B Apes and Homo Sapiens have closely similar chromosomes, and therefore would be expected to be biologically similar.
C. Apes evolved from Homo Sapiens, since they have 24 chromosomes while Homo Sapiens have only 23.5.
The worst choice would be A.
See the section on 15. Ardi in Habilis, Erectus, Ardi, and Other Primates for more interesting challenges for evolution.
(5) The pro-evolution side presented a spelling error in an early manuscripts of the anti-evolution textbook “Of Pandas and Man” to show that intelligent design is really creationism in disguise. This “evidence of a conspiracy” is beyond absurd. The misspelled “cdesign proponentsists” in the manuscript came from the writer attempting to substitute “intelligence proponents” for the word “creationists”. There are many people that are not religious but believe that nature has some kind of intelligence that is beyond anything we can comprehend at this time. This kind of thinking started way before the Bible was a book, and can be traced back to writings of Plato and Aristotle. Albert Einstein was a believer in an intelligent universe. Believing in an “intelligent universe” has nothing to do with Biblical creationism, Adam and Eve, and a 4,000 year old earth. Because both ID’ers and Biblical Creationists think that Darwinian evolution is nothing more than fake science, pro-evolutionists try, disingenuously, to lump both together in an attempt to make both look foolish. In doing so, they make themselves look childish. And because one creationist writer substituted intelligence for creationism does not at all mean that the two different viewpoints are connected, or that there is a conspiracy to disguise ID as Creationism. They are both allied against evolution, but they are not one and the same. And those that think they are need to take that Logic 1 class mentioned above.
(6) Vertical lines were displayed in a segment showing how ID’ers feel the biological timeline for the existence of different species should look. Species appeared, then most went extinct. They were shown as straight lines in time, with different species starting at different times, instead of the tree with connected branches as visualized by Darwin. As each line was shown, a little “bing” sound and lighted cross was added to the beginning of the line. Of course this makes the ID timeline look silly and unscientific. In reality, that is exactly how the appearance and extinction of species looks. All species appeared, with no precursor fossils yet found that show gradual evolution into that species.
Just a few examples:
“The Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.” (“The Blind Watchmaker” by Richard Dawkins) (47% of phyla appeared in the Cambrian, and suddenly.)
“Fossil birds appear in the rocks out of nowhere.” (National Geographic Special, “Was Darwin Wrong?” Dec. 06)
National Geographic 11/06: “And yet, as he (Darwin) wrote to a friend in 1879, flowers were for him an “abonimable mystery”. Darwin was referring the sudden, unheralded emergence of flowers in the fossil record. Making the mystery all the more abominable was the exquisite complexity of flowers.”
“The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.” (Darwin, Charles, Origin of Species, 6th edition, 1902 p. 341-342)
The first two examples of transitional species cited in the court by evolutionists was the linear evolution of man and tiktaalic, both described above.
The third transitional “tree branch” species was Archaeopteryx, which was listed as link between dinosaurs and birds, with no precursors or “post-cursors” showing it evolving to birds. Archaeopteryx also had “evolved” a maxilla, mandible, temporomandibular joint, and a rather vicious set of teeth, which all had to “dis-evolve”, then the toothless/jaw-less bird had to evolve beaks. You would think that some very interesting fossil birds with some sort of beak/tooth system would be dug up, but of course, none have been. So why has archaeopteryx been assigned a branch of this tree? Didn’t Nova read National Geographic? (“Fossil birds appear in the rocks out of nowhere.”) Wouldn’t objective science at least wait for some A to B fossils before this branch was firmly established? Nope. This is evolution, so that kind of science is not necessary.
Another try for transitional species is called the archaeoraptor. It had the tail of a dinosaur and the forelimbs of a bird. The problem is that it was faked. A Chinese paleontologist proved that someone had glued a dinosaur tail to a primitive bird. Fakes are coming out of the fossil beds all the time because fossil dealers know that there is big money in it, and paleontologists can tremendously expand their resumes with finds. Imagine the pressure they have after hundreds of thousands of dollars are spent on useless digs. They must show results or lose their grants.
The fourth example of the “tree branch” was a land-living tetrapod that evolved into a whale. I’m sorry, but this is so ridiculous, that it is difficult to spend any time discussing. Do you believe that Jonah was swallowed by a whale, then spit back out healthy and happy on the beach? THAT is more believable than a tetrapod going back into the water and evolving into a whale. “OK, son, now stick your head in the water and try to hold your breath! And, when you have kids, have them try the same thing, until they can go longer!” I first read that a “cow” like animal was the whale precursor, but my site has an article about a raccoon-like animal that did the trick: https://evillusion.wordpress.com/how-the-raccoon-became-a-whale/ The reasoning here is (an earlier Nova) that whale fins somewhat correspond the tetrapod legs or appendages. And, of course, as always, there is no fossil evidence for this miraculous morph. When I do a “mind experiment” on most evolution evidence claims, I just get real stuck. It’s hard to believe that these scientists can throw out the stuff they do with a straight face.
(7) Another huge challenge to the “tree” is the fact that there is no known evolutionary force that can increase the information in the genome. How does it happen that the number of chromosomes increases, and a new and additional genetic code appears? It’s one thing to say genes mutate to form new and different body parts, although that is completely unlikely. But adding additional genes, and genetic code is another. Dawkins got stumped with this question. https://evillusion.wordpress.com/richard-dawkins-stumped/ Maybe it has since been answered, but I haven’t seen one.
(8) A section of this Nova was used to show the “evolutionary” relationships of butterflies with differing wing patterns. Cartoon butterflies fluttered so scientifically next to each other in typical evolutionary-evidence fashion. This is all fine and dandy, and seemingly very scientific, except there is a giant but very quiet bull in the china shop here. The immense problem for evolution is just how did evolution produce the life sequence that butterflies go through? Wouldn’t this be of far more importance than showing how the wing patterns genetically form? Of course this was not considered. It’s kind of like worrying about a firecracker when an atomic bomb is about to go off.
Butterflies are termed as holometabolous insects, and go through complete metamorphosis. These are the steps in that metamorphosis:
- Larva, known as a caterpillar
- Pupa (chrysalis)
- Adult butterfly (imago)
It is inconceivable to even imagine how mutations and natural selection could form an egg which would lead to a caterpillar which would then knit a pupa which would then morph into a butterfly. With evolution, since every advancement is done in micro-steps, each species had to have a “first”. There had to be a first butterfly egg, and first caterpillar. There had to be a first caterpillar that decided to make a pupa. Was the first pupal evolutionary step a one-thousandth of a pupa, which, of course, would make it useless? Then, over a million or so years, the caterpillar super-grandchild would make a complete pupa, then………….Of course there had to be the first pupa that then transformed its innards into a butterfly. Evolution is not a possible scenario for appearance of the butterfly, no matter what pattern the wings had.
(9) Possibly the most ridiculous part of this Nova was the last, where scenes were shown of vaccines, and other medical procedures which the announcer credited to the study of Darwinian evolution. Nova was actually inferring that discontinuing the study of evolution could damage or terminate the many “modern miracle” medical advances that were brought about by Charles Darwin’s theory. This is nothing more than fear mongering at its worst. In reality, zero advances in anything have been brought about by this flawed theory. The study of the origin of species is really for a relatively few interested persons, (like me) and nothing else. Actually, very few people even think about it at all after finishing their school studies. The subject is not as all out important as evolutionists and creationists would have you think.
So here is a lawsuit that was brought because teachers were requested to simply let students know that there is a book in the library that has a different idea than evolution. The teachers were not required to say anything positive or negative about ID, but simply let the kids know about a book. The teachers refuse to read the letter, so the principal went class and read a notice that only took a few seconds. That brought an incredibly expensive lawsuit that took money out a cash strapped school system, and placed it in the courts and lawyers pockets. The winner here was the thought police. The loser was freedom of thought. And the overall issue had nothing to do with ID vs. Evolution. It had to do with freedom.