The Kitzmiller v. Dover trial ended back in 2005, which dealt with science criteria and teaching intelligent design in a local public school. Even though the case has ended some time ago, it’s still being debated by two key special interest figures who are like exchanging a war of words as if they were before a Judge in a court of appeals, but in reality it’s only a blog type setting.
Somehow a bicycle analogy was mixed into the debate between those two men and it has surfaced in other blogs as well. It was interesting to view how people defined a bike and how functional it can or cannot be with a loss of parts. The challenge Casey Luskin presented went like this…
“ To analogize Miller’s error, he effectively argued that a bike doesn’t need both its wheels because unicycles function with one wheel, but Miller never actually cited any tests on a bike showing you can ride a bike that’s missing a wheel.”
A penny-farthing bike analogy I don’t believe presents a really good description of irreducible complexity. Although “Joy” in telic thoughts does a pretty good job in explaining the analogy…
“The IC (irreducible complexity) machine in question – which you recognize but not as specific to the function Luskin uses for example – is wheel and axle. When the wheel turns the axle turns at a differential rate depending on size, usually the axle turns much faster than the wheel. Power (force) applied to either component will turn the other component. This is true of all wheel and axle constructs, no matter how they are powered or how they are put to use.
“A wheel alone is not a machine, it’s just a round thing. Only if it has an axle is it a potentially functional machine for our purposes, thus “wheel and axle” is an IC machine. A rod may exist alone, but it won’t serve the axle’s functions unless it’s attached to the wheel. Either could be classified as “tool” or “toy” or “weapon” humans use because they can. To be a functional machine the necessary parts must exist together in particular arrangement.”
Ken Miller states in his response to Casey Luskin
“One of the enduring fantasies of the intelligent design (ID) movement is the notion that it might have won the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial if it hadn’t been consistently “misrepresented” in testimony by witnesses from the scientific establishment.”
“Even worse, they point out, when their own heroes like Scott Minnich and Michael Behe attempted to correct those Darwinist distortions, Judge Jones, that liberal, ACLU-friendly activist, paid no attention.”
I don’t believe this is the reason why Casey Luskin is trying to appeal the case outside the courtroom. While it’s true, Casey believes the case could have been won, he also brought this case back to the forefront as a way to debate intelligent design. The Dover trail was narrow in scope as it only considered one aspect of ID known as the ICness of the blood clotting system which was presented in Michael Behe’s book, “Darwin’s Black Box” in 1996. Things like “specialized complexity” was not considered.
Judge Jones a “Republican” appointed by Bush, doesn’t mean he was a conservative. Bush’s dad appointed one of the most liberal judges to the supreme court. Republicans have been more diverse with their appointments than Democrats. Generally an appeals court is the focus when one looses a ruling or has to defend a ruling. Ken Miller should know better than accusing Casey Luskin of trying to appeal the case to Judge Jones.
In any event, the Dover case is far from over from public debate just like the intelligent design in general, one or the other will be bringing it up again! So get your popcorn now! lol