Talk:Kansas evolution hearings/transcripts

message: Here is a breakdown of all the witnesses based on their transcript testimony:
First witness- William Harris
"First of all, we hope to show that there is a scientific controversy over two major aspects of evolutionary theory. Chemical evolution that is the arrival of life from nonlife and macroevolution, which is the development of complex life forms from simple life forms."
Note that this is standard creationism, conflating evolution with abiogenesis, and the classic attempt to distinguish between micro and macroevolution.
"Secondly, we want to make the point that this controversy has profound implications for religion and philosophy. If this didn't have implications to religion this room would be far emptier today. Because it impacts religion and the reason that this issue does impact religion is because we're dealing with what we call origin science. Origins, the beginnings, where did things come from, where did we come from, where did life come from. These are issues which ever major religion in the world has a story to tell. They all have a perspective that's part of that faith."
"So in a word our hope is that at the end of these hearings we will be allowed to teach the controversy that does exist over origins."
When asked how old the earth is:
"There's theories around that the earth is 10,000ish years old. There are theories around that it is four billion years old. If it was a multiple choice test and I only had two choices and I couldn't check "I don't know," and I wanted to get credit for the question, I'd check old."
 So might be not a YEC but wants to teach the controversy, and is keeping in with the big tent.
later "Macroevolution theory is not well supported by the evidence. One can build the story, but the evidence, I think, is lacking for a firm conviction."
"There's a tremendous amount of data supporting Intelligent Design. Every biochemical journal you would open would find evidence for Intelligent Design"
Second witness Jonathan Wells- one of the founders of ID and a fellow at the DI. But if you insist on a transcript comment
Well's "became convinced that the Darwinian theory is false because it conflicts with the evidence."
Next witness - Bruce Simat
Q. Sir, the first question I'd like to ask you is, do you accept the evolutionary theory of common descent of humans from prehominids?
A. From the data that I've been following it's probably not true.
Next witness Giuseppe Sermonti  accent was too strong for him to be included in the transcript, but any of his books shows that he is a creationist.
If however, you insist, we can count Sermonti as not sourced by the transcript itself. 
Next witness- Ralph Seelke  not a creationist or an anti-evolution proponent. 
Next witness - Edward Peltzer 
"Q. Do you accept the general principle of common descent, that all life is biologically related to the beginning of life? Yes or no.
A. No.
Q. Do you accept that human beings are related by common descent to prehominid ancestors? Yes or no.
A. No.
Next witness- Russell Carlson 
Q. Do you accept the general principle of common descent, that all of life is biologically related back to the beginning of life? Yes or no.
A. No.
Q. Do you accept that human beings are related by common descent to prehominid ancestors? Yes or no.
A. I don't accept that as a fact
Next witness John Sanford who is a YEC
Q. And what is that personal opinion specifically as to the age? And I'm interested only in the age, not an explanation.
A. I believe that I was wrong in my previous belief that it's 4.5 billion years old and that it's much younger.
Q. How old is the earth, in your opinion?
A. I cannot intelligently say how old it is except it's much younger than I think widely believed.
Q. Give me your best estimate.
A. Less than 100,000 years old.
Q. Less than 10,000?
A. Conceivably.
Q. Conceivably less than 10,000?
A. Yes.
Q. Conceivably less than 5,000?
A. No.
Next witness- Robert DiSilvestro 
Do you accept the general principle of common descent, that all of life is biologically related back to the beginning of life?
A. I'm unconvinced of that idea.
Q. Do you accept that human beings are related by common descent to prehominid ancestors?
A. I'm unconvinced by that idea, also.
Q. If you were unconvinced by that idea, do you have an alternative explanation for how the human species came into existence?
A. I think design is a reasonable alternative.
Next witness- Bryan Leonard
Refuses to answer how old he thinks the world is but then we have this:
The record will reflect your answer. Do you-- do you accept the general principle of common descent, that all of life was biologically related to the beginning of life? Yes or no?
A. No.
Q. Do you accept that human beings are related by common descent to prehominid ancestors? Yes or no?
A. No.
A. I think design is a reasonable alternative.
Next witness- Dan Ely also avoids answering how old he thinks the world is but says:
The question was-- and winking at him is not going to do you any good. Answer my question. Do you believe the earth may be as young as 5,000 years old?
A. It could be.
Q. Do you accept the general principle of common descent, that all life is biologically related back to the beginning of life? Yes or no?
A. No.
Q. Do you accept that human beings are related by common descent to predominant ancestors? Yes or no?
A. No.
Q. What's your alternative explanation how the human species came into existence if it is not through common descent?
A. Design.
Next witness - Roger DeHart 
And I'm going to ask you first how old, in your opinion, is the world?
A. I'm going to answer like Dr. Sanford earlier, I would say between probably a lot younger than most people think.
Q. That doesn't say anything to me. What is your opinion in years the age of the earth?
A. I'm fine with 5,000 to 100,000.
Q. You're fine with 5,000 to 100,000?
A. Correct.
Q. Do you accept the principle-- the general principle of common descent that all of life was biologically related back to the beginning of life?
A. Not if you interpret common descent, and realize that I'm taking liberty here, not if you interpret common descent as being that that is natural selection acting on random mutations I do not.
Q. Do you accept that human beings are related by common descent to prehominid ancestors? Yes or no?
A. No.
Q. What is the alternative explanation for how the human species came into existence if you do not accept common descent?
A. Design.
Next witness- Jill Gonzalez-Bravo  
Do you believe that evolution is scientifically controversial?
A. Yes, I do, however, my opinion is not what I'm here to address. Based on my classroom observations is where I come to the conclusion that my students believe this is a huge controversy.
Creationists and IDers have such a majority at this point, I won't even bother getting into the argument over what  Gonzalez-Bravo is, and we'll just count her as not a creationist or an anti-evolution person.
Next witness James Barham
Q. Sir, I have a few questions for you that I'd like to place on the record first, please. The first thing I'd like to ask you is what is your personal opinion as to what the age of the world is?
A. I'm undecided.
Q. What is your best guess?
A. I'm totally undecided.
Q. Give me your best range.
A. Anywhere from 4.5 billion years to ten thousand years.
Q. And, of course, you have reached that conclusion based on the best scientific evidence available?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you accept the general principle of common descent, that all of life was biologically related to the beginning of life, yes or no?
A. No.
Q. Do you accept that human beings are related by common descent to prehominid ancestors, yes or no?
A. No.
Q. What is your alternative explanation for how the human species came into being if not from a common descent from prehominids?
A. From science, I have no alternative explanation.
Q. In your personal opinion?
A. In my personal opinion, I believe there was an intelligent designer.
Next witness Stephen Meyer- Meyer is a DI fellow, so we could just list him anyways, but let's look at his testimony:
Do you accept the general principle of common descent that all life is biologically related back to the beginning of life, yes or no?
A. I won't answer that question as a yes or no. I accept the idea of limited common descent. I am skeptical about universal common descent. I do not take it as a principle; it is a theory. And I think the evidence supporting the theory of universal common descent is weak.
Q. Do you accept that human beings are related by common descent to prehominid ancestors, yes or no?
A. I'm not sure. I'm skeptical of it because I think the evidence for the proposition is weak, but it would not affect my conviction that life is designed if it turns out that there was a genealogical continuity.
Q. Based upon your understanding, do you have an alternative explanation for the human species if not common descent from prehominid ancestors?
A. That is not my area of expertise. I work at the other end of the history of life, namely the origin of the first life in the Cambrian phylum.
Q. Do you have a personal opinion as to the question I have just proposed to you, which is if you do not believe that human beings have a common descent with prehominid ancestors, what is your personal alternative explanation for how human beings came into existence?
A. I am skeptical about the evidence for universal common descent and I'm skeptical about some of the evidence that has been marshaled for the idea that humans and prehominids are connected. But as I said, it wouldn't bother me (unintelligible) stronger than I presently think.
Q. What is your personal opinion at this time?
A. That I'm skeptical about the Darwinian accounts of such things, but that it wouldn't bother me if it turned out to be different. I think my-- I also would tell you that humans and the rest of the non human living world, that humans have qualitatively different features that I think are very mysterious and hard to explain on any materialistic account of the origin of human life.
Now if you really want to be absurd we can count Meyer as not being anti-evolution or pro-ID given how little he says outright here. 
Next witness - Angus Menuge 
Sir, I have a few questions that I'd like to ask you for the record, please. What is your personal opinion as to what the age of the earth is?
A. I don't know. And that's my final answer.
Q. Do you have an opinion as to what the age of the earth is?
A. I'm not giving an opinion.
Q. I didn't hear you.
A. I am not giving an opinion.
Q. You don't have any personal opinion as to what the age of the earth is?
A. I have no opinion.
Q. Do you find that to be rather an oddity since you consider yourself an expert on all of these areas?
A. Absolutely not, because my understanding of historical sciences has led me to-- studying them from the perspective of philosophy of science has led me to believe that inference to the best explanation is much less certain than other areas of science. And so the conclusions are much more tentative and there are other competing explanations that can be provided.
Q. Do you accept the general principle of common descent that all life is biologically related back to the beginning of life?
A. Not as defined by neo-Darwinism, no.
Q. Do you accept that human beings are related by common descent to prehominid ancestors?
A. I doubt it.
Q. What is the alternative explanation?
A. Well, there are a number of alternative explanations. Right now, as this book shows, there are views looking at self-organization, which don't necessarily agree with that viewpoint. They may or they may not. But there is also the idea of design.
Again, refusing to answer, but if you want we can count him as not an anti-evolutionist.
Next Witness - Warren Nord - some sort of weird christian post-modernist, but arguably not a creationist, so we won't count him.
next witness- Mustafa Akyol 
A: I agree with limited common descent, but I don't believe in universal common descent because I don't see any scientific evidence for it, compelling evidence.
Q. Do you accept that human beings are related by common descent to prehominid ancestors, yes or no?
A. I'm skeptical about it because I don't see any compelling evidence that there's a lineage between prehominids and humans.
Next witness- Michael Behe is a complicated one, Behe accepts universal common descent or is at least open to it but is of course a DI fellow and
a major ID proponent. If you want, we can count him as not an evolutionist.
Next witness is John Calvert who of course has been the main organizer of ID in Kansas, but he doesn't say too explicitly that he is pro-ID or creationism
and/or anti-evolution in his testimony, so if you really want we can count him as not in the category. 
This gives us in the creationism/ID/anti-evolution category directly from the transcripts:
Harris, Wells, Simat, Peltzer, Carlson, Sanford, DiSilvestro, Leonard, Ely,  DeHart, Barham, Meyer, Menuge, Akyol 
And those who we can't confirm directly from the transcripts:
Sermonti, Seelke, Gonzalez-Bravo, Nord, Behe, Calvert
Gives 6 not in the category directly from the transcript and 13 who are. Now if you want, I can be more 
generous and say that Meyer's, Menuge's and Akyol also aren't creationist enough for you, (never mind
Meyer's position in the DI), and then we get 10 who are 9 who aren't. And that's being generous and only letting
us use the transcript as evidence. Given this situation, I'm halfway tempted to dig up citations for Nord,
Behe, Meyer, and Calvert and most of the others and then change the summary from "most" to "vast majority" JoshuaZ 03:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)