An account of the NKU mock trial

Was Dr. Scripture the same Dr. Scripture of 'this lumpy rock is clearly a fossilized brain' fame?

Dr. Scripture

Best. Supervillain name. Ever.

"smallpox", not "small pocks"

Dr. Scripture? Is that anything like Bibleman? It's sad that he didn't want to put his name to his work, but understandable.

"Small pocks?" Oh PZ...

"Dr. Scripture"? I think they should have recruited Dr. Science to imbue the same gravitas to the prosecution.

1)
who brought up microevolution versus macroevolution

wow, someone called that in the last thread on this

2) scary that most people think the teach should get his job back, under whatever conditions

3) did anyone play bingo?

The "small pocks" typo was mine, and mine alone.

I blame my years of terrible acne.

Here you find the common theme for creationist, list the logical fallacies. Criticizing one's side is fine, when you too present a side to be criticized. Just pointing out gaps and segments where evidence is still building gives what credence? Give a plausible alternative.

I believe all life was created by aliens from galaxy "Lopglob". Now, "Lopglob" lies outside our ability to view it and if you could see it, its invisible to non-believers anyway. What? You need evidence? Well, they told me they did it and they sent me a book to prove it. I'm sorry though, they imparted to me that only I can read. Sorry for any inconveniences it may have caused. Can you prove me wrong? Well then, TEACH THE CONTROVERSY!!!!!!!!

@Techskeptic: I'm afraid I didn't see any bingo cards. If there was a bingo card that included "What?!", "Idiot.", "Whatever!", I think I would have easily won.

The same Dr. Scripture from the creationist pet brain rock thing?

Gasp, creationists lying? Oh no! I wasn't surprise to hear of the plants, surprises, and the like. They don't play fair. But then, what else can they do with the lack of evidence for their silly idea?

For those of you who wish to dump on creobot, the coach is still trolling the Creationist Time Machine thread.

Shouldn't the title read, "An account of the NKU pock trial"?

The question then becomes, small pock or big pock?

Arghhhh, a pox on the promoters of that oxymoron, 'creation science', anyway.

So it's really just the old, "evolution can't do it, so an invisible, unobservable superhuman was responsible."

That complexity comes in evolutionary form, you know, without the leaps possible with intelligence, and often less well-done than the basic solutions a human could design.

Explain the huge numbers of apparent marks of evolution (sans rationality) via design, and only then can you even begin to suggest that design was responsible.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Chris @#8:

You realize you've just outlined the belief structure for a new, hybrid religion called "Mormontology". It'll be huge soon. The Emperor of Lopglob will speak to the believers through their hats.

So it's really just the old, "evolution can't do it, so an invisible, unobservable superhuman was responsible."

It's all it's ever been. Even before evolution was even theorized, it was never anything more than "it couldn't happen any other way." Then evolution came along and gave us another way, that didn't require an invisible, unobservable (yet we know it's there) superhuman. The only defense they had left was to stick their fingers in their ears and go "LALALALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALALALALALA".

Explain the huge numbers of apparent marks of evolution (sans rationality) via design, and only then can you even begin to suggest that design was responsible.

[closes eyes tightly and feigns looking around]"What marks? I don't see any marks. Therefore, godidit."

@greg lloyd,

Aw dang. I made a downloadable version of creationist bingo that lets you print out randomized cards and gives reasons for why each item is a fallacy. I have never had a chance to use it myself.

I will perhaps include "What", "Whatever", and "idiot" in the future! lol.

It would have been easy to spot Dr.Scriptures plant even if you didn't overhear them talking about it in advance (as I did). They were the only two people in the room with 80's wardrobe and what I call "televangelist hair".
Thank "god" for the biologist that stood and made a comment.
I thought the ID proponent seated next to me was going to pass out.

#14

You win

A small pocks on both your houses!

Creationists should not be allowed to teach anything because they're idiots. No student should ever have to get stuck with a retarded teacher, no matter what the subject is.

It looks to me like this event was poorly organized and even more poorly thought out. From the made up "facts" in the case, the plaintiff would have absolutely no legal standing given previous court precedent in the matter of teaching creationism in a public classroom. Any half decent lawyer wouldn't have to put up expert witnesses at all. The only thing required would be to state the facts of the case and then reference Edwards v Aguilar and Kitzmiller v Dover. The federal courts have rejected creationism as a violation of the establishment clause over and over and over. The teacher is an agent of the state and is therefore bound by the clause. The merits of ID (or more accurately, the lack thereof) are absolutely irrelevant.

It sounds like the organizers really wanted an Evolution v ID debate and came up with a ham-handed way of going about it. The legal questions in cases like this may address science but they are not science. A judge has to make a determination on the law and not decide scientific accuracy. Creationism isn't disallowed in the classroom because it's scientifically wrong. It's disallowed because it advances a RELIGIOUS idea. This is why the creationists have done their damnedest to obfuscate their religious motivations. People like Dembski continue to refine and whittle out the overt religious message and instead only wink when it's mentioned. But as in our Dr. Scripture, it's all a facade. IC and CSI and ID are just code words for 'gawdhadtohavedoneit".

On the bright side, only 31% of the audience thought the teacher should be allowed to continue teaching creationism as if it were legitimate science. That's better than I would have expected for an audience in Kentucky.

Lol, "Mormontology" love it. I don't have my hat on today because its cold here, but take solace I do have on my beanie which "they" told me works just the same. It has to be made of a non-synthetic fabric though, and if "Lopglob" doesn't embrace you then YOU are not praying hard enough and there for by all definitions should be viewed as a heretic. Be patient and stand still while we gather our stones.

:)

Anyone care to enlighten a computer geek with a lay interest in biology about in what sense bat wings are a good example of macroevolutionary development? My understanding was that macroevolution in sexual organisms referred to microevolutionary developments viewed from across a species (or slightly lower geologic) divide, which thus limited the scope of development diffusion.

@ Randy #14

We already created Scimormontology here.

So, nyah. ;P

"smallpox", not "small pocks"

Well, yes, even though this makes no sense whatsoever. For example, it is Pocken in German, and that's a plural.

I totally called the Micro vs Macro question! Yay! Do I win a prize?! :-)

Anyone care to enlighten a computer geek with a lay interest in biology about in what sense bat wings are a good example of macroevolutionary development?

Probably because the drastic elongation of the fingers is caused by overexpression of a single gene for a short time during embryonic development -- it looks like an evolutionary leap, even though it isn't (nothing is).

The best reason to not teach the stupidity of magical creation was explained perfectly by Gould. Probably most people here have seen this quote but here it is anyway:

Creation science has not entered the curriculum for a reason so simple and so basic that we often forget to mention it: because it is false, and because good teachers understand exactly why it is false. What could be more destructive of that most fragile yet most precious commodity in our entire intellectual heritage -- good teaching -- than a bill forcing honorable teachers to sully their sacred trust by granting equal treatment to a doctrine not only known to be false, but calculated to undermine any general understanding of science as an enterprise?

-- Stephen Jay Gould

Kentucky, Alabama, Mississipi, and the old Confederacy- Places where natural selection is neither believed nor practiced.

@ Randy #14

We already created Scimormontology here.

So, nyah. ;P

Speaking of, when do I start to get my part of the sucker checks Tithings?

Isn't "creation science" an oxymoron?

While small pocks looked wierd to me too, we purists should crow softly if at all. A reasonably good dictionary within my reach indicates that pox is an alternative for pocks. Or as George Will once noted "I led the pigeons to the flag" is not uncommon among children first exposed to the pledge.

ShavenYakOn the bright side, only 31% of the audience thought the teacher should be allowed to continue teaching creationism as if it were legitimate science. That's better than I would have expected for an audience in Kentucky.

Unfortunately I'm not as optimistic. 59% suggest she should still be able to teach YEC in one form or another.Assuming this teacher believes in YEC, she could fulfill her requirement by saying that scientists reject creationism, but still try to discredit scientists by implying that the theory of evolution is just a guess and they are conspiring to bring down Christianity.

Isn't "creation science" an oxymoron?

It's worse than that. It's an outright lie.

The confusion over whether a warning had been given or not is not surprising to me. I participated in a mock trial of Darwin in that very same court room at NKU in 1996, and it wasn't decided beforehand whether the jury (of students) was to be a 1996 jury or roleplay an 1859 jury. The prosecution was allowed to speak first, told the jury they were to judge based on a blasphemy law from 1859, and that was allowed to stand-- game over for our defense.

Strange how it makes such a bigger splash in 2008.

After seeing the Email address of the President of UNK posted here by another contributor, I emailed him, stating among other things that Evolution was well established as fact and the cornerstone of modern biology, and that Creationism was based on myths which have been refuted time and time again as the facts build up. I added that such a debate would achieve nothing useful, especially if the jury was packed with fundamentalist who believed in talking snakes, and that man and dinosaurs walked together on the earth less than 6000 years ago. To my surprise, I received a reply from the President himself, James C. Vortruba, in which he stated some of his reasons for holding the "debate", namely: "The context for this event is an effort on the part of the university to serve what we believe to be our public intellectual responsibility to address matters of major public debate". I replied to this at some length, pointing out that the majority of the people who reject Evolution do not understand what science is, and what the scientific method consists of, and that a scientific theory stands or falls on the facts it seeks to explain, and cannot be rejected because its implications are found to be distasteful. I also mentioned "Project Steve" as an example of the lack of controversy regarding Evolution among biologists. I received a reply to this second Email. This time he addressed me by my first name and signed it Jim. In part he wrote: "I want to thank you for taking the time to write a reasoned and thoughtful reflection on the matter. This comes in the midst of some very shrill emails representing both points of view." I have always thought that if one has a good case, one should state it with civility and that is no need to be shrill, although there are many fools that I do not suffer gladly. From the sound of the report, It appears that the outcome of the "debate" was pretty much as we might have expected.

Hey guys!
The information set out before the event began clearly stated that the teacher had been warned but continued to teach ID.
The confusion in the room as far as the verdict (at least this is my opinion) was between those who read the material, and therefore were given the impression that she lied in her testimony, and those who didn't read it and assumed that she was being truthful and hadn't been warned.
The teacher and her attorney stated repetedly that she didn't believe, or teach, Young Earth Creationism. The material was actually Intelligent Design.
The superintendant and his lawyer continuously ignored that fact and argued against YEC. There was no discussion of ID specifically except for the points made by Dr. Scripture in support of it.
It was either complete incompetance or someone got railroaded.
Finding the table of ID propaganda on the way out made you feel like someone had pulled one over on you.
Had I played the attorney for the school board, with no legal or biological training, I'd have slaughtered them. You couldn't help but feel that the towel was being thrown in.
Add to that the fact that the expert witness for the defense had no scientific credentials but was perfectly willing to speak in arrogant and condesending tones about his atheism (thus supporting the believe in god OR believe in evolution argument) and you have to wonder just what the hell they INTENDED the outcome to be.
I am very tempted to call Mark Neikirk and see if I can get some details on who put this little fiasco together and what information was given to the players but if I found out that my concerns were valid I'd go through the roof.
All in all, a ridiculous sham disguised as a legitimate conversation. A real pity that it had to happen in a place of learning.

I feared that this was an attempt by creationists to try and figure out which arguments would work in a real case, and this didn't help any.

While the pox vs pocks debate is intriguing, I think there's a bigger question to concern ourselves with here:

Is the proper term "Pharyngulites" or "Pharynguloids?" I've read both in the last month.

Ryan
I don't think it was that at all. If they had some new strategy, I didn't see any of it. Same old silliness here.
It was more like the opportunity to make the old arguments without being refuted. Doing that in a college setting just adds insult to injury.
Anyone watching the event with no knowledge of the subject walked away with these impressions...
1) Intelligent Design is a valid alternate theory to evolution.
2) Literally thousands of scientists support Intelligent Design as an alternate theory.
3) Evolution has many flaws, and little evidence.
None of these points were attacked.

Kraid
I prefer Pharynguloid. It's creepier.
One of us. One of us. One of us. One of us.
How many of you are old enough or weird enough to get that reference?

@Kraid: I considered Pharyngulemurs.

I was going to apply for NKU at some point in time, it's certainly a nice looking place, but I don't like this at all. It's pretty much like a University hosting a holocaust denier vs. holocaust debate... holocaust denial is not even remotely valid. So, I guess, it seems that NKU has lost another would-be talented student.

Ah well. Maybe they can get the creationist crowd involved and have some creation science work done at NKU...

...or Pharyngulemmings.

"It looks to me like this event was poorly organized and even more poorly thought out. From the made up "facts" in the case, the plaintiff would have absolutely no legal standing given previous court precedent in the matter of teaching creationism in a public classroom. Any half decent lawyer wouldn't have to put up expert witnesses at all. The only thing required would be to state the facts of the case and then reference Edwards v Aguilar and Kitzmiller v Dover"

Indeed. It clearly wasn't a good mock trial in the normal sense of the term.

ggab pointed out,

I don't think it was that at all. If they had some new strategy, I didn't see any of it. Same old silliness here.

Thanks, I'll take your word on that.
BTW: Thanks for taking the time to give us an eyewitness account.

What was Dr. Scripture's doctorate in, exactly?
Also: that would be an awesome super villain name.

I agree that the whole evolution vs. creation debate seems to be very out of place even in a mock trial. The point of the trial is not to establish whether evolution or creation is true. It's to determine whether she should get her job back or not.

Which, if this was a real trial, she should not.

Copache
Don't let this sway you yet.
I can't say that NKU played any real part in this fiasco.
After I calm down, maybe I'll contact Mark and ask a few questions.
The biologist that spoke up after the fact seemed very upset at the way the information was presented. She was quite passionate about it. If that is anything to judge by, I'd say go for it.
P.S.
The campus was certainly beautiful. Changed quite a bit since I was there last.

Kraid asks:

Is the proper term "Pharyngulites" or "Pharynguloids?" I've read both in the last month.

I for one, prefer Pharangulite. I feel like Pharynguloid should describe something shaped like Pharyngula, which I'm not.

@ggab

One of us. One of us. One of us. One of us.
How many of you are old enough or weird enough to get that reference?

I'm weird enough to get it! In fact now I want to go dig it out and watch it tonight.

Clearly both of those issues are much more important to me than the mock trial. I can't think of anything worth adding to that part of the conversation.

@Kraid #40:

"Pharyngulati"

I think "Pharys" has a nice ring to it...
Oh no! I've run out of melon gummies again ALREADY!!!!
DAMN YOU KASUGAI GUMMIES!!!!
WHY MUST YOU BE SO DAMNED DELICIOUS???
DAMN YOU!!!!
*sob*

Gobble gobble gobble, one of us.

Freaks 1928.

Meanwhile, I continue to insist that a meeting of frequenters of this blog should be referred to as a PharynGALA. Somebody suggested this a long time ago, but no one seemed to pay him any mind.

cPharyngulasists.

I also drove to the mock trial from Louisville with another member of the local Louisville Atheist group. My impression was very much like that of the person quoted in this blog post. The trial was about whether or not the teacher was wrongfully terminated--not about whether or not ID should be taught. The video shown in the trial (and handed out on DVD afterwards) was most definately a plug for ID, and there was no good arugment made for the scientific validity of evolution until the Q&A (mainly the biology professor mentioned).

During the Q&A I asked the jurors who voted that she should get her job back if they would have voted differently if it had been proven in the case that she taught ID or Creation Science--I know I saw at least 2 hands go up, though timidly as if they didn't want to admit it. I strongly suspect there were more out there who felt the same.

Ranson @#25:

Through some argument I can't be bothered to explain, or even understand, Mormontology was the first actual religion. It was begun by Adam's older brother, Seth, who immigrated to prehistoric North America and gave birth to a tribe of apple-cheeked hobos.

So, nyah, yourself - heretic.

Pharynguloid if you have the characteristics of a pharyngula. Pharyngulite if you are a type of rock. I prefer Godless-homohuggin'-America-hatin'-terrorist-lovin'-tree-huggin'-baby-killin'-Palin-mockin'-goddam-Godless-Darwinists.
Its catchier.

I'm a simple guy. Being a member of the ilk is fine with me.

Rev, #31 wrote:

@ Randy #14
We already created Scimormontology here.

So, nyah. ;P

Speaking of, when do I start to get my part of the sucker checks Tithings?

Sorry Rev, I've been busy. As soon as get some time I'll be making shit up consulting the lord for guidance, reeling in the stunningly gullible attracting the genuinely faithful and fleecing them for all they're worth asking for donations to do our dead alien/lord-above combo's work.

@ #31

Kentucky, Alabama, Mississipi, and the old Confederacy- Places where natural selection is neither believed nor practiced.

Technically, Kentucky wasn't a Confederate State, but was (according to Wikipedia) claimed by the Confederacy. No accounting for what has happened to the place since then.

Varlo (comment #33), it's "i" before "e" except after "c" in sounds sounding like "ee", so weird is spelt the way it is because it is not an "ee" sound. I like way the more illiterate believers who continually refer to those demonic "athiests" for the same reason. I liked your "I led the pigeon to the flag". Reminds me of the time in a histology lecture I wrote down in my notes that pancreatic exocrine cells are rich in "raphea", and actually asked the lecturer at the end what "raphea" actually was, and immediately realised what a error I was making as soon as the question crossed my lips.

Posted by: eric | October 23, 2008 12:31 PM
Isn't "creation science" an oxymoron?

Not only that, but the space between them in this context should be such that 'science' is not contaminated.
creation >|- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -|< science

@53
I beg to differ. I believe it was GOOBLE gobble, GOOBLE gobble, one of us. :)

Tomecat
You win the prize, that is correct.
You really know your freaks.

Rey Fox, #54, wrote:

Meanwhile, I continue to insist that a meeting of frequenters of this blog should be referred to as a PharynGALA. Somebody suggested this a long time ago, but no one seemed to pay him any mind.

We could be PharynGALAHs, after the pretty pink and grey Australian parrot, Eolophus roseicapilla, known as a galah. Unfortunately, the term 'galah' has some negative connotations because the bird is considered a bit silly, so perhaps not...

It's Pharyngulistas!

You damn splitters! All of you.

Harken, harken, fossils from afar!
Harken, harken, fossils from afar!
Pharynguli, pharyngula, pharynguli, pharyngula,
Knowledge everywhere, pharynguli, pharyngula!

Is the proper term "Pharyngulites" or "Pharynguloids?"

I definitely prefer Pharyngulite.

Ugh, Sili, I just got that earworm out of my head, and now it's back. It's all your fault.

My kids came home from school this week singing Funiculi, funicula!. It seems they were studying it in their Italian immersion class.

So I don't have to suffer alone. This one's for you, Sili.

Hi, I guess I should apologize that my last name is really Scripture. As for the "plug" of my website, the attorney for the evolution side put it up on the screen during cross-examination I had nothing to do with what she chose to do (were you REALLY there?). On the other hand Mr. Kagin did post on his website an appeal to all his atheist friends/colleagues to attend the event in order to "stack the jury." Whether many responded is irrelevant. I was most pleased that the outcome of the trial--the teacher should get her job back--was approx 2 to 1 in favor decided by a "jury" composed of 82% evolutionists. "The plant" as you describe him, was one of the 14% in the audience who identified themselves as a "creationist." He is an acquaintence of mine, I suppose that meant that he was not allowed to make a comment or ask a question during the open forum segment of the evening. And finally, I must say I am really impressed witht the general level of intellectualism demonstrated by those who participate in your BLOG.

I have often said that CREDENTIALS are really important only in two cases:

1. When one is applying for employment (in which case IF one HAS NONE, one's chances of being hired diminish);

2. When one says some dang fool thing (in which case, IF one HAS NONE, one may be forgiven).

The character and content of Dr. Ben Scripture's "testimony" in the "mock trial" (see http://www.gnnradio.org/framesoc.htm) provides a good example of the later case; having credentials, he may not be forgiven.

Words that come to mind: Farce. Vaudeville. Caberet. Farce.

As expected the, uh, exercise has done absolutely friggin' nothing but given everybody an idea of how many people are on whatever side.

Whoa, Nelly! Lotsa science there, you betcha.

Those numbers ARE NOT surprising and DO NOT reveal anything new.

I once had to dig a tick out of a dog's rectum (i won't say with what) and this "mock trial" is more disgusting.

#71 Dr. Scripture,

Thank you for responding on this blog. It takes some courage to enter the "lions' den." If you will indulge me, I have a query for you regarding teaching "creation science" in public school science classes.

Not a single piece of data has been presented to support "creation science" in peer-reviewed scientific research papers. This is out of over seventeen million peer-reviewed publications currently indexed at the National Library of Medicine, a truly vast body of scholarly work. This leads to one of the following conclusions:

1. "Creation science" is based on religious, supernatural, or otherwise untestable causation, and thus is not science
2. There is a vast global conspiracy that has prevented even a single piece of data supporting "creation science" from being published in peer-reviewed scientific literature
3. "Creation science" proponents are utterly incompetent at performing scientific research

Given this, how would you justify teaching "creation science" as a valid scientific topic (if indeed this is your position), from both a logical and legal standpoint? Controversy in the scientific community? No, the consensus is overwhelming and the fringe opinion has failed to present a single piece of data in the literature. Would you argue that the First Amendment be suspended? If so, whose interpretation of Genesis should be taught in the public school science classroom? Or perhaps you would invoke a conspiracy theory?

Dr.Scripture
I was there, and I must cave in and give credit where credit is due.
I loved your tie.

Creationists should not be allowed to teach anything because they're idiots. No student should ever have to get stuck with a retarded teacher, no matter what the subject is.

Bobc,

I have to disagree with you here. I work with some truly phenomenal teachers who are creationists. We don't talk about the big "E," they don't try to convert me and things stay nice and friendly. They can truly be exceptional English, math, language arts, and even history teachers. I have no idea how they can manage to think critically about their specific content areas and then deny the evidence for evolution (astronomy, paleontology, geology, etc. etc. etc.) but somehow they manage to do it.

I received the following reply from President James Vortuba:

"You may prefer that this debate not occur but, whether we academics like it or not, it is occurring in the public square. Our options are to ignore it or engage it. Our university chose the latter. At our "mock trial" scientists had the opportunity to eloquently refute the creationists claim to be science. This, in front of over 200 attendees, many from the community. In my view, universities are far too timid regarding matters of public debate. Creationism is not science and this fact was made clear to all. Far from mocking science, this program both celebrated science and debunked that which claims to be science. Universities have a responsibility to do just that. It takes courage for a university to venture into the public square to challenge false claims. You may choose to remain above it all but this serves neither the public interest or the university. Enough said."

So I sent him back an email to find out what he really thought about my/our many objections.

To Dr. Scripture: As you said - "He is an acquaintence of mine, I suppose that meant that he was not allowed to make a comment or ask a question during the open forum segment of the evening."

Plants are usually associates, and I never said he wasn't allowed to ask a question. He did, however, stand up and ask a question which was written. The question had nothing to do with anything in the trial, other than the fact that it was associated with creationism. Once answered, he obviously had a follow-up for Mr. Kagin which was associated with that answer.

If it wasn't a planned question, then I apologize; however, it had every appearance of one.