I just ran across this interview with Honorable Judge John E. Jones, III in PLoS Genetics.
Ever since the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial, Judge Jones has taken on a sort of "rockstar" status among science geeks like me, so I couldn't resist reading more of his thoughts concerning the trial. I encourage you to check out the interview for yourself.
Here's a brief excerpt (the interviewer's name is Jane Gitschier):
Gitschier: Did [Ken] Miller talk about molecular evolution, DNA sequences, etc.?
Jones: To the extent that he needed to.
Gitschier: Because the evidence is amazing.
Jones: It is stunning when you get into it. Broadly, as the trial progressed, what was remarkable to me, as you go back-you well know this in your field-people called it Darwin's theory of evolution. Here's Charles Darwin, who had not the benefit at all of genetics, and yet from my view, almost every subsequent discovery tends to bear out Darwin's theory and has only made it stronger, including the field of genetics. But Ken Miller went into the immune system, the blood clotting cascade, and the bacterial flagellum-all three are held out by intelligent design proponents as irreducibly complex, and in effect, having no precursors. He [Miller] knocked that down, I thought, quite effectively-so comprehensively and so well. By the time Miller was done testifying, over the span of a couple of days, the defendants were really already in the hole.
But I can't decide the case until I hear all the evidence, and I didn't.
Jones: To the extent that he needed to.
Gitschier: Because the evidence is amazing.
Jones: It is stunning when you get into it. Broadly, as the trial progressed, what was remarkable to me, as you go back-you well know this in your field-people called it Darwin's theory of evolution. Here's Charles Darwin, who had not the benefit at all of genetics, and yet from my view, almost every subsequent discovery tends to bear out Darwin's theory and has only made it stronger, including the field of genetics. But Ken Miller went into the immune system, the blood clotting cascade, and the bacterial flagellum-all three are held out by intelligent design proponents as irreducibly complex, and in effect, having no precursors. He [Miller] knocked that down, I thought, quite effectively-so comprehensively and so well. By the time Miller was done testifying, over the span of a couple of days, the defendants were really already in the hole.
But I can't decide the case until I hear all the evidence, and I didn't.
For me, this was the most intriguing part of the interview because it illustrates how a patient, effective presentation of the evidence of evolution can truly persuade an objective observer.
We need more of that.
posted by Jeremy Mohn
