Closing argument, etc.

While you’re waiting for the post on the final day of trial, here’s some interesting stuff:

Text of closing argument, as presented by Eric Rothschild

A fascinating article from the NY Times about how the Thomas More Center had spent years trying to find a school board willing to teach intelligent design and use the ID textbook, Of Pandas and People.

12 thoughts on “Closing argument, etc.

  1. Ditto gayboy.

    Another newspaper account quotes the judge as saying he hopes to render his decision no later than early January, possibly in December.

  2. Will the defense’s closing statement also be posted?

    I’m sure it’ll be awfully lame, but I’m very curious to see how lame. 🙂

  3. I think that your opinion of the strength of the two cases is coloured by your prior convictions. Write-ups of the defence case, particularly at the Discovery Institute, paint a very rosy picture of their progress in this trial.
    Having said which, I am utterly convinced of the correctness of the ACLU case and am grateful in a way that the defence was so poor, the plaintiff’s team so capable, and the conspiracy so obvious (to me) to introduce religion into the biology curriculum. Hopefully this precedent (assume it goes against the Dover school board) will put an insurmountable barrier in the way of future attempts.

  4. While I agree with the sentiments that the plaintiffs side has done much better than the defense–and I, too, hope the plaintiffs win, I understand that it is very rare for precedents to be set at this level. To get a precendent there would need to be an appeal.

    My own suspicion is that the Discovery Institute would oppose any appeal. TMLC would probably want one. ultimately, the decision would be up to the Dover School Board, and that body may be very different by the time the actual decision is handed down.

  5. I feel fairly confident that this judge will see ID for what it is — Creationism Lite, and not science.

    However, as for the matter of setting precedents, how would that apply here if the judge somehow bought into the idea that ID is religiously neutral science? The other way around it’s clear — if ID is creationism, there’s already a precedent for that (the 1989 case, right?).

    Would the judge even be able to avoid setting a precedent if he felt the defendants had made their case?

  6. Joffan…

    While I do realize my opinion might be colored by my own beliefs, having looked at some of the raw transcripts as well as the write-ups here, and trying my best to account for my own biases, the case for the defense still looks awfully weak — a weak case often made weaker by the defense’s own chosen witnesses.

    You seem to agree with me that the defense was poor — so wouldn’t you find it just as hard as I do to imagine that the defense’s closing statements were anything but lame?

    I don’t have the advantage of a full transcript yet, but the summary which is now available (and which wasn’t when I made my first comment) looks to be confirming my prediction.

    “He [Gillen] denied that the board members had been ‘religious co-conspirators,’ stating that the primary motivation of the school board had been ‘to provide a good science education'”.

    Now how’s that going to fly when not one of the board members had apparently even bothered to read Pandas and couldn’t articulate a single clear word describing what ID was about?

  7. “Will the defense’s closing statement also be posted?”

    I don’t see any posted yet a the TMLC website. It would be up to them to post their planned remarks. If not we will have to wait the court reporter’s transcript for closing argments is released.

  8. Someone seems to have a copy of the “Day 2 AM” transcript with Miller’s cross exam:

    Search for “Day 2” under “October 19,2005”, “Backer of Theory Never Contradicted Self, Truth Shows”

    I don’t see a copy at the aclupa site, nor at the NCSE site. However, the DI site seems to have one:

    I’m trying to verify the claims made at both the DI and evolutionnews sites. They seem to have been attending a very different trial.



  9. Oops! Again, my error. The DI transcript is actually Day 1 PM (not Day 2). It also appears to be edited, leaving out the early afternoon conclusion of Miller’s direct questioning, and only starts with the cross examination.


Comments are closed.